CSPS Supervision 7 – Youth Justice & Restorative Justice

I. YOUTH JUSTICE

Easton & Piper – Court orders for young offenders

Using the civil justice system

The policy contexts

In the past decade there have been changes in diversionary policies and practices such that fewer children and young people are prosecuted and sentenced and more are the subject of community resolutions. P381
This is at least to an extent the result of governments wishing to reduce the cost of court processing and detention.

The family and re-moralisation

A trigger for these policy developments was a growing concern abut the role of the family.
Appears that research on young offenders ‘habitually produces results that point to the adverse effects of certain features of family life’ (Day Sclater and Piper 2000). P382
None of this proves that there is a decline in moral authority or parental discipline, but these attitudes feed into a belief ‘that the process of change and modernity has gone too far’ and legitimate provisions to make parents responsible for their children’s behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour

In the 1990s the Audit Commission had flagged up the difficulties for the police in dealing with what they referred to as ‘juvenile nuisance’, the subject of 10-20% calls to the police.
Anti-social behaviour order became very influential and legitimised introduction of new statutory responses to the behaviour of children and young people.
Non-criminal deviance and anti-social behaviour began to be dealt with in ways which blur the boundaries of the criminal and civil systems and law. P383

Civil orders

The civil orders and similar contracts and agreements constituted new tools but they have an ambivalent role: the orders are an alternative court-based method of responding to anti-social and criminal behaviour through the civil justice system and they are also seen as a method of delaying the ‘criminalisation’ of children.
But these developments have arguably drawn more children and young people within the ambit of state surveillance and may hasten entry into the criminal justice system.

The first new orders

ASBOs and child safety orders introduced in 1998.
- Common criterion is that child or adult has acted ‘in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself’ (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.1(1)(a)).
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 widened the scope and use of ASBOs, increased the range of the ‘relevant authorities’ who could apply for an ASBO and introduced a presumption that a parenting order is made with an ASBO. P384
As a result of amendments made by CJA 2003 and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, a new s.1AA in CDA 1998 added the presumption that an ISO (individual support order) would be made alongside an ASBO for the under 18s ‘in the interests of preventing any repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the making of the anti-social behaviour.
By end of 2004, 52% of orders had been given to 10-17 year olds and Youth Justice Board (2006) found that a disproportionate number of the sample – 22% - were from black and minority ethnic groups.
ASBOs were ineffective if the number of breaches of prohibitions is an indicator.
- Audit Office found that over half of those in their sample group – 46% of whom were under 18 – breached their order, and a third did so on two or more occasions (Home Office 2007).
Further issue is the ‘naming and shaming’ of those given orders.

Parenting orders

Parenting orders have been available since 2000 and are triggered if the child or young person is subject to a range of orders and injunctions, is convicted of a criminal offence, or fails to comply with a school attendance order.
- Introduced by CDA 1998 and can last up to 12 months.
Held in R (M) v Inner London Crown Court that a parenting order did not breach either Articles 6 or 8 ECHR because it deemed a parenting order not to be disproportionate, given the pressing social need to address the problems created by juvenile crime and the early research on such orders.
ASBA 2003 widened the scope of parenting orders.

Parental compensation orders

PCOs introduced by Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which inserted s.13A-13E into CDA 1998. P386
Relates only to children under 10.
Act has only been in force since 2006 in ten pilot areas.

Criminal behaviour orders and injunctions

Legislation related to ASBOs repealed in March 2015.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill introduced power to grant a new injunction ‘to prevent nuisance and annoyance’ (s.1).
- Breach of injunction allows a Youth Court to impose a supervision order or a detention order. P387
A criminal behaviour order in s.22 of the Act has been in force since October 2014.
- May make CBO only on the application of the prosecution and only in addition to a sentence or conditional discharge.

Issues of concern

Sentencing options

The youth justice system

CDA 1998 set up a national and local administrative framework for the youth justice system in England and Wales.
S.38 imposed duties on each local authority, police authority, probation committee and health authority to provide youth justice services. P388
Required that each local authority set up inter agency YOTs.
Also set up national Youth Justice Board to monitor the youth justice system and advise SoS and introduced for the first time in legislation in the UK an aim for the new youth justice system to prevent offending.

The range and use of orders

Since the implementation of Children and Young Persons Act 1993, the youth court ‘makes an order upon a finding of guilt’ in relation to those minors who have been successfully prosecuted.
On a first appearance at a youth court a minor is normally given a referral order which entails referral to a multi-disciplinary Youth Offender Panel....

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminology Notes.

Youth Justice And Restorative Justice Notes

Updated Youth Justice And Restorative Justice Notes