The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the application of a man who attempted to have his burglary and armed robbery case heard summarily since he was a juvenile at the time when he was charged with the offences.

In October 2016, the appellant, who was 17-years-old, was arraigned with the indictable offences of armed robbery and burglary and the summary offences of causing harm, receiving and possession of an unlicensed firearm.

During the course of the proceedings, the prosecution proceeded by way of a voluntary bill of indictment in relation to all of the charges.

The appellant then applied to the Supreme Court to have the VBI dismissed and have his case dealt with summarily in the Juvenile Court. He relied on the Child Protection Act and Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code; however, his application was denied.

He recently appealed that decision on the grounds that it was “unreasonable” and could not be supported having regard to all the circumstances of his case.

Yesterday, Justices Roy Jones, Milton Evans and Carolita Bethel dismissed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for trial.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Jones, the panel stated: “In exercising her discretion the trial judge was required to consider the interests of the appellant as a child, together with the interests in the administration of justice in having the offences tried together. As the offences with which the appellant was charged were all part of a single event, it was in the interests of justice that they be tried together.

“While this case involved a juvenile, it did not involve the upbringing of a child or administration of a child’s property. As such, there was no duty of the court to ascertain the feelings of the appellant. In the circumstances, the trial judge did not infringe upon the rights of the appellant under the Child Protection Act.”