Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 19

Summary: - Article 32 of Law No. 3 of 1983 concerning Juveniles. Its import: referral of the juvenile to the Social Supervision Office before determining his matter. Its effect: it helps the judge render his judgment therapeutic rather than punitive. - Submission by the probation officer of his report on the appellant’s condition. Its import: the trial procedures were conducted validly. - The probation officer is a government expert whose assistance the court seeks when trying a juvenile. He may attend closed trial hearings. His absence does not invalidate the proceedings. Rule: Article (32) of Law No. 3 of 1983 concerning Juveniles provides: “Before determining the matter of a juvenile subject to this Law, the Juvenile Court shall refer him to the Social Supervision Office to ascertain his grave, mental, psychological and social condition connected with the causes of his delinquency or exposure to delinquency.” This means that the legislature required, before determining the juvenile’s matter, his referral to the Social Supervision Office to ascertain his condition connected with the causes of his rights and exposure to delinquency and to propose the therapeutic approach most suitable for him, because this would—as stated in the Law’s explanatory memorandum—acquaint the judge with these circumstances of the juvenile and their role in driving him to crime, helping to make his judgment therapeutic rather than punitive. Since the minutes of the hearings before the court of first instance show the attendance of the probation officer, who submitted his report—attached to the case papers—on the condition of the second appellant, the juvenile, his trial procedures were conducted validly in accordance with the law. Moreover, the probation officer is merely a government expert whose assistance the court seeks when trying a juvenile. He is among the persons who may attend the closed trial hearing under Article 29 of the aforementioned Juveniles Law, and his absence does not invalidate the proceedings. The appellant’s complaint that the judgment is invalid in this respect is therefore incorrect.