‘Critical’ need for juvenile court highlighted
A rehabilitative pathway for young offenders through the establishment of a juvenile treatment court is a “critical initiative” for the community, the senior magistrate has stated.
Maxanne Anderson called on stakeholders to revisit a pilot programme to make the special court a reality this year.
Her comments, welcomed by the charity Family Centre, published in the Bermuda Judiciary Annual Report, released last Friday.
Calls for the island to implement a Juvenile Justice Board date back to at least 2000 — in part because facilities designed to handle out-of-control teens had been removed from the law after the Children's Act of 1998 came into effect.
The Criminal Code Amendment Act 2001 gave way for Magistrates’ Court to put non-traditional treatment courts in place to help those who commit offences while in the grips of alcohol, drug addiction or mental health challenges.
Ms Anderson said the pilot was designed to address the needs of young offenders identified as having problems with drugs, alcohol and/or people suffering from mental health issues.
She said: “It is to provide intervention, structure and treatment in the lives of young offenders.
“Through regular monitoring, family engagement and by providing skills to assist them in leading productive substance-free and crime-free lives.”
She said while the need for the special court was evident, there had been challenges in securing comprehensive engagement and commitment, leaving the court non-operational.
Ms Anderson said: “It is imperative that we revisit the establishment of the Juvenile Treatment Court pilot, with the objective of making it a reality in 2025.
“This court would provide an evidence-based, treatment-oriented approach that emphasises family engagement and addresses substance use and co-occurring mental health disorders among our youth.
“Implementing such a court would not only offer an alternative to traditional punitive measures but also align with best practices observed in other jurisdictions.”
Sandy De Silva, executive director of Family Centre, welcomed news of establishing a juvenile treatment court, saying it “aligns with international best practices in youth justice”.
She added: “In many jurisdictions, such courts have proven effective in addressing the root causes of youth offending by integrating (1) therapeutic interventions, (2) structured monitoring, and (3) family engagement.
“Research indicates that juvenile treatment courts can reduce recidivism rates, improve mental health outcomes for youth, and support long-term rehabilitation by prioritising diversion from offending over punitive measures.
“When properly resourced and implemented, these courts offer young offenders an opportunity to break cycles of crime, substance misuse, and mental health struggles, ultimately contributing to safer communities.
“However, there are also challenges to consider. International experiences highlight that the effectiveness of juvenile courts depends on adequate funding, access to specialised mental health and substance use treatment services, and consistent multi-agency collaboration.
“Without these key elements, the system risks being ineffective or overburdened. Additionally, some studies suggest that increased court involvement can have unintended consequences, such as bringing more young people into the justice system instead of being referred to community-based interventions.
“It is crucial that any juvenile treatment court in Bermuda be developed with a strong framework for individualised care, rehabilitation, and restorative justice to ensure it truly serves the best interests of young people.”
She said prioritising a juvenile treatment court would enable young offenders to follow a rehabilitative pathway to foster their reintegration into society and reduce recidivism.
“This initiative would reflect our commitment to justice and the wellbeing of our youth, ensuring that they receive the support and guidance necessary to lead productive lives,” Ms Anderson said.
She highlighted that the Probation Review Court, another treatment court, was running well.
The special court routinely reviews probation orders to encourage compliance.
Ms Anderson said regular check-ups helped people to get back on track, and addressed their health needs, along with assisting them in securing employment and housing.
Most importantly, she said the review court enabled people to regain their footing as productive members of their community.
An “astronomical rise” of 89 per cent in the number of domestic violence orders adjudicated in the court was noted in the Bermuda Judicial Annual Report.
Last year, the court issued 151 domestic violence orders, a sharp rise when compared with 80 issued in 2023.
Domestic violence remains prevalent in the community, the report said.
The report said the anticipated establishment of a Domestic Violence Court represented a significant stride for underlying issues to be addressed therapeutically, and provide comprehensive support to victims.
In 2024, the number of cases heard under the Children’s Act 1998 in the Family Court decreased by 5 per cent compared with 2023.
The severity and complexities of the cases remained the same as 402 cases were addressed last year when compared with 675 heard in 2023.
The Family Court is a special court chaired by the senior magistrate.
It was created to handle the specific needs of children born in or outside of marriage, and issues with their custody, care and violations of the law.
In the annual report, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe highlighted the need for more forensic psychiatrists for the Department of Corrections to treat incarcerated offenders.
Mr Justice Wolffe further called for an amendment of the “archaic” 1968 Mental Health Act for people with mental health disorders to get immediate, comprehensive psychiatric intervention, in or out of custody.
He recommended free counselling sessions to help victims of crime, and extra pay for jurors since, he noted, “sitting on a jury can be financially debilitating”.
Mr Justice Wolffe called for legislation to allow jurors to separate during deliberations and before delivering their verdict — noting that, under Section 532 of the Criminal Code Act 1907, the practice was not permitted.
He added: “This may encourage jurors to take their time in reaching their verdicts and it may result in less incidents of jurors not being able to reach a majority decision, that is, a hung jury.”
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
