imposition of the death sentence has been replaced with detention “during the State’s pleasure…
in such place and under such conditions as the Minister may direct”, by virtue of Section 79.
The issue of sentencing of juvenile offenders was addressed by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad
and Tobago in Attin, Chuck v The State.171 The appellant was 16 years old when he was
convicted with another, for the murder of two women. While the co-accused was sentenced to
death by hanging the appellant, was detained 'during the state’s pleasure' pursuant to Section 79
of the Children's Act Chap.46:01.172
This was later changed to detention ‘during the court’s pleasure’ upon review of the law. The
court brought the section into conformity with the constitution by way of modification. Section
79 was modified to read "detained during the Court's pleasure" instead of "detained during the
State's pleasure" and "Court" replaced "Minister" wherever it appeared. This was to ensure that
the provision did not contravene the principle of separation of powers. It was stated “that
juvenile offenders detained at the Court's pleasure are entitled to a review of their sentence every
three years”. This ensures that juvenile offenders are not detained indefinitely and have the
possibility of being released pending a review.
The criminal court at first instance set the detention at 25 years, at the expiration of which he
should be brought back for review. On appeal the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the
sentence of 25 years was excessive and whether the welfare of the juvenile accused and his
reintegration into society warranted that there should have been periodical review of the
sentence.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of 25 years was not excessive, but that allowed the
appeal with regards to the period of review of the sentence. The court stated that the “underlying
objective of the legislation is to protect children from the full penalty of the law as it applies to
adults”. It was also stated that “there can be no doubt that penal sanctions imposed on children or
young offenders who are detained at the court’s pleasure cannot be harsher than those imposed
on adults who are serving life sentences.” The court held that the trial judge had erred when he
ordered that there would be no review until the expiration of the sentence and that “recent
171
172
Attin, Chuck v The State [2004] C.A.CRIM.29
Supra fn 14 at s79
95