Committee weighs mandatory referrals in Child Diversion Act review

A Joint Select Committee reviewing Jamaica’s Child Diversion Act continued its clause-by-clause examination on June 3, focusing on how children accused of diversion offences should be referred to support programmes and kept away from the formal court process where appropriate.

The committee resumed at section two of the Act, after earlier reviewing definitions. Attorney-at-law Sandaloo Cole Jarrett, presenting for the Ministry of Justice, said the law’s “best interest of the child” test covers safety, physical and emotional needs, education, maturity, family relationships, religious and spiritual views, and the effect of delay in decision-making.

Members also examined whether section two conflicts with section nine. The ministry noted that one section suggests a child who accepts responsibility shall be considered for diversion, while section nine lists additional conditions, including consent, a prima facie case and, where applicable, the victim’s consent.

The committee raised concern about the undefined term “child delinquency”, which appears several times in the Act. Members debated whether it should be defined, removed, or narrowed so the law does not overlap improperly with the Child Care and Protection Act. Minister Dana Dixon Marston said the Child Diversion Act was designed for children already in conflict with the law, while support for children at risk may also be handled through other social and education programmes.

Chief Child Diversion Officer Venanisha Clark said parish child diversion committees are active, but most day-to-day assessments and supervision are handled by the Child Diversion Office. Referrals usually come from the police or the courts, after which officers assess the child, propose a treatment plan and seek committee approval. She said the office has parish locations, including one at The Rock in Trelawny.

Members questioned whether the national oversight committee required by section eight is still necessary, given that parish committees already report through the ministry. They also discussed quorum problems when representatives from agencies such as the police, correctional services or child-protection bodies are transferred or replaced slowly.

The sharpest debate came at section nine, where members leaned toward making referrals mandatory for specified diversion offences. Several argued that diversion should be understood as rehabilitation, not punishment. The committee asked for draft wording that would make diversion the expected route for eligible offences while preserving separate treatment for non-diversion offences and for cases involving victims.