Schofield J
IN THE GRAND COURT
HOLDEN AT GEORGE
CASE NOS. 137-15
BETWEEN:
ANDS
OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN.
8/89
SOPHIA JACKSON
REGINA
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
Mr. Hampson for Miss Brooks for
Sophia
since December
Department and
The trouble is
matrimonial dif-
ference between the appellant,
Crown.
JUDGMENT
Nedera Jackson is a fourteen year old
last year, has been giving the So-
these courts a great deal of cause
e finds herself in appears linked to
incidents.
In April 1988, she was made the sub-
1d girl who,
ial Services
for concern
her parents'
act of a Fit
Person Order (
Sophia ran away
abscending) and
May, 1988. On
of a Probation
burglary. The
Sophia
the Juvenile C
being committed to Francis Bolden by from the home (irdeed she had
appeared before the Juvenile Court at occasion she was placed under the
Officer for six months on charges
it Person Order, it seems, remained
again absconded from the Home and ap-
pears on 1st July, 1988, charged wi-
Girls' Home.
a history of
gain on 27th
supervision
of their and
n force.
eared before
the assisting
arrest and assi-
the Girls’ Ho-
was apprehen-
Juvenile Court
unable to conti-
learned Magist-
School in Jamaica
transportation
of
2
writing a police officer. She was or-
but absconded yet again on 9th Jul-
d on the 20th July, 1988 and tak-
on the 22nd. On hearing that the Gi-
airin Sophia and seriously feared for her state ordered Sophia to be committed to a
place to be detained in a place of sol-
Jamaica.
ated back to
, 1988. She
re before the
is’ Home was
er safety the
of an Approved
affording
of
when
I
discovered that
Approved School
circumstances t
Paced
Knowledge of thi-
but to set asi-
then substitut-
of the proceed-
of the applica- she was taken to the place of
Sophia is pregnant. In those cir-
ir Jamaica will accept her. It
at this appeal was preferred.
with this situation, which was in
Summary Court, this court has littl-
e the Approved School Order. What o
? Unfortunately it is not clear fr-
ngs before the Magistrate what exact
tion before him was. It could be
safety it was
circumstances no
was in those
it within the
alternative
der should I
make record
y the nature
that he was
purporting to
order and bre-
provisions for
Person order.
Juvenile law
well as appro-
approved schoo-
orders. I u-
person is usual-
deal with Sophia for both breach of the Probation Order. There are a
a juvenile to be dealt with for L-
although the margin note of sect-
16 of 75) refers to escapes from fi-
led school, the body of the secti-
orders only and does not refer
derstand that a juvenile who abscon-
yed before the Juvenile Court
if Fit Person
no specific
reach of Fit
on 20 of the
t person, as
n relates to
o fit person
s from a fit
non-section
6 of the Law
the present c
proceedings bef
Nor will
answer the co-
nature of pro-
accusations, a
proved, if prov-
3
as being beyond the control of his
use there is no note that such were
re the learned Magistrate.
as Sophia, it appears from the re-
plaints against her. She had a right
to hearings explained to her and to re-
d if she disputed them to have
ed they could be,
heardian. In
he nature of
ord asked to
to have the
said to the
them strictly
From
the order that th-
that the Fit P
such order is
Order in force
has shown impr-
future.
all the above, I am uncertain of the
By the learned Magistrate in any e
Approved School order be set aside.
rson Order is inappropriate and I un-
to be discharged. This will leave a
nd I understand Sophia, in her present
movement in behaviour which could bode
legality of
it, I will
it is clear
understand that
he Probation
t condition,
well for the
24th August, 1938
D. Schofield
Judge of the Grand Court