In a significant ruling with implications for juvenile justice, High Court Justice Kevin Ramcharan has rejected a judicial review petition contesting the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) determination to pursue firearms charges against two individuals who were minors at the time of the alleged offense.
The case originates from an August 6, 2015 incident where the claimants—then aged 11 and 13—were present at a property where another minor tragically lost his life. The half-brothers, along with an adult co-accused, initially faced manslaughter and firearm possession charges. While manslaughter charges were subsequently dismissed in Children’s Court, the DPP elected to proceed exclusively with the firearms allegations, triggering the legal challenge.
The claimants contended that continued prosecution violated legal principles, arguing insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of doli incapax—the legal doctrine presuming children incapable of forming criminal intent. They further maintained that pursuing the case contradicted public interest considerations given their youthful ages at the time, the specific circumstances of the alleged possession, potential minimal sentences, and substantial procedural delays.
Citing the Privy Council’s 2024 guidance on prosecutorial discretion, the defense team asserted the DPP’s decision failed to meet evidentiary and public interest thresholds outlined in prosecution guidelines.
The DPP’s legal representatives countered that the appropriate venue for challenging evidence sufficiency was the magistrates’ court through a stay application, emphasizing established jurisprudence that discourages judicial review courts from evaluating evidence adequacy or infringing upon prosecutorial discretion.
Justice Ramcharan determined that the magistrates’ court remained the proper forum for evaluating whether the doli incapax presumption had been adequately rebutted, noting that while related manslaughter charges had been dismissed, the firearms matter required independent judicial assessment.
The court did criticize the DPP’s office for repeated procedural delays and poor communication practices, describing these shortcomings as “completely unacceptable.” However, the ruling clarified that the DPP bears no legal obligation to provide justification for continuing prosecutions.
The judgment acknowledged that societal concerns regarding illegal firearms could legitimately influence the decision to pursue prosecution, adding that issues regarding trial delays and procedural fairness could be properly raised before the presiding magistrate.
The court dismissed the judicial review application without awarding costs.