Rights of child during police interrogation

Running head: JUUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
Rights of child during police interrogation
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
JUUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
Table of Contents
Role of responsible adult during police interrogation:....................................................................2
Concept of due process:...................................................................................................................3
Identification of the steps to ensure due process:............................................................................5
Legislative option available to police:.............................................................................................6
Ethical issues:..................................................................................................................................8
Reference:........................................................................................................................................9

2
JUUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
Role of responsible adult during police interrogation:
The term responsible adult denotes parents, stepparent, guardian or any person who has
accrued the rights and responsibilities of the parent with an intention to guide the minor.
Therefore, the term can be used in case of a person who can act as the guardian of any minor.
The term can be used in case of criminal proceeding also. When the police officer has
interrogated a minor, it is the duty of the responsible adult to be physically present during the
interrogation period. The Evidence Act 1995 has regulated any criminal process (NSW).
However, in case of interrogating a child is sensible and Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act
1987 (NSW) regulates the process (McFarlane, 2017). This legislation helps a child to get certain
assistance from the police officer and from the legal practitioners. Responsible adults are playing
important role in case where the police are interrogating a child. It is their duty to look over the
matters whether the police officers are creating any pressure on the child for making forceful
confession or not. According to Ludbrook (2017), often the children are making untrue
confession before the police. Further, it is their duty to observe whether the police officer has
provided the option for right to silence to the minor or not. However, the Act has not given any
clear definition regarding the role of the responsible parent in this case. According to section 13
of the Act, the statement made by a child before the police is not admissible except the same has
been taken in the presence of the responsible adult. The court will not admit the statement of the
minor made before the police if the police officer has made any coercion or undue influence
(Bartels, Bolitho & Richards, 2015). This principle has laid down under section 81C of Child
Welfare Act 1939 and the ground of the same has been verified in the case of R v Warren (1982)
2 NSWLR 360. It has also been mentioned by the court to look over the matter that the
confession regarding any offence made by the minor before the police officer could not be

3
JUUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILD PROTECTION
admitted if the same has been made on unreasonable ground. Therefore, it is the duty of the
responsible adult to look into the matter whether the police officer is treating the child in wrong
manner or not. The basic aim of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) that to protect
the interest of child so that they can feel them secure during the process of interrogation. In R v
Cotton (1990) 19 NSWLR 593, the court has interpreted section 13 of the Act as a process that
secure the accused who is minor. Therefore, the responsible parent should have to represent him
proactively. The position of the responsible parents is significant, as the police officers are not
allowed to interrogate a minor in the absence of them. it has been particularly mentioned under
section 13 of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987 (NSW) that all the interrogation process
should be done in the presence of responsible parent and he has to look over the whole process of
interrogation. Court will rely on the admissibility of the minor only when the same has been
taken in the presence of the responsible parent. If the police officer has done any misconduct
during the process, the responsible parent is required to stop the officer from being rude
(Ainsworth & Hansen, 2017).
Concept of due process:
Fair treatment is necessary for maintain fairness in the judicial system and the process of
fair treatment is known as the due process. There are two types of due process such as procedural
due process and substantive due process. When a legal proceeding has been carry out on regular
basis and without any intervention, the same is treated as procedural due process. When a law
has been enacted with fair process and the individuals are getting equal opportunities from the
same, the process is known as substantive due process (Kenny, 2016). In this case, it has been
observed that Millie, the police have arrested an aboriginal girl and the person is appointed as the
responsible parent on her behalf. According to section 13 of the Children (Criminal Proceeding)