Juuvenile Justice and Child Protection for Police Interrogation

Question: Discuss about theJuuvenile Justice and Child Protection for Police Interrogation. Answer: Role of responsible adult during police interrogation: The term responsible adult denotes parents, stepparent, guardian or any person who has accrued the rights and responsibilities of the parent with an intention to guide the minor. Therefore, the term can be used in case of a person who can act as the guardian of any minor. The term can be used in case of criminal proceeding also. When the police officer has interrogated a minor, it is the duty of the responsible adult to be physically present during the interrogation period. The Evidence Act 1995 has regulated any criminal process (NSW). However, in case of interrogating a child is sensible and Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) regulates the process (McFarlane, 2017). This legislation helps a child to get certain assistance from the police officer and from the legal practitioners. Responsible adults are playing important role in case where the police are interrogating a child. It is their duty to look over the matters whether the police officers are creating any pressure o n the child for making forceful confession or not. According to Ludbrook (2017), often the children are making untrue confession before the police. Further, it is their duty to observe whether the police officer has provided the option for right to silence to the minor or not. However, the Act has not given any clear definition regarding the role of the responsible parent in this case. According to section 13 of the Act, the statement made by a child before the police is not admissible except the same has been taken in the presence of the responsible adult. The court will not admit the statement of the minor made before the police if the police officer has made any coercion or undue influence (Bartels, Bolitho Richards, 2015). This principle has laid down under section 81C of Child Welfare Act 1939 and the ground of the same has been verified in the case of R v Warren (1982) 2 NSWLR 360. It has also been mentioned by the court to look over the matter that the confession regarding a ny offence made by the minor before the police officer could not be admitted if the same has been made on unreasonable ground. Therefore, it is the duty of the responsible adult to look into the matter whether the police officer is treating the child in wrong manner or not. The basic aim of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) that to protect the interest of child so that they can feel them secure during the process of interrogation. In R v Cotton (1990) 19 NSWLR 593, the court has interpreted section 13 of the Act as a process that secure the accused who is minor. Therefore, the responsible parent should have to represent him proactively. The position of the responsible parents is significant, as the police officers are not allowed to interrogate a minor in the absence of them. it has been particularly mentioned under section 13 of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) that all the interrogation process should be done in the presence of responsible parent and he ha s to look over the whole process of interrogation. Court will rely on the admissibility of the minor only when the same has been taken in the presence of the responsible parent. If the police officer has done any misconduct during the process, the responsible parent is required to stop the officer from being rude (Ainsworth Hansen, 2017). Concept of due process: Fair treatment is necessary for maintain fairness in the judicial system and the process of fair treatment is known as the due process. There are two types of due process such as procedural due process and substantive due process. When a legal proceeding has been carry out on regular basis and without any intervention, the same is treated as procedural due process. When a law has been enacted with fair process and the individuals are getting equal opportunities from the same, the process is known as substantive due process (Kenny, 2016). In this case, it has been observed that Millie, the police have arrested an aboriginal girl and the person is appointed as the responsible parent on her behalf. According to section 13 of the Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW), no police personnel is allowed to interrogate a minor in the absence of his or her responsible parent. The main aim of this Act regarding the same is that the minors are often feeling them insecure in the interrogat ion room or before the police. This Act secures the rights and interest of the minor to this effect. Further, a clear interpretation of section 13 of the Act reveals that the role of the responsible parent is significant in nature. The interrogation process will be treated to be maintained due process if police have fulfilled the entire obligation regarding the section. It has been mentioned that the court, before admit the statement made by the minor before the police, will consider certain grounds, which are as follows: It is to be consider whether the child get equal treatment from the police or not; It is to be consider whether the child get all required guidance or not; It is to be considered whether the child get all the options of various legal aid or not; It is to be considering whether the child has been interrogated in the presence of his responsible parents or not. The police personnel and the responsible parents are playing important role in this case. It is not clear that whether the responsible parent will remain silent in the interrogation room or he should perform his duties proactively. However, the court is depending on the statement of the responsible parent in case of determining the admissibility of the statement made by the minor. If a minor does not want to state anything before the police, the responsible parent should not force the minor and act on behalf of him. In this case, it has been observed that the police personnel have appointed the person as the responsible parent of Millie. When during the interrogation Millie did not confess regarding the crime, under which she was charged thereto, the police had not acted in reasonable way. He forced her to confess the facts of the case. the police has slapped on the table too. All these activities are revealing the fact that injustice had been done with Millie and it can be stated that the same has not been made in due process. Identification of the steps to ensure due process: Child or minors are treated as the vulnerable person and special opportunities have been provided to them. Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) tends to protect the interest of the children during the interrogation process and certain acts and duties have been mentioned in this Act for all the persons dealt with the child or minor. The duties of the responsible parents regarding the interrogation of the child are vital and the court is admitted the statement made by the minor before the police (McGrath, 2016). It is to be mentioned that the responsible parents should have to maintain the fair deal at the time of interrogation process. However, the responsible parent should have to identify the steps to assure that the interrogation has been done with due process. In this case, the responsible parent should have to maintain all the grounds mentioned under the code and look over the matter whether the police has cooperate with the child and provides all the necessary opportuni ties to him. According to the rule, no police is allowed to talk with the minor roughly and the police should have to act in reasonable way with the minor. The police is obliged to provide all the necessary assistance to the minor and they should act with the minor in a discriminatory way. The international acts and treaties have provided certain rights to the minor and all those rights can be enjoyed irrespective of caste, creed or religion. These rights are the fundamental rights of the child. Therefore, if any adverse situation has been cropped up and the responsible parent has observed that the police officers are acting rudely with Millie. It can be assumed that the reason behind such attitude is that Millie is from the aboriginal origin. According to the Act, the police should act with the intention to secure the rights of the child (Ludbrook, 2017). However, such attitude has violated the principles of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW). If the responsible parents to this effect have identified any such things, he should have asked the police to stop the interrogation process. Further, the police officer could not in any case forced the responsible parent to make the child understand about the facts of the case or to make the minor confess the guilt. Further, if the police officer forced Millie to confess the crime, responsible parent is obliged to oppose this matter proactively. It has been observed that Millie was remained silent in the interrogation room and it is her right to do so. Therefore, no police personnel are allowed to force Millie regarding the same. The responsible person will allow the police to continue the interrogation process only if the police have maintained all the rules mentioned under Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW). Legislative option available to police: Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) is the main regulatory Act that works for the interest of the children. Children are vulnerable in nature and they feel lonely and nervous before the police authority. It is the duty of the police officers to provide all the legal assistance to the child and act for the benefit of the child so that he or she could not feel uncomfortable during the interrogation period. The police officers are obliged to maintain all the provisions mentioned under section 13 of the Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW). The police officers will interrogate the child or the minor in the presence of the responsible parent. They could not force the child to confess any particular fact (Talbot, 2017). The minor should choose the responsible parent and police should have no rights over the same. The police will provide all the fundamental rights to the minor. In case the minor wants to remain silent, it is the duty of the police officers to cooperate wi th the child and they must not force or use coercive way in order to collect statement from the child. Blagg and Wilkie opine that the police can use other way to make the minor confess about a fact. Dealing with the minors is very sensible issue and therefore, police personnel should have to be cautious in this case (Dowse et al., 2016). It has been observed in the case of R v Cotton that it is the duty of the police officer to take necessary care to secure the minor from the self-incrimination. Certain observation has been made regarding the role of responsible parent in the case of R v Warren [1982] 2 NSWLR 360. It has been held that the minor becomes nervous while dealing with the police and therefore, the interrogation process should be done in the presence of any responsible parent. According to CJ Hunt, sufficient assistance should be given to the child and the same principle has been established in the case of R v Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115. According to Part 10A of Crimes Act, the police officer has the duty to act in practicable way and the child should not face any discrimination at the interrogation room. According to section 138 of the Evidence Act, no statement could be held as acceptable if the same has been obtained in an inappropriate manner. It has been mentioned under Part 10A of the Crimes Act that during the interrogation period, no police officer can state a minor that he is under arrest (Surette, 2015). This goes against the policies of the Crimes Act and in this case, the police officer is obliged to maintain all the necessary duties for protecting the minor from self-incrimination. This principle has been established in B. R v ME and LT Unreported, Supreme Court, 3 October 2002. However, in the case of Millie none of the provisions has been followed. The police officers had appointed a responsible guardian and had conducted the interrogation process before him. However, none of the officials has maintained the provisions mentioned in the Act (Graver, 2016). It has been noticed in the case that Millie wanted to remain silent, but in spite of providing her assistance, the police officers were forced her to confess the statement. Therefore, it can be said that in this case the police has failed to maintain their duties and obligation under the Act. Ethical issues: Interrogate a minor is a sensible issue and the minors are required to be treated specially. According to Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW), when a child or minor is interrogated by the police, this should be done in front of the responsible parent. The role of the responsible parent is very crucial and certain ethical issues are bringing into his notice during the interrogation process (Heydon Naylor, 2017). Ethical issue denotes the situation where an individual is required to select an alternative between the right thing and the wrong thing. In the present situation, it has been observed that the police had failed to comply with the process that has been mentioned under certain legislations. Therefore, certain ethical issues have been cropped up in this case. The responsible person should choose the right things and should act on behalf of the minor. Therefore, if the police act in unreasonable way to the minor, he should have to protest it. He has the power to stop t he interrogation process in case of any adverse situation. He can oppose to the situation before the court also. He has to maintain all his duties as he holds an important place. the aim of the Act could not be reached until the responsible parent does his own duty. He could not make any kind of force to the minor and should have to stop the police if they are perform their duties in coercive way. It is the moral duties of the responsible parent to act in good faith and he should have to choose the right path at all the possible time and even in case of dealing with the minor. Reference: Ainsworth, F., Hansen, P. (2017). A Study of the use of Section 106a of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 in the New SouthWales Children's Court.Children Australia,42(3), 198-204. R v ME and LT Unreported, Supreme Court, 3 October 2002 Bartels, L., Bolitho, J., Richards, K. (2015). Indigenous young people and the NSW children's court: Magistrates' perceptions of the court's criminal jurisdiction.AILR,19, 34. Dowse, L., Soldatic, K., Spangaro, J., Toorn, G. (2016). Mind the gap: the extent of violence against women with disabilities in Australia.Australian Journal of Social Issues,51(3), 341-359. Graver, H. P. (2016). Judging without Impunity: On the Criminal Responsibility of Authoritarian Judges.Bergen Journal of Criminal Law Criminal Justice,4(1), 125-149. Heydon, G., Naylor, B. (2017). Criminal record checking and employment: The importance of policy and proximity.Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 0004865817723410. Kenny, D. T. (2016). The adolescent brain: implications for understanding young offenders.Judicial Officers Bulletin,28(3), 23. King, K., Wallis, R., Wallis, A., Peucker, A., Williams, D. (2015). Successful protection against canid predation on little penguins (Eudyptula minor) in Australia using Maremma guardian dogs:the Warrambool method..International Journal of Arts Sciences,8, 139-150. Ludbrook, S. (2017). The Influence of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer on the Bersier Liturgyand French Protestant Worship.Revue Franaise de Civilisation Britannique. French Journal of British Studies,22(XXII-1). McFarlane, K. (2017). Care-criminalisation: The involvement of children in out-of-home care in the New South Wales criminal justice system.Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 0004865817723954. McGrath, A. (2016). Intersections of Indigenous status, sex and age in sentencing decisions in the New South Wales Childrens Court.Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology,49(1), 90-112. R v Cotton (1990) 19 NSWLR 593 R v Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115 R v Warren [1982] 2 NSWLR 360 Surette, R. (2015). Performance crime and justice.Current Issues Crim. Just.,27, 195. Talbot, A. (2017). The use of secret evidence in civil and criminal proceedings.Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (142), 30.