Youth Crime briefing - Nacro

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 2006Youth Crime briefingOut of court: making the most of diversionfor young people (recent developments)Contents Introduction Page 1 The established finalwarning schemePage 1 Recent developmentsand implicationsPage 2 Widening diversionaryoptions and increasingflexibility Page 3 Conclusion Page 6A larger print version ofthis briefing paper isavailable on request.Contact us on020 7840 6433.Nacro produces training,research, consultancy,advice, evaluations andinformation touching awide range of youthjustice issues. For furtherinformation contact us on020 7840 6439.Nacro Youth Crime169 Clapham RoadLondon SW9 0PUtel: 020 7582 6500fax: 020 7840 6420email: youthcrime@nacro.org.ukwww.nacro.org.ukIntroductionThis briefing develops themesintroduced in the Nacro Youth Crimebriefing Out of court: making themost of diversion for young people,published in September 2005. 1 Thatpaper made the case for increasingdiversion and outlined some of thebenefits that could accrue for bothyoung people and the youth justicesystem as a whole. It also outlinedsome possible ways in which toachieve a reduction in the number ofyoung people in court.Subsequent developments haveenhanced potential for divertingmore young people from court and,indeed, from entering the system atthe stage of reprimand or finalwarning. Reducing the number of‘first time entrants’ is stronglyassociated with the agenda for theprevention of youth crime and antisocialbehaviour which has benefitedfrom significant funding and newinitiatives. 2Thus, there is potential for youthoffending teams (Yots) and partneragencies to work together tomaximise these opportunities. ForYots, there have been changes totargets set by the YJB 3 that arerelevant, with regard to final warninginterventions and reducing first timeentrants. These changes togetherallow Yots to focus more attentionand resources on those with a higherrisk of re-offending and more seriousoffenders.In particular, this briefing considersthe implications of a recent HomeOffice Circular 4 containing additionalguidance on the final warningscheme which enhances potential fordiverting more young people fromcourt.The established finalwarning schemeFor first offences that are notsufficiently serious to demandprosecution, children and youngpeople may be dealt with by way of areprimand and/or a warning. Thesepre-court disposals have been themain diversionary options sinceimplementation of the Crime andDisorder Act 1998. Since then, thoseaged from 10 to 17 (inclusive) couldbe reprimanded on one occasion onlyfor a first offence. A final warningcould only be repeated in exceptionalcircumstances (and not within twoyears of the first). No reprimand orfinal warning could be given to thosewith a previous conviction,regardless of age, time lapse orrelative seriousness.This system has been criticised forlacking flexibility and in practice theproportion of offenders beingdiverted from court had beendecreasing. It has been shown thatthere are regional differences andthat many young people areprosecuted without having received areprimand or warning. For example,in its review of the youth justicesystem, the Audit Commission notedthat more than half of those receivinga referral order had no previousreprimand or warning. 5 In thenational evaluation of the finalwarning scheme, published in 2004,it was found that as many as 58 percent of those receiving final warningshad not previously beenreprimanded. 6 Different areas haverecorded diversion rates varyingfrom around two thirds of cases toonly one third. 7That pre-court disposals are effectivein reducing re-offending remainsNacro is a registered charity.Registration no. 226171Registered office169 Clapham Road London SW9 0PUpage

Out of court: making the most of diversion for young people (recent developments)evident, as was the case with the erstwhile caution.The latest analysis of re-conviction rates (reconvictionincludes reprimands and final warnings)compares pre-court disposals with other disposals,controlling for differences in characteristics betweencohorts of young people, which shows thatdiversionary disposals are more successful inreducing re-offending. Furthermore, a low rate ofdiversion from court has a correlation with highercustodial sentencing rates. 8The Audit Commission report Youth Justice 2004 9recommended that court proceedings should befocussed on serious and persistent offenders:Persistent and serious young offenders concern thepublic most, but too many minor offences reach thecourts. To free up more court time and resources tofocus more on the most persistent and seriousoffenders, minor offences should be dealt withoutside the court.In the earlier Nacro Briefing 10 , ways to maximisediversion from court were included and discussed:• Developing informal action as an added option:considering ways to add further options to makethe system more flexible and receptive toindividual needs and circumstances• Diversion options for those with a previousconviction: devising and using diversionaryapproaches/disposals for those who have aprevious conviction where appropriate• Decision making: modifications to the process ofdecision making by the police and CrownProsecution Service (CPS) to decrease the numberof prosecutions• Returning cases from court.Recent developments andimplicationsYJB performance managementChanges to the key performance measures for Yotsshould serve to assist in reducing numbers enteringthe system and in re-focusing resources on the moreserious cases. 11 With regard to prevention the new keyperformance indicator is:Reduce year on year the number of first time entrantsto the youth justice system by identifying children andyoung people at risk of offending or involvement inanti-social behaviour through a YISP or other evidencebased targeted means of intervention designed toreduce those risks and strengthen protective factorsusing Onset or other effective means of assessmentand monitoring.With regard to intervening early whilst bettertargeting interventions and resources, the previoustarget to ensure that at least 80 per cent of finalwarnings were supported by an intervention isreplaced by the new target to:Ensure that 100 per cent of young people on a finalwarning are supported by an intervention if:- their Asset score is greater or equal to 12, or- there are any concerns of risk of serious harm toothers, or- their score is less than 12 but any sections score 4.Home Office CircularThe Home Office Circular 12 (the circular) introducesadditional guidance on the operation of the finalwarning scheme and related pre-court options. Itupdates the earlier Final Warning Scheme: Guidancefor the Police and Youth Offending Teams (published inNovember 2002). 13In addition, in relation to the criminal justice review,the government has published Delivering Simple,Speedy, Summary Justice. 14 This contains a sectiondealing with young people in which it is proposed todevelop non-recordable/non-citable restorativeapproaches for dealing with young people informallyand to make conditional cautions available for youngpeople. Conditional cautions are currently availableonly for adults under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.The changes in place through the circular and thoseotherwise proposed (subject to legislation in the caseof conditional cautions) together result in significantimplications:• adding greater emphasis to the aim of maximisingdiversion from the court system• making more use of final warnings for dealing withbreaches of anti-social behaviour orders• considering cases for pre-court disposals wherethe only previous court disposal has been anabsolute or conditional discharge• use of penalty notices at all stages, includingwhere a final warning intervention is in progress• making maximum use of informal on the spotverbal warnings• consideration of strategic use of informal actions• introducing a new restorative action that is notcitable• introducing conditional cautions for those agedunder 18• improving the consistency of decision making• increasing the opportunities for bringing casesback from court for pre-court disposals• improving recording to avoid multiple finalwarnings and improve consistency.Although the changes contained in the circular shouldresult in changed practice and outcomes immediately,other proposals would require legislation (e.g.conditional cautions).page

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGWidening diversionary options andincreasing flexibilityThe legal framework for reprimands and finalwarnings has not been altered and the generalprinciples applying to decision making remainessentially the same. However, the circular doesemphasise some aspects and changes the guidance ondecision making to an extent. The net effect of thecircular is potentially to increase the rate of diversionoverall, reduce first time entrants to the system andimprove regional consistency.The circular restates the original aim of the finalwarning scheme, which is to divert children andyoung people from offending behaviour before theyenter the court system, and stresses that this meansthat where possible they should be warned, as opposedto prosecuted. It is apparent that in improvingconsistency, the intention is that those police forceareas with low diversion rates should review policyand practice to bring themselves more into line withthose with higher rates.Anti-social behaviour ordersThe use of anti-social behaviour orders has continuedto increase for children and young people and courtproceedings for breach of orders has become a matterof concern, particularly with a significant proportionof these being sent to custody. 15 What is not clear ishow many breaches of anti-social behaviour ordersare dealt with by way of reprimands or final warnings.The circular states that breaches of anti-socialbehaviour orders should be dealt with in line withnormal procedures for dealing with children andyoung people. Thus, in consultation with the youthoffending team and, as appropriate, the CPS, fullconsideration should be given to dealing with thebreach (if clearly admitted etc) by way of a warning,or even a reprimand, according to the nature of thebreach or unusual circumstances. If the breach isflagrant the circular suggests that prosecution wouldbe the normal response.Unfortunately, the new revised Home Office guidanceon anti-social behaviour orders 16 does not mention ofdiversion from court as an option in the sectionrelating to breaches, leaving the potential for currentpractice, favouring immediate charge, to continue. Onthe other hand, the guidance on strategicarrangements does note that breach may be dealt withby way of a final warning. In addition, the guidance toyouth offending teams on anti-social behaviour 17contains a reminder that a final warning can beconsidered:Taking into account the age group, breach can be dealtwith by a Final Warning with intervention where thebreach is the young person’s first criminal offence.However, in instances where a young person has had aprevious Final Warning (for other offences) or previouscriminal convictions, the breach should be prosecuted.There is some incongruency in interpreting thesevarious sources of guidance, not least when takingaccount of the new performance measure for Yotsregarding interventions with a final warning accordingto Asset scores or risk of serious harm to the public.In view of this shift in practice towards consideringbreaches of orders as suitable for being dealt with outof court, it may be necessary for local partneragencies to review local procedures, protocols,training and expectations. In addition, there may be asignificant number of breach proceedings that arebegun in court that might be suitable fordiscontinuance in favour of a pre-court intervention.Cases with a previous absolute orconditional dischargeIt has not been wholly recognised that a person mayreceive a reprimand or final warning even afterprevious findings of guilt in a court if that findingresulted in an absolute discharge or a conditionaldischarge. The circular gives a reminder that awarning is a valid option in these circumstances.A reprimand or final warning is available under theCrime and Disorder Act 1998 where, inter alia, theoffender has not been previously convicted of anoffence. 18However, absolute and conditional discharges are notviewed as convictions. This is according to s.14(1)Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,which states that … a conviction of an offence forwhich an order is made … discharging the offenderabsolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be aconviction for any purpose other than the purposes ofthe proceedings in which the order is made … . 19There is thus a somewhat anomalous relationshipbetween the final warning and conditional dischargein that a conditional discharge cannot be made withintwo years of a person receiving a final warning(except in exceptional circumstances) while theconverse does not apply. In addition, although thepotential to use pre-court options following aprevious discharge would seem to allow significantimpact to be made on increasing diversion options,this may be moderate in scale. There has been anincrease in the use of absolute discharges in recentyears, seemingly because this is the only low leveldisposal that can be used instead of a referral order.Such cases are normally associated with a very minoroffence for which a referral order may be viewed asdisproportionate. Cases where a conditional dischargeis made on a first court appearance has beenrestricted to those where a referral order has not beenavailable due to conviction following a plea of notguilty. More recently, however, courts have had thediscretion to make an order other than a referralorder for non-imprisonable offences 20 , thus increasingthe potential for a discharge on first conviction.There is a case for consideration of some minoramendments to statute to help to iron out some of theapparent anomalies in this context. The previousNacro Briefing 21 on maximising diversion made a casefor allowing diversion at any stage, even after morethan one previous conviction if that were appropriatepage

Out of court: making the most of diversion for young people (recent developments)according to the seriousness of the offence and othercircumstances. This is not only likely to be effective,but avoids unnecessary court proceedings.Furthermore, the international children’s rightsframework supports such a flexible approach.Yots, as well as the police and CPS, should ensure thateach case is considered for diversion where the onlyprevious court outcome has been a discharge.Penalty notices for disorderA further departure from the principle that areprimand or final warning should be the firstresponse to offending arises with regard to penaltynotices for disorder. Guidance from the YJB describespenalty notices for disorder as a potential first stageof intervention, although they may be used postconviction in addition.Penalty notices can be used by the police as the firststage of intervention for many forms of low-leveldisorder offences. They offer speedy action that saveson police, local authority and court time. They alsoensure that unacceptable behaviour is challenged. Inaddition, the offender receives an immediate sanction.A penalty notice does not constitute a criminal record.Penalty notices are designed for minor, straightforwardoffences, where the offence does not form part of apattern of offending behaviour, and greaterintervention is not required. 22The same guidance encourage the police to ensurethat the local Yot is informed of all penalty noticesissued against children and young people.The circular goes further than this with regard toissuing penalty notices against children or youngpeople who are currently subject to a final warningwith an intervention:The (PND) scheme is not designed to cater for seriousor repeat offending, but subject to that, a PND may beused at any stage in the offending career of a child oryoung person. A PND given whilst a young person is onan intervention programme under a Warning shouldnot affect how or whether a young person engageswith the Final Warning Scheme; but should be takeninto account by the Yot involved with designing andcarrying through the intervention programme, so thatthe programme can be more effectively tailored wherenecessary. The local Yot should always be informedwhen a youth PND is issued.There remains some concern that penalty notices arenot appropriate for young children and, of course,they do not involve assessment, support orintervention.Informal actionInformal actions do not have a clear statutory basisbut have been a feature of diversionary activities forseveral decades. In Northamptonshire, informal actionhas been a strong feature of the system, alongsidereprimands and warnings, and has continued to be sosince the reforms ushered in by the Crime andDisorder Act 1998. This approach has been the subjectof research and has produced proven benefits withregard to preventing offending, reducing costs andavoiding unnecessary criminalisation of children andyoung people. 23Informal action is not the same as inaction…. Perhapsthe ‘rediscovery’ of informal action would open up thespace necessary to offer appropriate intervention tovulnerable children without the stigmatising effects ofa formal record. Such an approach has the potential tosave considerable time and resources, while alsoreducing offending. 24Although this approach has attracted interest, it clearlydid not sit comfortably with the ‘two strikes’ approachof the final warning scheme. However, the circular doesinclude mention ‘informal actions’ but more in thesense of an instant verbal warning that is not recordedas a reprimand or warning in the criminal statistics andisn’t cited in subsequent court proceedings.It might be concluded that, although instant verbalwarnings can form an effective part of a pre-courtsystem, to maximise the potential of informal actions,a multi-agency strategic lead is the pre-requisite.One form of early informal action is now beingintroduced for piloting around the country. This isbased on a restorative justice approach beingdeveloped by the YJB and the Association of ChiefPolice Officers to be used as a first, non-citableresponse to offending.The approach has the support of the government andhas recently been announced as part of the review ofcriminal justice in Delivering Simple, Speedy,Summary Justice, from the Home Office, Departmentfor Constitutional Affairs and the Attorney General’sOffice 25 :Neighbourhood policing teams including policecommunity support officers will be on the frontline inthe respect drive, forging a new relationship with localpeople based on active cooperation rather than simpleconsent and helping to increase feelings of safety andconfidence in the police within local communities.Central to this approach will be ways to deal with thetypes of low level misdemeanours where victims oftenprefer quick resolution such as a simple apology.Simple responses for the lowest level misdemeanours areparticularly important when dealing with young people.We are working with the Youth Justice Board and theAssociation of Chief Police Officers to develop effectiverestorative interventions for first misdemeanours wherea formal criminal justice response that forms part of anoffender’s criminal record and is declarable to employerswould be disproportionate. Getting a young person toapologise face to face and make amends is an importantpart of their learning. This is not about going soft oncrime. A face to face apology is often quite difficult for ayoung person to do. Neighbourhood policing links need tobe built with schools to embed restorative approacheswhere appropriate. We are looking to pilot this approachin four police force areas over the coming year.This represents a significant development with regardto widening options and increasing flexibility in thepage

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGsystem and complements both the Northamptonshiremodel and the immediate verbal warning issued onthe spot by police officers.Conditional cautionsConditional cautions were introduced by the CriminalJustice Act 2003 for adults. This resulted in a majoranomaly between the options available for adults andthose available for children and young people.Essentially, an adult with previous convictions,committing an offence suitable for being dealt without of court, could receive a conditional caution. Inthe case of children and young people, any offencecommitted after a previous conviction (but see notesabove regarding absolute and conditional discharges),or after the full complement of reprimand andwarnings had been issued, can only be dealt with byway of prosecution. This remains the case even wherethe new offence is minor, isolated and/or after asignificant time lapse.The conditional caution differs from a final warningin several other ways. In particular, a failure to keepto the conditions of the caution may result inprosecution.The government has announced an intention tolegislate to allow for a version of conditionalcautioning for children and young people. 26In its present form a conditional caution may beissued if certain requirements are met 27 :• there is evidence that the offender has committedan offence• there is sufficient evidence to charge the offenderwith the offence and the prosecutor decides that aconditional caution should be given• the offender admits to the prosecutor that he/shecommitted the offence• the effect of a conditional caution and thepotential for prosecution for failure to complyhave been explained to the offender• the offender has signed a document containing thedetails of the offence, an admission that he/shecommitted the offence, the offender’s consent tobeing conditionally cautioned and the conditionsattached to the caution.In its original form, the conditions that could bedevised to attach to the caution must have theobjective of facilitating the rehabilitation of theoffender and/or ensuring that the offender makesreparation for the offence.It might be noted that the Criminal Justice and PoliceBill, at the time of writing, contains draft clauses toallow conditional cautions to also have the objectiveof punishment (including fines).Thus, new legislation is required to allow conditionalcautioning of those under the age of 18. It would bebeneficial if such legislation differed from that foradults by requiring the involvement of a parent orguardian and the Yot and having objectives other thanpunishment. In addition, there is a risk that ifconditional cautions are available at all stages theywould be a preferred option over a final warning.Thus, it would be recommendable to legislate toensure that a conditional caution can only be issuedin cases where a final warning is not available.Some detail is included in Delivering Simple, Speedy,Summary Justice:We also intend to legislate for a youth version of theConditional Caution to provide a robust interventionthat requires the young person to take responsibilityfor formal action to make amends and tackleunderlying problems in a supported way. As for adults,the conditions will be set by the Crown ProsecutionService, in consultation with the police and the YouthOffending Team and free legal advice will be available.As with the adult Conditional Caution, the youngperson can refuse the conditions and go to court, but ifthey accept the conditions, they will face prosecutionfor the offence they have committed if they agree tothe conditions and do not carry them out.Decision makingThere are wide inconsistencies between differentareas, and sometimes between police stations in thesame police force area, in decision making. One of theaims of the final warning scheme was to reduceinconsistency by geography and one of the purposesof the circular is to reduce this so far as possible.Since the earlier (2002) guidance to the police andYots on the final warning scheme, there has been ashift in decision making arrangements giving the CPSmore responsibility (this would be more so in the caseof conditional cautioning). While the police retainresponsibility for deciding on reprimands andwarnings in cases where the offence is summary or‘either way’, the circular encourages consultation withthe CPS where appropriate. In any event, the policeshould record the reason for charging for the CPS toreview (also, see below regarding returning casesfrom court). In cases where the offence is indictableonly the decision to reprimand, warn or charge is amatter for the CPS.The circular adds guidance, particularly to the police,which seeks to increase consistency and recognisesthe use of informal action:There are significant variations … in the number ofoffenders who are reprimanded or warned as aproportion of those who are convicted without havingthe benefit of being reprimanded or warned. In someplaces this figure is as high as 25%. This discrepancymay result from differing perceptions of the boundarybetween informal action, reprimands and warnings.Either way, this degree of variation is to be avoided.Accordingly, forces which reprimand/warn adisproportionately high or low number of offendersand those which frequently bypass the Final WarningScheme and go straight to prosecution should ensurethat their force guidelines are sound and are beinginterpreted sensibly ie police force areas should followthe national guidelines.page

Out of court: making the most of diversion for young people (recent developments)Where there is doubt about whether a prosecutionshould be brought or a reprimand/warning given in aparticular case, it will often be useful to seek the opinionof the Crown Prosecution Service at an early stage.A specific group who should be subject to carefuldecision making are those children and young peoplewho are looked after under the terms of the ChildrenAct 1989 and who are arrested for offences that relateto their looked after status (for example, offences andincidents in children’s homes). The CPS have recentlyissued specific guidance for such cases that reflectsthe view that some looked after children are chargedunnecessarily following behaviour that could be dealtwith informally or would not have come to attentionin the case of many in the wider population.Returning cases from court for pre-courtdisposalsIt has been noted above, and in the previous briefingpaper, that a large number of cases reach court thatmight be better dealt with by a pre-court disposal. Inmany cases this is due to an incomplete admission ofguilt to the police at an earlier stage, but in others itmay be due to inconsistent decision making. Theearlier Nacro briefing 28 recommended that, althoughcases can be brought back from court successfully(before conviction), it would be preferable to considerwhat amendments to procedural law might ensure theproper review of cases with a view to discontinuance.Whilst there remains no statutory safeguard regardingreview of cases once at court, the Home Office hasrecognised the need to strengthen guidance. Thecircular adds guidance, with quite significant stresson reducing inappropriate prosecutions, particularlyfor the police and CPS:Where the police have charged a youth and the CrownProsecution Service decide that it is more appropriatefor the youth to be given a reprimand or finalwarning, then the youth shall be given a reprimand orfinal warning if the young offender qualifies for areprimand or warning under the CDA 1998. In allcases best practice dictates that the reason given bythe police for charging the young person should berecorded on the court/case file and brought to theattention of the Crown Prosecution Service so that itcan be taken into account when deciding where thepublic interest lies and they can make appropriaterepresentation in Court if the need arises.In many areas, common practice at present is for thecourt to adjourn to allow the case to be processed forreprimand or warning prior to formal discontinuanceof the prosecution (the normal safeguards must stillapply regarding the child or young person’s right tounderstand the implications and to offer informedconsent etc).In view of the significant numbers of cases whichappear to reach court with no previous reprimand orwarning, yet are characterised by the entering of pleasof guilt, it is apparent that a committed approach bylocal courts, police, prosecutors, Yot court staff anddefence lawyers would impact significantly inreducing the court population, allowing greater focuson more serious and persistent offending and,potentially, reducing custodial sentences.RecordsThe circular reports YJB research that indicates theexistence of cases where there have been morereprimands and/or warnings than the current systemand law allows, with a risk of bringing the system intodisrepute. The circular warns that such final warningsmay be considered a nullity and would not be citablein subsequent court proceedings.Where the police are not able to ascertain theindividual’s history, the guidance suggestsconsidering the use of police bail to allow extra timefor enquiry, including consultation with the Yot.The accurate recording of reprimands/warnings isessential in order both to avoid multiple warnings andto achieve greater consistency. This is especially true ofnon-recordable offences. Some forces already useOperational Support Unit computer recording systemswithin their Criminal Justice Administration Units.However, existing recording systems should beimproved, where possible, particularly so as to providea central force record where this does not alreadyexist.It might be noted that where informal actions of anysort form a part of the local system, the localrecording system is of critical importance toeffectiveness and delivery. Northamptonshire hasextensive experience of such recording systems whichhave been developed over many years, and alongsidereprimands and warnings.ConclusionThere is a strong case for increasing diversion fromcourt and for providing preventive and more informalresponses to reduce first time entrants to the system.Achieving this while retaining the current finalwarning has been difficult. However, there are anumber of ways emerging to widen diversion byproviding options for support and intervention as analternative to early resort to reprimands and finalwarnings, by improving decision making to ensurethat fewer cases are charged and by maximising thepotential for bringing cases back from court for precourtdisposals.Achieving this while also increasing consistencygeographically is dependent on local leadership andjoint strategic approaches by the key agencies,including the police (crucially), the CPS, Yots andcourts. There are critical links with the widerprevention agenda (including prevent and deter andthe development of youth inclusion and supportpanels etc) and therefore with mainstream servicesand Children’s Trusts, which should be fully involvedin the evolution of strategies to maximise diversionand to support children, young people and theirfamilies in an holistic, community based manner.page

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGReferences1 Nacro Youth Crime Briefing (September 2005), Out ofcourt: making the most of diversion for young people,London, Nacro.2 For further detail, see Nacro Youth Crime Briefing(March 2006), Prevention and youth offending teams.London, Nacro.3 From April 2006, the Youth Justice Board for Englandand Wales is known as the YJB.4 Home Office Circular 14/2006, The Final WarningScheme. London. Home Office.5 See Audit Commission (2004), Youth Justice 2004: Areview of the reformed youth justice system. Forfurther discussion and detail refer to Nacro YouthCrime Briefing (2005), Out of court: making the mostof diversion for young people.6 Final warning projects: the national evaluation of theYouth Justice Board’s final warning projects, YouthJustice Board, 2004.7 For further detail and discussion of the correlationbetween low diversion rates and high custody rates,see Nacro Youth Crime briefing (June 2006), ReducingCustody: a systemic approach, London, Nacro.8 For further detail, see Nacro (2005) A betteralternative: Reducing child imprisonment. London,Nacro.9 See reference 5 above.10 See reference 1 above.11 For detail of performance measures and targets forYots, and to see detail of previous performance, seethe YJB’s Corporate and Business Plan for 2006/07 to2008/09, available at http://www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=301&eP=YJB12 See reference 4 above.13 For detail of which parts and annexes of the originalguidance are replaced, or updated, see the circular.14 Home Office, Department for Constitutional Affairsand the Attorney General’s Office (July 2006)Delivering Simple, Speedy, Summary Justice. London,DCA.15 Detail about anti-social behaviour orders againstchildren and young people is available at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos2.htm16 See A guide to anti-social behaviour orders, HomeOffice (August 2006) available on http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?c=408&aid=380917 See A guide to the role of youth offending teams indealing with anti-social behaviour, published by theYouth Justice Board (2005) and available on http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?c=408&aid=380918 See s65 (1)(d) Crime and Disorder Act 1998.19 Note that a referral order cannot be made following aconditional discharge, although it can be madefollowing an absolute discharge (see s17(5) Powers ofCriminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.20 For details see Statutory Instrument: The ReferralOrders (Amendment of Referral Conditions)Regulations 2003. (SI 2003 No. 1605).21 See reference 1.22 See reference 16.23 For further discussion, see Nacro Youth Crime Briefing(September 2005) Out of court: making the most ofdiversion for young people. For detailed analysis, seeKemp, V, Sorsby A, Liddle M, and Merrington S (2002)Assessing responses to youth offending inNorthamptonshire, Research Briefing 2, Nacro.24 Pragnell S (2005) Reprimands and Final Warnings, inBateman T and Pitts J (Eds) The RHP Companion toYouth Justice. Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishing.25 DCA (July 2006) Delivering Simple, Speedy, SummaryJustice available at http://www.dca.gov.uk/majrepfr.htm#cjr-dss26 Details in Delivering Simple, Speedy, Summary Justice.See reference 23.27 S23 Criminal Justice Act 2003.28 See reference 1 above.page

Out of court: making the most of diversion for young people (recent developments)page