WLK v Public Prosecutor

The appellant, aged 14, pleaded guilty on 31 October 2022 to a charge under s 3(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 for causing alarm to his mother. On 26 August 2022 he had posted on his WhatsApp profile a photograph of a homemade spear, a kitchen knife tied to a bamboo pole, with a vulgar caption. He was diagnosed at the Institute of Mental Health with Social Communication Disorder and Adjustment Disorder but was fit to plead.

The probation officer found probation unsuitable and recommended 24 months in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre, which the prosecution supported. The Youth Court judge ordered six months in the centre instead, finding the offence not especially serious. The appellant appealed in Youth Court Appeal No 4 of 2022/01, asking for probation.

1. Whether the appellant should be placed on probation or detained in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre
2. If detention was appropriate, what length of detention would be suitable

Under s 4(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993, the welfare and best interests of the young person are paramount, which here turned on his prospects of rehabilitation under each option. That inquiry could take in his conduct on bail pending appeal, though such conduct carries little weight in ordinary criminal cases. The court agreed that he was a first-time offender and that no physical harm was caused. His mother learned of the post through his teacher, not directly, and he was 14 at the time. Twenty-four months seemed long, yet six months was not truly short either, and the court considered it harsh to send him to the centre even for six months.

The prosecution argued, from the probation report, that his behaviour and psychological problems and his mother's difficulty coping with an ill, bedridden husband made probation unsuitable. The court called this a strong argument but noted it rested on past misconduct for which he was not charged. By the appeal, circumstances had changed: he was back at school, his mother and uncle had been managing him since conviction, and a school report dated 29 March 2023, not before the trial judge, showed no disciplinary problems and growing regard for authority. Given that change, probation was preferable, and the court warned that breach would lead to the centre.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted an order for probation in lieu of detention, with probation for 24 months from the date of the order.