Youth Crime briefing - Nacro

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 2006
Page 3: YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGWidening divers
Page 7 and 8: YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGReferences1 Nac

Youth Crime briefing - Nacro

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?