Refusal to give reasons for not admitting juvenile offender to “diversion programme” frustrates supervisory jurisdiction of court

Judicial review – juvenile offender challenging the decision refusing to admit him to the “diversion programme” - juvenile offenders, who have admitted responsibility for their actions, may, instead of being subject to prosecution, be subject to alternative measures including cautions and ongoing supervision - legislative framework for the diversion of juvenile offenders from the criminal justice system in certain circumstances - whether to admit an individual offender to the Programme is to be made by reference to the statutory criteria prescribed under the Act whether there is ever an obligation to provide reasons for a decision not to admit an offender to the Programme – statutory interpretation - whether the threshold for admission to the Diversion Programme is to be determined by reference to the age of an offender as of the date of the commission of the offence, or, alternatively, their age as of the date when charges are being considered - Director maintains the mistaken position that once a juvenile offender has reached the age of eighteen years, then he or she cannot be admitted to the Programme irrespective of their age as of the date of the offence - no obligation to provide reasons to an offender who has been denied the benefit of the Diversion Programme – standard of review – factual background - offences under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 – offender was not 18 - accepted responsibility for his criminal behaviour and that he would consent to being cautioned and supervised – when arrested he was 18 - suitability report - Part 4 of the Children Act 2001 has put in place a detailed legislative framework which is intended to regulate the diversion of juvenile offenders from the criminal justice system - blanket policy to exclude any one over the age of eighteen years from the Programme - whether a decision not to admit an offender to the Diversion Programme is subject to the same attenuated standard of review as a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions - whether intervention by the court by reference to this standard is justified on the facts of the present case - duty to give reasons - attenuated form of judicial review - Director of Public Prosecutions is not obliged to give reasons for a decision as to whether to prosecute or not - rationale for attenuated review of DPP - whether the same rationale extends to a decision on the part of the Programme Director not to admit a juvenile offender to the Diversion Programme - programme director is subject to judicial review – duty to give reasons - intervention justified even on attenuated standard – reporting restrictions – refusal of the Programme Director to provide reasons in the peculiar circumstances of this case frustrates the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review - order restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions from pursuing the prosecution of the Applicant is to remain in force – judicial review granted.