Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

deciding the future of individual Indigenous children and young people whobecome the subject of juvenile justice intervention, and• the need for Indigenous communities and organisations to have a key role inpolicy development and program implementation, where they desire this.A substantial body of literature has documented the too frequent use of arrest bypolice when dealing with Indigenous young people (Blagg and Wilkie 1995, Luke andCunneen 1995). Indigenous young people are more likely to be proceeded against byway of arrest than informal mechanisms such as warnings and cautions or lessintrusive mechanisms such as summonses and court attendance notices. Rules 1 and 2aim to minimise the use of arrest and to increase the use of warnings and attendancenotices (see Blagg and Wilkie 1995 page 193).There is widespread dissatisfaction with infrequent notification to Indigenousorganisations when Indigenous young people are detained and questioned by police.Failure to notify Indigenous organisations such as legal services increases thelikelihood of bail being refused and of children’s rights being infringed. Rule 3requires immediate notification, Rule 4 requires that the organisation be consulted inpolice decision-making about whether and if so how to proceed against the youngperson and Rule 5 prohibits interviewing the young person unless his or herrepresentative is present.Rules 5-8 inclusive controlling the interrogation of Indigenous young people bypolice are consistent with those proposed by Blagg and Wilkie based on theConvention on the Rights of the Child (1995 pages 304-5) and with Recommendations243 and 244 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Blagg andWilkie argued that these standards are required by CROC and should be applicable toall children and young people.Indigenous young people are massively over-represented among young peopledetained in police cells. Bail refusal, inability to satisfy bail conditions, unnecessarytransportation of young people from remote communities and the failure to supportand utilise Indigenous alternatives to police custody are major reasons for Indigenousyoung people’s detention in police cells. Rules 9-12 inclusive aim to reduce thedisproportionate numbers of Indigenous young people refused bail, given unrealisticbail conditions and detained in police cells. In the case of bail refusal Indigenousalternatives are to be used in preference to detention in police cells.Juvenile justice throughout Australia is moving towards two systems based onrace. It is developing into two systems for two categories of offenders: those who areminor offenders and those who are serious and/or repeat offenders. Minor offendersare channeled into the various diversionary programs such as police cautioning andconferencing schemes. Serious and repeat offenders, on the other hand, becomeineligible for diversionary programs and are dealt with more punitively throughsentencing regimes that are more akin to adult models and in some jurisdictionsinclude mandatory minimum terms. The segregation of treatment for ‘minor’ and‘serious’ juvenile offenders is occurring predominantly along racial lines.Indigenous young people are less likely to receive non-custodial sentences andmore likely to be sentenced to detention. Diversion of the young person into programs