Reform Proposals

1. Reform Proposals Focus on RJ and Diversion

2. James Story Group task • What did you think? • What would you do? • What approach do you think the Youth Justice System should take with him?

3. Police and Youth Justice • ACPO Strategy – It’s never too early, it’s never too late • Children Act 2004 – Every Child Matters • Be healthy • Stay Safe • Enjoy and Achieve • Make a Positive Contribution • Achieve Economic Well-Being

4. Youth Justice Action Plan • Youth Crime Action Plan 2008 – ‘Triple Track’ approach • “Enforcement and punishment” where behaviour is unacceptable” • “Non-negotiable support and challenge where it is most needed” • “Better and earlier prevention”

5. Responding to youth crime and anti social behaviour (Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti –Social Behaviour) • Prevention and early intervention • Responding to those who commit crime: • Diversion • Legal action and the courts – last resort – specialist professional and refer cases to a lay tribunal (like the idea of the Scotland Panel) • Community based sanctions • Custody • Questions how we respond • Within the youth justice system • Outside the youth justice system

6. Responding to youth crime and anti social behaviour (Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti –Social Behaviour) • Age and maturity (see our earlier debates) • Anti social behaviour • What do we do? • Crossing the boundary between criminal and non criminal • Penalty notice disorders (PNDs) • Cost effectiveness

7. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 • Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 • Referral Orders and Referral Order Panels • Accounts for a 1/3 of all Youth Court Orders Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

8. Referral Orders • April 2002 • Mandatory for all young offenders aged 10 to 17 pleading guilty and convicted for a first offence, • ‘three Rs’ – reparation, responsibility and reintegration • Aims of the Referral Order • are to make young people aware of the impact of their crime, • enable them to make good some of the damage and distress they may have caused, • to deter them from re-offending. • Orders mandatory unless the offence is minor enough to warrant absolute discharge, or serious enough to result in custody. • Referral Orders last between three and 12 months, depending on the seriousness of the offence committed. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

9. Referral Order Panels • Contract drawn up between the young person, their parent or guardian, and a specially trained Youth Offender Panel (YOP) • Two volunteer representatives of the community and a youth offending team (YOT) member. • Representative • The victim is also invited to join the meeting at which the contract is drawn up • reparation to the victim or wider community and a programme of activities designed to prevent re-offending. • 'neutral' environment, such as a local community centre • Compliance of the contract is monitored through Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

10. Referral Order Panels • Target of 70% victim satisfaction by 2004. • Victim involvement is essential: the evaluation of the pilot scheme indicates that victims are more satisfied with restorative procedures than with the traditional justice system. • The key to improving victim contact is for YOT workers to have the appropriate training in working with victims. • Training and regulation: Certificate in Effective Practice, includes knowledge and understanding of effective practice in restorative justice. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

11. Restorative Justice

12. Restorative Justice • “Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence ands its implications for the future” . Braithwaite J. 2002, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation, Oxford University Press

13. Justice (NI) Act 2002 S 53 Aims of youth justice system • (1) The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children. • (2) All persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the youth justice system must have regard to that principal aim in exercising their functions, with a view (in particular) to encouraging children to recognise the effects of crime and to take responsibility for their actions. • (3) But all such persons and bodies must also have regard to the welfare of children affected by the exercise of their functions (and to the general principle that any delay in dealing with children is likely to prejudice their welfare), with a view (in particular) to furthering their personal, social and educational development. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

14. Northern Ireland • Justice (NI) Act 2002 • Restorative Justice legislated for • Youth Conferences and Youth Conference Plans • Youth Diversionary Conferences • Reparation Orders • Community Responsibility Orders Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

15. Findings • Victims and offenders express appreciation for high degree of preparation. • Victims express overall satisfaction. 79% say they attended to help the offender. • Of offenders the vast majority express a desire to help the victim, to hear what the victim had to say, to make up for what they had done and to be forgiven Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

16. Is it effective? • The report, Making Amends: Restorative Youth Justice in Northern Ireland, found that 38 per cent of 10- to 17-year-olds involved in Northern Ireland's restorative justice process in 2006 reoffended within a year. This compares to a 71 per cent reoffending rate for those sent to prison Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

17. Research in the UK • Home Office Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes (2001-2008), Shapland et al, 2008 • Youth Final Warning Referrals • RJ Conferencing • Police facilitated • Outcome agreements and follow through important Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

18. Effectiveness “There were no statistically significant results pointing towards any criminogenic effects of restorative justice (making people worse) in any scheme” (Shapland et al., 2008, p. iii). In other words, there was no evidence that restorative justice led to reoffending. The report also explored the JRC data to see what kinds of offenders, what kinds of offenses and what elements of restorative justice lead to less re-offending. It appeared that the effects of RJ were unrelated to offenders’ gender, ethnicity or age. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

19. Is it effective • 2006-07, 38,574 victims of youth crime were offered the opportunity to participate in an RJ process. • Of these, 46% or 17,728 victims chose to participate in a restorative process, and of these 5,952 (1 in 3 of all participating victims) participated in face-to-face RJ. The remainder - 11,776 (2 in 30 participated in indirect, or non face-to-face, RJ. • Of 11,251 victims commenting on their RJ process, 10,964 stated they were satisfied or very satisfied. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

20. What do Participants think? Persons Responsible • “I found out what my actions are doing to other people and my family and I can learn from my mistakes” • “..it helps me understand how the victim felt…” • “I got to say sorry and got aye felt off my chest…” Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

21. What do Participants think? Person Harmed • “I was able to face the person and get an explanation, I did not feel it was a personal attack on myself adn I could allow the young person to hear what I had to say.” • “…perhaps contributing to something constructive…. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

22. What do Participants think? Person Harmed • “The possibility of influencing a potential behaviour change away from petty crime and damage. Actions have consequences.” Taken from the report by VIEWPOINT: National Evaluation of RJ Services in Scotland 2008-2009 Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

23. YJB: Key Elements of Effective Practice: RJ • victim satisfaction – reducing the fear of the victim and ensuring they feel ‘paid back’ for the harm that has been done to them • engagement with the young person – to ensure that they are aware of the consequences of their actions, have the opportunity to make reparation and agree a plan for their restoration in the community • creation of community capital – increasing public confidence in the criminal justice system. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

24. RJ: Basic Principles • putting things right and healing relationships, thereby giving high satisfaction to victims and reducing reoffending • ensuring that those directly affected by crime are involved in the process and that their wishes are given careful consideration • making positive outcomes for victim and community valid objectives, alongside changes in behaviour and attitude of the young person • addressing and being sensitive to particular cultural and special needs and be based on anti-discriminatory practice, with an understanding and respect for the diversity of different communities. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

25. Youth Crime Action Plan A focus towards: “Embedding restorative justice in the Youth Justice System. When dealing with young offenders, Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) will consider whether restorative justice is a suitable approach to use with victims in appropriate cases” Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

26. Youth Restorative Disposals (YRDs) • Supported through CDA 1998 and Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. • Favours ‘common sense’ and ‘discretion’ • Used for minor offences, e.g. pupil v pupil complaints, theft of dinner money, less serious bullying • 1500+ YRDs now administered in Bristol (2007–100) • Diverts young people (10-17 yrs) from the CJS

27. Youth Restorative Disposal Youth Restorative Disposal Focus: tackling low level first time offences Police, using principles of restorative justice, bring offender and the victim of the crime together and agreeing on steps the young person must take, including apologising for their actions Restorative Disposal can play in nipping early offending in the bud, avoiding criminalising young people for low-level crime and also as a trigger to identify any underlying problems which may lead to future more serious offending. Currently being evaluated Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

28. What do we need to make it effective? • Good practice regulations • Privacy and confidentiality – it should not be a fishing expedition • Safeguards should be in place to protect individual rights

29. What do we need to make it effective? 'Developing and maintaining relationships with other agencies is time consuming. There is a constant need to source funding, inform local agencies of our work, maintain relationships with referring agencies and links with the Home Office ... [and other national agencies] in the hope that we can share learning and help to develop good practice and hopefully secure our future.' (REMEDI report to the Home Office) Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

30. References • Developing Restorative Justice: An Action Plan (2006) and sets out proposed actions to be carried out to promote effective restorative justice practices. http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=319&eP= • The National Standards for Youth Justice Services has guidelines for restorative justice work on page 31. http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=155&eP= • Youth Crime Action Plan: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/youth-crime-action-plan/ • The Home Office: Restorative Justice: The Government’s Strategy http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingoffenders/workingoffenders42.htm • The Home Office website contains a guide on restorative justice for local police forces, prosecutors and offender managers, which was published in March 2005. Click to read Restorative Justice: Helping to meet local needs [opens in new windowhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/rj-local-needs-guidance]. Consensus Project Transnational Forum, Nov 2009

31. ANY QUESTIONS?