Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Owen Bonnici said yesterday that the State had not yet been able to provide a proper home for youngsters found guilty of crimes who would be best served if they were incarcerated for a period of time, but not in a prison.
He said the State had relied on Church-run institutions.
Dr Bonnici was introducing a Bill amending the Criminal Code with regard to the exemption from criminal responsibility of those under 14 and 16 acting without mischievous discretion.
He said the Bill dealt with the criminal responsibility of minors and it was proposing to increase the age of responsibility to 14. The UN Human Rights Council and the Council of Europe had on many occasions criticised Malta on the low age of criminal responsibility.
Many other European countries had increased the age of criminal liability, whereas those under 18 were still being prosecuted for offences.
However, the punishment was not classified under the penal system but had more of an educational feel to it, he said. It was intended that a halfway house would be created between the Juvenile Court, which currently deals with offenders aged between 12 and 16, and the normal criminal courts.
If it were not for Church homes that took in minors who committed a crime, the State would not have any place to put offenders who were younger than 14 after they have been sentenced by the Juvenile Court.
Dr Bonnici said that, apart from this, the latter tribunal was not well-equipped to deal with certain cases. Although it heard some 100 cases annually, some of them were quite serious and sometimes the necessity of a legal aid arose.
This presented a problem considering that the tribunal was not housed within the court buildings in Valletta, he said.
Dr Bonnici said that the government was studying the possibility of forming a tribunal which had more of a protective and educational streak to it. However, the right message had to be passed on to young offenders from the onset.
As far as possible one needed to strive to build other options on the model of Frate Jacobe House, Dr Bonnici said.
While the age of criminal responsibility was being raised to 14, parents would be vicariously responsible for their children until then. Nevertheless as the conditions for a crime to be committed include actus reus (having committed the actual act) and mens rea (the intention to commit the crime), they couldn’t actually be found guilty.
They would have to answer to the Juvenile Court for their children’s behaviour, if it was established that this crime could have been avoided through their diligence. The court could also oblige the parents/guardians to do something to curb the child’s behaviour, and penalise them should they fail to do so.
Furthermore, for those aged between 14 and 16, the procedure remained as it was, but when it was proven that they acted with intent, no distinction was made between them and adults, save for reducing the penalty.
There were some 15- or 16-year-olds who had already seen the inside of prison, he said, and at a later stage in life one tended to see these same individuals in the Criminal Court. Nevertheless this was not to say that they weren’t saved, at times, thanks to efforts by probation officers and social workers.
The right message has to be passed on to young offenders from the onset
Another amendment, which often made the headlines, was that of physically punishing minors.
So far beatings which went beyond limits were not tolerated, but thanks to this amendment all physical punishment of children was considered as beyond the limits.
Beating children was never acceptable, Dr Bonnici said.
He said the government was prepared to listen and debate, for the good of the country’s youngsters.
Clyde Puli (PN) said he was pleased to hear Dr Bonnici raise some points the Opposition had spoken of, and said they were prepared to work hand in hand.
This Bill had to be discussed from a justice and social policy point of view, in order to offer children the best protection to reach their full potential.
Various measures had been taken down the years, and this Bill would continue to build on those changes.
Commenting on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, Mr Puli said this was different the world over, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had observed, back in 2000, that Malta should look into better interpreting the principles of the Convention, in the best interests of the child, as nine was too young.
The UN guidelines for prevention of juvenile delinquency also recommended that Malta undertake legislative reform to eliminate the assumption that a child between the age of nine and 14 could act with criminal intent and ensure that the juvenile justice system covered all those under 18.
The Maltese Criminal Code made a special provision for hearing-impaired minors, as they needed more specific attention. This had been last amended in 1900, and a review was long overdue. He proposed that the minimum age for criminal responsibility be applied to all minors without distinction.
Furthermore, Mr Puli proposed the addition of a proviso to cover those minors who were mentally impaired and for whom it was impossible to understand the consequences of their actions.
Labour MP Deo Debattista proposed that empathy training sessions should be introduced in secondary schools to help in the psychological development of teenagers particularly among those who showed traits of juvenile delinquency.
He also spoke of the need that imprisoned offenders be better assessed psychologically; they had to be cured rather than imprisoned. This was the reason why many offenders became relapsers: 46 per cent of inmates at Corradino were relapsers, he said.
Winding up the debate, Dr Bonnici asked whether the time was ripe for the courts to give a mixed sentence in the case of serious cases involving minors who are found guilty of an offence, this being a few days’ imprisonment and a suspended sentence.
He said that the Children’s Commissioner Office had given advice and input in raising the age of criminal responsibility in line with Malta’s international obligations.
Dr Bonnici said that he had frequently discussed with the Education Minister issues of promoting justice among students and the issue of fines given to parents who fail to send their children to school. The children themselves were the first to suffer when such fines had to be paid by neglecting parents. One had to find solutions to this problem and also to that of parents opting to remain dependent on state welfare rather than enter the world of work.
The Bill was unanimously approved.