It has been a year and eight months since 11-year-old Luke Bjerkhamn died in a shooting incident at his home that has again brought to the fore questions about our criminal justice system.
For one, it shows that our system of punishment requires further reform and that an atmosphere of jurisprudential equity is still needed after centuries of legal practice.
Indeed, the current system has been tried, tested and found to be seriously wanting.
We know that many, including the affluent personalities involved in this very high-profile matter, would be anxious to end the public spectacle that has surrounded the Johan Bjerkhamn court case.
Except that yesterday’s court verdict has left many questions unanswered.
Has justice been done and seen to be done? And how does status affect the handling of accused people in our criminal justice system?
Were it not Bjerkham but another father who had fatally harmed his young son – albeit accidentally – would that person be allowed to get off with community service? Â
Yes, we accept, as the court testimony indicated, he will always regret that fateful April 11, 2010 day for the rest of his life and that he is remorseful.
But so too, generally, is any human being who has caused death, especially of a family member.
Our legal history will attest that such is the case. Generally, anyone who takes the life of another person goes to prison.
 So will 240 hours of community service for Bjerkhamn really suffice, even if the court has ordered him to continue with his counselling?
It has also been noted that the court agreed that Bjerkhamn should no longer handle firearms and that four psychiatrists have said that he is not a risk to himself or to others.
Had it been otherwise, the court would have been duty bound to impose a custodial sentence.
Be that as it may, we agree with the position taken by Magistrate Barbara Cooke-Alleyne that the loss of a child’s life in such a manner is serious enough to merit a custodial sentence, even if other relevant considerations led the court to exercise discretion not to order such.
Serious questions will therefore have to be asked of Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock, who prosecuted the case.
In issuing the ruling, the learned magistrate highlighted Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, which sets a fine of $24 for persons found to be in breach.
We agree with the magistrate that in a case where a child has died this fine is highly inappropriate. In fact, it is downright offensive.
That this Act, which was promulgated in 1904, has been used to render judgement in 2011, is a matter of grave public concern.
Surely, the time is long past for reform of the system!
