Impact of Ameen Jogee Ruling on Youth Justice System

In addition to legal implications, the Ameen Jogee ruling has had a detrimental effect on young people in the youth justice system. This is apparent through the Just for Kids Law charity that intervened in the case on Tuesday 27th October 2015. The charity researched and gathered findings that suggested many young people have been affected by the legal doctrine. The charity raised awareness in light of the events from the Ameen Jogee case. Just for Kids Law stated as a result in their intervention, the Ameen Jogee incident has led to advance findings for young people in the criminal justice system. For instance, it was gathered that young people lack the ability to predict actions and to understand the potential consequences (Just for Kids

Perhaps the most imperative argument that was presented to the court was from both Just for Kids Law and professors from the University of Cambridge. They concluded that young people lack thinking abilities and therefore experience genuine problems in predicting acts which consequently lead to situations that should have potentially de-escalated. The implications since the verdict at the retrial in 2016, have been significant to young people. Uncertainties are casted as to whether children have the ability to oblige to complex and blurred legal principles as expected of them by society. An additional concern that was raised was the awareness of knowledge from the child to understand they are criminally liable under the doctrine. Furthermore the event has clarified alternative charges that may be applicable to young people or gangs or who are involved in serious events but did not intend for serious harm. On this account the Ameen Jogee verdict could be utilised for future complex cases as a reference for a secondary participant’s involvement. However other considerations should be taken into account such as the traditional public interest test and also to prosecute against a young person’s actions that mirrors their impact on the offence rather than providing a robust response in the first