CO129-537-2 Industry and Reformatory Schools Ordinance 1932 17-3-1932 - 29-4-1933 — Page 6

dealt with under section 17 of Ordinance No.1 of 1932

(which I will refer to as section 17). It seems to

me, however, unfair to use the same term to describe

both classes of children, or, at least, to call the

unfortunate children dealt with under section 17

"youthful offenders", and, as I have already said, to

send them to an institution branded as a reformatory

school, established under sections 10(1) and 11 of this

Ordinance. I am not sure how much of this Ordinance

It seems

is meant to apply to section 17 children.

clear that parts are not; e.g. section 7 (cf.the second

passage in brackets in the penultimate paragraph of

section 17(1) of Ordinance No.1 of 1932, and also

section 17(3)); section 20 (cf.section 17(3)(v) of

Ordinance No.1); and section 24 (cf. section 17(3)(ii)

to (iv)). On the other hand, it is possible that others

are meant to apply, e.g. sections 16 and 25. If (16)

applies, apparently (21) would also apply, but I doubt

whether it should. In this connection I see that

sections 8(3) and 31(1) use the words "child" and

"children", and this may be done in order to include

section 17 cases. The fact remains that the

? youthfeel

definition of "juvenile offenders" also includes them.

Sections 9 and 13 use the word "persons". These

sections cannot, I think, apply to children under

section 17, as the word "sentences" would hardly be

appropriate. It may be that the words "detention"

and "detained" are not applicable to section 17 cases

they are certainly not desirable words to apply and

that the use of these words would exclude the applica-

tion to those cases of most of the Ordinance.

I see,

however, that the word "detained" is used in both

sections 8(3) and 31(1), which, as I have suggested

above, it seems are intended to apply to section 17.

My criticism amounts to this: the Ordinance

-

should