Princes Town MP Barry Padarath is calling on the Attorney General to make parents responsible for children who carry out criminal acts by passing on criminal liability.
In a statement, Padarath called on government to consider a Parental Responsibility Act which would pass on any criminal liability committed by children to their parents or legal guardians.
Padarath said parents should also be held liable for gun possession where a child is found to be in possession of guns and ammunition.
In the last sitting of Parliament, Padarath said he questioned Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, who responded that government would look at strengthening existing pieces of legislation.
He referenced legislation within the UK in which a similar position was being advanced and urged Al-Rawi to stop being ‘afraid of taking drastic steps to dealing with crime’.
He said citizens should take action now to deal with the progression of deviant and criminal behaviour.
He said the time has come for less talk and more action and said government needs to start thinking ‘outside of the box’ regarding murders and other serious crime.
Under the S56 (1) of the Children Act 2012, regarding minors charged before the courts with an offence which attracts a fine, damages or costs, the court may order the parent to pay any fine, damages or costs awarded, unless the court is satisfied that the parent cannot be found or the parent did not contribute to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child.
Under s(56)(3) of the Act, “Where the Court finds that a charge against a child is proved, the Court, without proceeding to convict the child, may make:
(a) an order against the parent, guardian or person with responsibility for the child– (i) for the payment of damages or costs; or (ii) requiring him to give security for good behaviour;
(b) a Recognisance Order in accordance with the Children’s Authority Act; or
(c) any other order including an interim order as the Court thinks fit under section 25 of the Children’s Authority Act.
S(57) of the Act says where a child is convicted of an offence and the court is of the view that the child’s parent did not exercise due care, the court may demand the parent pay an additional fine.
Under S(60), where a child is convicted of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment, he may be placed in a Community Residence, or, if the child is between the ages of 10-18, placed in a Rehabilitation Centre, or, if under 10 years, be placed in a Children’s Home.
Seems OK in principle. But then not that simple. if a 17 year old robs somebody, when they old enough to handle themselves at home and withut parental supervision, how does this fit in? 17 is under the age of criminal responsibility.
but then didn't his party have five years to do this? BOTH parties are culpable for crime, not Dr. Rowley alone. rspussy would say this is posing or posting news...well yeah....(like i give a firetruck, de man post news stories all the time...)http://www.looptt.com/content/princes-t ... ed-parents