Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

legislation. The available evidence overwhelmingly confirms that Indigenous youngpeople do not receive the benefits of cautioning to the same extent as non-Indigenousyoung people. Unfortunately, most police services do not provide routine data comparingIndigenous and non-Indigenous cautioning rates. This lack of information severelyhinders policy evaluation.Recent interviews with Aboriginal Legal Service solicitors in the NT indicated arelatively infrequent use of cautions by police for Aboriginal young people. Solicitorswere of the view that the system was generally harsh for Indigenous young people whowere treated and processed much the same as adults. Police cautions are only availablefor first offenders, a factor which defeats the purpose of diversion and is likely todiscriminate significantly against Indigenous young people (Cunneen and McDonald 1997page 181).Aboriginal youth are less likely to be cautioned than non-Aboriginal youth in WA(ALSWA submission 127 page 334 referring to Crime Research Centre data). Aboriginalyouth account for 12.3% of cautions (Crime Research Centre 1995 page 6). Of allIndigenous youth who are formally processed by the police around one-third receive apolice caution and the remaining two-thirds are charged with an offence.Conversely, two-thirds of non-Indigenous young people are cautioned and theremaining one-third are charged (Crime Research Centre 1995 page 18). The cautioningsystem in WA ‘as it is employed at present, further disadvantages [Aboriginal juveniles]and further increases the disproportionately negative treatment they receive under thejuvenile justice system’ (submission 127 page 369). Furthermore the Inquiry was toldthat police are attaching conditions to cautions although there is no provision to do so inthe legislation (submission 127 page 369). Contrary to Recommendation 240 of theRoyal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, police cautions are issued in WAwithout the involvement of parents (submission 127 page 369).Factors which Western Australian police are required to take into account whendeciding whether to caution include offending history and seriousness of the offence.They also include ‘extra-judicial’ factors such as family background, school attendanceand employment. These are precisely the types of factors likely to cause discriminationagainst Indigenous youth (Gale et al 1990 pages 56-58).In Victoria police instructions indicate that the preferred order of dealing withjuveniles is ‘no further action’, a caution under the police cautioning program, proceed byway of summons, arrest, charge and consider bail, and finally arrest, charge and remandin custody as a last resort. Arrest should only take place in ‘exceptional circumstances’and must be authorised by an officer of at least the rank of senior sergeant. However, theVictorian Government advised the Inquiry that in Victoria in 1995-96 Indigenous youngpeople were significantly less likely to receive an official police caution than non-Indigenous young people (11.3% compared to 35.6%). Indigenous young peopleapprehended by police were twice as likely to be proceeded against by way of arrest(46.6%) compared to non-Indigenous youth (23.5%). As a result, while slightly morethan one-third of non-Indigenous youth apprehended by police avoid appearing in court