The 2013 case of HC, a 17-year-old apprehended on suspicion of mobile phone theft, strikingly demonstrates the susceptibility of young individuals and the urgent need to protect the rights of children within the criminal justice system. HC's experience, as detailed in the provided information, underscores the significant power imbalance between a young person in custody and the authorities. It also highlights the necessity of treating minors in a way that acknowledges their developmental stage and reliance on parental support and guidance.

The case reveals that, despite his age, HC was treated as an adult upon arrest. He was detained for over 11 hours without his mother being informed of his location. He was also denied communication with her and access to legal counsel. This initial handling of HC's detention directly contravenes legal provisions in place at the time, specifically the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its associated Code of Practice. While these regulations stipulated that 17-year-olds should be treated as adults, they included the crucial condition that an officer could only lawfully refuse to contact a nominated person if doing so "would hinder the recovery of property." In addition, because HC was treated as a child in other contexts, he had the unquestionable right to have someone informed of his situation and to receive assistance during the custody procedures.

The injustice experienced by HC led to judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary. The High Court ruled decisively that 17-year-olds must be treated as children while in custody. This landmark judgment was based on the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly grants children who are separated from their parents the right to have their parents informed of their location and to maintain contact with them.

Mr Justice Moses highlighted the core issue, emphasizing the inherent vulnerability of a 17-year-old in such a situation and their potential lack of understanding regarding the critical need for legal representation. The judge astutely observed that many young people in this age group might not even realize that they need a lawyer's help.

HC's case poignantly illustrates a fundamental principle: the rights of the child and the parent are inextricably linked, especially when a child is in custody on suspicion of committing a crime. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to respect for private and family life, is highly relevant in these circumstances. A child in this situation urgently needs support from someone familiar and trusted to help them navigate the intimidating power dynamics inherent in interactions with law enforcement. The presence and involvement of a parent or guardian can provide crucial emotional support, ensure the child understands their rights, and facilitate access to legal representation.

Ultimately, the High Court declared that the Home Secretary had violated Article 8 and the relevant Code of Practice. This declaration was based on the critical failure to adequately distinguish between the treatment of adults and children in custody. HC's case is a potent reminder of the specific needs and vulnerabilities of young people within the criminal justice system.

It underscores the ethical and legal imperative to treat 17-year-olds as children, ensuring they receive the protections and support systems necessary to safeguard their rights and well-being during a potentially traumatic experience. This case serves as a significant precedent, advocating for a more child-centered approach to youth justice and emphasizing the enduring importance of upholding the rights enshrined in both national and international legal frameworks.

Reference:

• Children's Rights and the Law, Hilaire Barnett, Routledge, 2022

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565