Members will recall that we launched an online survey in December asking about current governance arrangement for local YOT partnerships. The survey will help shape our contribution to the YJB’s work to update its guidance, ‘Modern Youth Offending Partnerships’. We are grateful to the 48 colleagues who took the time to respond. We have posted the full results here with a summary of the key findings.
The AYM response to the Labour Party Policy review of the criminal justice system was submitted today (Friday 28 June 2019) and can be read here.
In early June, AYM responded to the Public consultation on Mental Health Conditions and Disorders: Draft Legal Guidance. This is a new revised proposal of CPS guidance on prosecuting defendants with mental health issues. You can read the AYM response here.
The Government has today (31/1/19) announced an amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill by including the introduction of ‘Knife Crime Prevention Orders’ (KCPO) which would appear to be a new form of ASBO. Such orders will be able to be imposed on children aged 12 years and over if the police believe them to be carrying a knife.
These new civil orders will restrict the liberty of those subject to the order by imposing curfews and geographical restrictions as well as limiting the individual’s use of social media. Breach of the order will be a criminal offence and the individual can be sent to prison for two years if convicted.
The orders are described as a deterrent, in reality we believe it is likely to fast track children into custody. Children carrying knives and other weapons regularly report that they do so because they are fearful of their own safety – balancing this against this the possible consequence of breaching an ASBO/KCPO is unlikely to deter them from ‘defending’ themselves. In our view education and preventative programmes are needed to change this narrative for young people.
The government argue this fills a gap which is not covered by existing preventative orders such as gang injunctions and criminal behaviour orders.
Home Secretary, Sajid Javid states that he has listened to the Police who are calling for these orders. It is a shame that there has been no consultation with agencies such as Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) who are key players in working with children to prevent them from offending.
Sajid Javid states said “It is vital we continue to focus on improving the law enforcement response while at the same time steering young people away from criminal activity in the first place”. Our view is that introducing such an order that is likely to result in a disproportionate number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) children entering custody which will not steer them away from crime but is putting them into the one place they are likely to meet other children who have committed offences.
The introduction of these orders also coincides with the work being undertaken by YOTs to address serious violent offending. YOTs use education and support programmes to help children understand that carrying a knife is more likely to result in they themselves becoming a victim and to address the reasons why they feel the need to do so.
The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has just recently formed a Serious Youth Violence Reference Group with a number of YOTs to consider how to develop and share best practice. The AYM calls for the government to reconsider this new measure and look instead for the police to work even closer with YOTs and other agencies to provide programmes that will really address youth violence and knife possession.
We do not want to introduce any measure that would most likely prohibit vulnerable of children from engaging with the police, who may on occasions be the only people on the street they can turn to when in trouble.
Association of Youth Offending Team Managers (AYM) response to:
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child Revised General Comment No. 10 (2007) on Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice.
About the AYM
The AYM is a professional association representing the majority of youth offending teams (YOT) and their managers in England.
Section 39 (1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the co-operation of the named statutory partners to form a YOT. Section 38 (1, 2) identifies the statutory partners and places upon them a duty to co-operate in order to secure youth justice services appropriate to their area. These statutory partners are the local authority, police, the probation service, and health. To support the YOT, additional partners may also be recruited to the joint strategic effort to prevent offending by children and young people.
The Association is able to draw on the wealth of knowledge and the breadth of members’ experience to promote public understanding of youth crime issues and to play its part in shaping the youth crime agenda.
Our members run services providing community-based supervision for children and young people who offend. We also work closely with staff in secure units and young offender institutions to ensure that young people in custody have as smooth a transition as possible back in to the community.
The AYM welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the revision of General Comment No. 10 which reflect some of the principles of the AYM, namely:
- an increase to the minimum age of criminal responsibility,
- the appreciation of children who offend as children, not offenders, juveniles or young adults,
- the importance of not detaining young children,
- the acknowledgment of the harmful effect of stigmatisation against children who have offended and the negative effect of this on their futures.
Comments on Revision
We appreciate the child friendly approach to this document and welcome the minimum standards sets for State parties and higher standards parties should pursue. In particular we welcome the call for more progress by State parties to increase and align the minimum age of criminal responsibility, assure their rights to a fair trial, restrict the deprivation of liberty of children and increase the prevention and diversion of children from entering the criminal justice system.
We note that in paragraph 9 you recognize that “Many children in conflict with the law are also victims of discrimination, e.g. when they try to get access to education or to the labour market”. However, it would be useful to include the fact that they are also discriminated against whilst in contact with the criminal justice system.
The AYM welcomes that the General Comment now refers only to children and the move toward more child friendly terminology such as child justice but consider that you could go further by removing terms such as juvenile justice, vagrancy and recidivists etc. which are more prejudicial.
Prevention and Diversion
We welcome the fact that you distinguish between prevention (Section A) more aligned to the ‘public health approach’, which could ensure that all agencies understand their responsibilities better, and diversion as the preferred response to criminal justice disposals for the majority of children, including the removal of mentioning minor offences and first time entrants. In both sections however, we would encourageyou to consider changing your terminology. In paragraph 18 you define certain exploitation types, we would suggest you do not make such distinctions. In paragraph 19 which discusses ‘dropping out of school’ we would suggest your replace this with ‘excluded from school’ which better reflects the reality of most children’s experiences.
We welcome your assertions in paragraph 28
“…to strictly limit the use of deprivation of liberty, and in particular pre-trial detention, as a measure of last resort. From the moment of arrest, and during the disposition phase of the proceedings, deprivation of liberty must be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (art. 37 (b))”
Whilst we recognize that there is a desire not to duplicate too much throughout this document we feel that at this point in the General Comment it would be beneficial to refer to the content of paragraphs 98 and 99 which note that the:
“Use of pre-trial detention as a punishment violates the presumption of innocence” (para 98) and, “There should be a discretion to release with or without conditions, such as reporting to a police station or probation officer, and the payment of monetary bail should generally not be a requirement”.
We feel this would place emphasis on the equality of treatment of a child being considered for diversion.
Similarly the content of Section D paragraphs 67 – 81 relate as much to children arrested and diverted as they do for those prosecuted and appearing in court. In particular paragraph 65:
“The Committee reiterates that, for children in conflict with the law, the time between the commission of the offence and the final response to this act should be as short as possible. The longer this period, the more likely it is that the response loses its desired positive, pedagogical impact, and the more the child will be stigmatized”.
We welcome your statement that “without delay” (art. 40 (2) (b) (iii) of CRC) relating to determination of matter, are both stronger than the term “without undue delay” of article 14 (3) (c) of ICCPR. The current practice of police releasing children for further investigation is observed by YOTs as increasing nationally.
We would encourage the General Comment to include the requirement for regulation and review in diversion. In particular this would protect a child from discrimination which the report on Black and Minority Ethnic Children. For example, the proportion of BAME young offenders in custody rose from 25% to 41% between 2006 and 2016, despite the overall number of young offenders falling; 54%, of children in custodial remand are BAME.
Age and Children in conflict with the law/Guarantees for a fair trial
The AYM agrees that the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MARC) should be raised from the low age of 10 in England and Wales. We therefore welcome your statement in paragraph 33 that the absolute MARC considered internationally acceptable is now 14 rather than 12, and that the Committee commends States parties that have a higher minimum age, for instance 15 or 16 years of age. We would encourage you to strengthen this statement to place more pressure on States parties to increase their MACR in line with, or preferably above, UNCRC recommendations.
We welcome the recognition in paragraph 46 that,
“…reaching 18 years does not mean the end of the juvenile justice specialised measures. The Committee recommends to States parties to ensure that these young persons can continue the completion of the programme or sentence in conditions suited to their age, maturity and needs and are not sent to centres for adults”.
This recognizes that maturity of children is not dependent on their chronological age. This is particularly relevant to children in conflict with the law who are more likely to suffer developmental delay and demonstrate behaviours more characteristic of younger children. The transition of children aged 18 years into adult provision has been demonstrated to significantly impact on their rehabilitation.
The removal of a sentence in paragraph 51 that reiterates article 40 (1) is concerning, removing an important emphasis on the need for children to be treated by professionals in a manner that promotes their sense of dignity and worth, respect for human rights, and reintegration.
The AYM welcomes paragraph 55 that the child,
“…has the right to be heard directly and not only through a representative or an appropriate body at all stages of the process, starting with the pre-trial stage when the child has the right to remain silent and no adverse inference should be drawn if he or she elects not to testify; and applies throughout the stages of adjudication and of implementation of the imposed measures. A child who is considered to be criminally responsible should be considered competent to effectively participate in all aspects of the trial”.
The AYM has for a long time been concerned about the ability of children to understand what is happening to them when in conflict with the law. We therefore welcome the comment in paragraph 57:
“A fair trial requires that the child in conflict with the law is able to effectively participate in the trial, and the child therefore needs to comprehend the charges, and possible consequences and penalties, in order to direct the legal representative, to challenge witnesses, to provide an account of events, and to make appropriate decisions about evidence, testimony and the measure(s) to be imposed. This includes a requirement that the proceedings be conducted in a language the child fully understands but if not, to be assisted by a free interpreter. Article 14 of the Beijing Rules provides that the proceedings should be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding to allow the child to participate and to express himself/herself freely. Taking into account the child’s age and maturity may also require modified courtroom procedures and practices”.
However, we would recommend that you include in this the right to an intermediary as made available to vulnerable witnesses. If children are to be deemed innocent until proven guilty they should not be afforded less protection and support than other children, and vulnerable adults, would be.
The AYM is committed to treating children in conflict with the law as children first. This has also been adopted by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. The AYM therefore welcomes paragraph 78 which states:
“The right of a child to have his/her privacy fully respected during all stages of the proceedings reflects the right enshrined in article 16 of CRC”.
We particularly welcome the clarification:
“All stages of the proceedings” includes from the initial contact with law enforcement (e.g. a request for information and identification) at least up until the final decision by a competent authority, or release from supervision, custody or deprivation of liberty, even if the child turns 18 during the course of the proceedings or release from custody”.
And the rationale for this:
“The rationale for the nonpublication rule, and its continuation following the child turning 18 years, is that publication causes ongoing stigmatization, which is likely to have a negative impact on his/her ability to have access to education, work, housing or to be safe.is document could be strengthened by reminding readers that children are entitled to anonymity by virtue of them being children (article 16), whether or not they are in contact with the law, and whether or not they are guilty of an alleged offence”.
We feel this makes it clear that in no circumstances should anonymity be forfeited, your call for any violations of this to result in sanctions and possibly prosecution is welcomed.
The AYM is concerned with the number of children being exploited in England and therefore welcome the recognition in paragraph 110 that children may become victims of multiple forms of violations. We also welcome the reminder to State parties in paragraph 112 that they should “treat these children primarily as victims and refrain from charging and prosecuting them – except for very serious offences.
Paragraph 123 states:
“…that all the professionals involved, inter alia, in law enforcement and the judiciary receive appropriate training on the content and meaning of the provisions of CRC.”
We would suggest that this statement could be strengthened by requiring all professionals to be trained in child development, appropriate to their role.
The AYM is committed to ensuring that all children are able to access information and encouraging partners to use language and mediums that support this genuine access. We would therefore like to suggest that any documentation designed to reach children is produced in a variety of formats that enable a child with communication needs to access and understand what they are being advised.
Chair, Association of YOT Managers Ltd.
For further enquiries regarding this response please contact:
Lesley Tregear, AYM Policy and Communications Officer
On behalf of members, AYM has submitted the following response to some of the questions in the MoJ consultation on Probation.
Youth Offending Teams have nearly 20 years’ experience of successfully managing offending by children up to the age of 18. In light of our understanding of brain development and maturation, we believe there is scope for using the same partnerships-based approach with young adult offenders up to the age of 25. The majority of these young adults are care leavers and/or have special education needs. Many are subject to formal Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and thus entitled to support from local partnerships until well into their 20s.
In preparation for this response we polled our members and received 80 responses, representing nearly two-thirds of the YOT managers in England. 51% would support the idea of youth offending teams extending their remit, subject to resourcing, to work with young adults up to age 21, and a further 24% would go even further and suggest an extension to age 25. Such a change would be consistent not only with legislation in relation to care leavers and EHCPs, but also with the way in which the secure estate separates young adults from older offenders.
With or without such a fundamental change to our remit, YOT managers stand ready to help shape a service for young adult offending that draws on the lessons from the reform of the youth justice system.
Our comments apply to England only as we have no remit to represent YOT Managers in Wales.
What steps could we take to improve the continuity of supervision throughout an offender’s sentence?
We are concerned about the experience of 18 year olds making the transition from youth justice to adult probation services, especially in cases where they are care leavers and/or the subjects of Education, Health and Care Plans because of special educational needs. There is a need for specialist, multi-agency teams to work with 18 to 25 year olds. NPS’s seconded officers in YOTs work hard to ensure transitions are effective but have been undermined in recent years by substantial cuts. We recognise and welcome the fact that NPS is now giving this interface greater attention.
What frequency of contact between offenders and offender managers is most effective to promote purposeful engagement?
In some cases this should be twice weekly in the early stages of supervision, reducing in frequency in subsequent weeks subject to an ongoing assessment of risk
What steps could we take to improve engagement between courts and CRCs?
Work with HMCTS to ensure there are active and effective court user groups in all areas
How can we promote unpaid work schemes which both make reparation to communities and equip offenders with employment-related skills and experience?
Adopt a restorative approach in which victims are actively involved in the process of identifying appropriate reparation activities. Also look at the example of The Skill Mill, a social enterprise working in the YJS https://www.theskillmill.org/
How could future resettlement services better meet the needs of offenders serving short custodial sentences?
We recommend adopting the model of locally based Resettlement Consortia as developed by the YJB and YOTs in the youth justice sector.
Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for responsible officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?
We see Probation as a social work service to the courts which has a particular responsibility for public protection and for safeguarding vulnerable victims and offenders. Risk assessment, report writing and risk management are core skills for case managers.
Do you agree that changes to the structure and leadership of probation areas are sufficient to achieve integration across all providers of probation services?
No. Clarity around structure and effective leadership will be a good start, but will not be sufficient on its own. There is a need for investment in training and a need to look outwards to build partnerships with other agencies in local areas.
How can probation providers effectively secure access to the range of rehabilitation services they require for offenders, and how can key local partners contribute to achieving this?
Partnership is of course a two-way street. Some Probation providers (CRCs and NPS) have not always been reliable partners to local authorities and can expect little in return. There is a need to rebuild trust.
What should our key measures of success be for probation providers, and how can we effectively encourage the right focus on those outcomes and on the quality of services?
We suggest: frequency and seriousness of reoffending; successful completion of orders and licences; use of restorative processes and victims’ confidence; full time education, employment or training at end of supervision; in suitable accommodation at end of supervision; accessing necessary health care at end of su