The teenager, who cannot be named due to his age, and another youth not only shattered Bauformat’s window, but caused damage to items on display which were together worth £4,560.
Bauformat sought compensation for the damaged items, but at the time of the teen’s sentencing in the Youth Court, it was unclear whether the damaged items could be resold for a reduced price and so it was decided that compensation should focus on the window.
Taking into account that the teen was jointly charged with another and the cost of the window repair should therefore be split, it was decided that his father should be ordered to pay £150 in compensation.
Handing down the order, the Magistrate described it as “almost a symbolic sum of money to pay that it symbolises you taking responsibility for your son”, before turning to the teenager and adding: “So… when you feel like breaking somebody’s window or damaging their property, there are consequences. And one of those consequences today has been for your father, and you need to take some level of responsibility for that. You’ve cost your father some money, which he’d rather not be paying in compensation.”
But the Magistrate’s logic in ordering the father to pay was challenged during a Royal Court hearing last month.
Appealing the order, Advocate Julia-Ann Dix argued that it was unreasonable because the father was not responsible for the child’s day-to-day care when he committed the malicious damage – in fact, he had been in care for around two years, and was the legal responsibility of the Minister for Children.
Pictured: The Youth Court appeal was heard in the Royal Court.
Indeed, this was acknowledged by the Magistrate at the time, the appeal court heard, as she told the teenager: “We’ve looked at the law about the Minister who looks after you – that means the Government – …and we don’t think that we can hold them responsible. So, we’re looking at real parents.”
During the appeal hearing, the court considered Jersey and UK legal precedents which set out the need for a “causative link” between a parent’s actions and the child’s criminal behaviour to justify such orders.
In this case, the court found no evidence that the father had any influence over the teenager’s behaviour or could have prevented the offence.
In a judgment made public this week, the court – consisting of Commissioner Alan Bennington, sitting with three Youth Panel Members – acknowledged the Youth Court’s desire to “demonstrate to the [teenager] that his actions had financial consequences to others and that in the absence of his own ability to pay compensation he should feel some responsibility for a liability being imposed on his father”.
However, they noted that the father “was not responsible for the [teen’s] day-to-day care, nor could he influence his behaviour in this instance” and concluded that the decision to hold him responsible was therefore “unreasonable”.
The appeal was allowed, and the compensation order of £150 was set aside.