The Child justice Act does not accommodate joinder and division outside of the prerequisites of section 63(2). In any case, where an adult and child are attempted together the potential for preference to the two gatherings is clear. The first of these is found in the contrast between the antagonistic idea of the adult process and the inquisitorial procedure of tyke equity. The Child Justice Act allows the court in section 63(4)(a) to scrutinize a child and inspire additional information from any gathering engaged with the procedures if the court thinks about it to the greatest advantage of the child.
In a joint preliminary the court should along these lines expect both an antagonistic (traditionally passive) and inquisitorial (traditionally active) part amid a solitary preliminary, which may, we assert, seriously affect the privilege to a reasonable preliminary for the grown-up charged. In the event that one considers that the accusatorial framework requires the prosecutor to release the weight of confirmation utilizing proof displayed at court, while the inquisitorial framework requires the court to include itself in the quest for the material truth, the disparity caused by the child justice method, and the potential for bias to the two gatherings is clear.
