YOUTH CRIME
118. Youth Crime is one of the most serious
problems facing England and Wales. The Government has made it
clear that reform of the youth justice system is a key priority
and it is planning wide-ranging action to ensure that young offenders
are dealt with speedily and effectively. Not only does the Government
wish to address and tackle the causes of crime, but it wants a
youth justice system which is more effective and efficient than
has previously existed.
119. The Government's proposals for reform
of the youth justice system in England and Wales were set out
in a White Paper which was published in November. [21]At
the heart of the Government's approach is a determination to reassert
the importance of personal and social responsibility. Much more
emphasis needs to be placed on making young offenders face up
to the consequences of their actions—for themselves, their
victims and the community. Action is being taken on several fronts
to deliver these objectives. A number of changes are contained
in the Crime and Disorder Bill. They have been covered in detail
in three consultation papers: "Tackling Youth Crime"
published on 25 September 1997; "New National and Local Focus
on Youth Crime" published on 9 October 1997; and "Tackling
Delays in the Youth Justice System" published on 15 October
1997.
Reducing Delays
120. One of the Government's top priorities
is faster and more efficient youth offender proceedings. A key
target—one of the Government's five election pledges —is
to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young
offenders.
121. It currently takes an average of 131
days (around 4.5 months) for a young person who commits an offence
to be sentenced. In the worst cases, offenders are not dealt with
until a year or more after the offence was committed. The Audit
Commission's report "Misspent Youth" (November 1996)
[22]found that four out
of 5 cases observed in that study were adjourned, and a young
person could expect to appear in the youth court an average of
four times in the course of one case.
122. Delay is bad for the young offender.
The sooner a young person is dealt with—whether they are
cautioned or come before the courts—the sooner that young
person's offending behaviour can be addressed. Just as important,
delays of this kind anger, frustrate and distress the victims,
and affect the local community too. During the time that young
people are awaiting trial on bail they all too often continue
their offending so that by the time the case comes to trial they
have not just one but a string of offences to answer for. Reducing
the time between arrest and sentence will reinforce the link between
offence and punishment, ensuring that young people face up to
the consequences of their offending and understand why it is wrong.
Swift justice is both fair and necessary, if young people are
to take responsibility for their actions.
123. The Government believes that significant
improvements can be achieved through a combination of non-statutory
and statutory measures and through more effective inter-agency
co-operation. Delays can occur at all stages of the process. Every
agency needs to look critically at its own procedures and at how
it can work more effectively with other agencies.
124. The Government has already taken steps
to encourage and support change in this area. The Lord Chancellor
wrote to all Chairmen of Youth Panels in May 1997 to encourage
them to take firm action to reduce delays during court proceedings
and, in particular, to be more critical in granting adjournments
in the Youth Court. The Lord Chancellor welcomed and endorsed
advice, issued by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices'
Clerks' Society in November 1996, that where there is evidence
of spree offending there may be justification for departing from
the practice of seeking to tie up all outstanding cases against
an offender and proceeding immediately to sentence, even though
other offences remain to be tried. The Government welcomes the
positive response that there has been to the Lord Chancellor's
letter.
125. Building on this initiative, comprehensive
guidance was issued in October 1997 to courts, police, Crown Prosecution
Service, probation services, social services and schools highlighting
best practice in reducing delays. The guidance offers practical
advice on action to reduce delays with the existing youth justice
system. In particular, it asks local agencies to establish fast
tracking schemes for persistent and spree offenders. The Government
believes that all cases should be dealt with as quickly as possible
but that this is particularly important where the young people
concerned have a history of offending or have fallen into a pattern
of repeat offending which needs to be quickly nipped in the bud.
Such offending wrecks the lives of young people and those they
victimise. This is why the Government has promised to halve the
time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. Fast
tracking arrangements, against the background of other planned
changes will help achieve this aim.
126. The consultation document "Tackling
Delays in the Youth Justice System", published in October
1997, sets out a number of legislative proposals which are intended
to remove obstacles to the speedy and efficient handling of cases;
introduce new and more effective procedures; and establish greater
discipline in the processing of cases through the setting up of
statutory time limits. The key measures are set out below:
— proposals to
implement many of the recommendations made by the Review of Delay
in the Criminal Justice System, which covers adult and youth courts,
are included in the Crime and Disorder Bill. These measures will
help to speed up proceedings in the Youth Court.
— the Crime and
Disorder Bill also seeks to reverse the ruling in R v Khan[23],
so that where a Youth Court commits a case to the Crown Court
it need not await the outcome of that case before proceeding to
sentence the same defendant for unrelated charges;
— the Bill also
clarifies that where the Youth Court is dealing with a defendant
facing multiple charges (including those commonly referred to
as "spree offenders") there is no obligation to adjourn
in order to tie up all outstanding cases;
— new powers are
contained in the Bill to set statutory time limits in cases involving
young offenders to run from arrest to first listing and from conviction
to sentence;
— existing powers
to set statutory time limits for cases from first court listing
to start of trial will be brought into effect for young offender
cases, as they will also for adult cases. Time limits for young
offenders will be tougher than those set for adults; and even
stricter time limits will be set for cases involving persistent
young offenders.
127. Statutory time limits will be underpinned
by performance targets for cases involving young offenders, with
local and national performance targets monitored by the new Youth
Justice Board for England and Wales and by strict criteria for
granting extensions to time limits.
New Structures
128. The effective and consistent delivery
of work with young offenders across England and Wales is an essential
element in the effort to tackle youth crime. The Government proposes
to improve the delivery of that work by introducing new structures
at local and national level. It is using the Crime and Disorder
Bill for this purpose.
Youth Offender Teams
129. Turning young people away from crime
usually means addressing several aspects of their lives. This
requires the involvement of a range of local agencies—local
authorities (social services, education and youth service), the
probation service, the police and health authorities all have
an important contribution to make. The Government wishes to see
all these agencies participating in giving proper priority to
work with young offenders.
130. In some parts of England and Wales
good inter-agency arrangements for work with young offenders are
already in place, but there is a lack of consistency in these
across the country. The Government therefore proposes that new
Youth Offender Teams should be established in all areas to pull
together all the relevant local agencies in delivering community-based
intervention with and supervision of young offenders. The Teams
will be tasked with securing a real change in attitude and behaviour
by young offenders and ensuring proper control and punishment
for persistent offending.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
131. The Government also proposes to establish
a new national body to provide a clearer framework for local action
to tackle youth offending. This body will be called the Youth
Justice Board for England and Wales. It will monitor the operation
of the youth justice system as a whole, advise Ministers on changes
needed and draw up standards for the work of Youth Offender Teams
and the provision of youth justice services. The Board will also
seek to identify, disseminate and promote good practice in work
with young offenders.
Juvenile Custodial Sentences
132. The Government is committed to ensuring
that courts have a range of effective sentencing options—community-based
as well as custodial—for all juvenile offenders. Where young
people commit very serious offences or repeatedly offend, a custodial
penalty, which provides a positive and constructive regime, may
be the most effective and appropriate means of preventing re-offending,
protecting the public and ensuring that the young person makes
amends for his or her behaviour. The Government believes, however,
that the present custodial arrangements for juveniles are chaotic
and dysfunctional and is committed to reforming these. It therefore
proposes to rationalise the custodial penalties available for
juvenile offenders with a view to providing a more flexible, coherent
and appropriate range of sentencing options for the courts.
133. The Government intends that a new detention
and training order will be made available for other imprisonable
offences—but for 10 to 14 year olds this would only be available
if their offending is serious and persistent and for 10 and 11
year olds this would be used only where custody is necessary to
protect the public from further offending. The order would be
a combination of custody and supervision (the presumption being
half and half): the orders would be available for between four
months and two years. It will only be introduced for 10 to 11
year olds if it proves necessary.
134. In the meantime, the Government has
decided to implement provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994 for a secure training order for persistent 12 to
14 year old offenders as an interim measure. The Government believes
that for the most serious and persistent offenders who have not
responded to community-based interventions and who continue to
wreak havoc in the community, a custodial option should be available
to the courts as a means of protecting the public and tackling
the young person's offending behaviour. It is for this reason
that the Government has decided to continue with the contract
for the first secure training centre at Cookham Wood in Kent which
was agreed by the previous Government. The criteria for making
the Secure Training Order are that:
— the offender
has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences;
— the offender
has previously proved unable or unwilling to comply with the requirements
of supervision in the community; and
— the nature or
seriousness of the offending justifies a custodial sentence under
the criteria contained in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act
1991.
135. The Order can last from six months
to two years. Offenders would spend the first half of the sentence
in Secure Training Centres, providing positive regimes offering
high standards of education and training within secure conditions.
The second half of the Secure Training Order would be spent under
structured and intensive supervision in the community to try to
ensure that offenders do not simply return to offending.
136. The first Centre is expected to open
in April 1998. The previous Government signed a contract in March
1997 with ECD (Cookham Wood) Ltd—a consortium led by Group
4/Tarmac—for the design, construction, management and finance
of this first Secure Training Centre at Cookham Wood in Kent.
Final Warning Scheme
137. The Government believes that police
cautions can work for some offenders. The Home Office have drawn
regular samples of those cautioned for standard list offences.
The most recent samples[24]
suggest that 82 per cent of those cautioned in 1991 were not subsequently
convicted for such an offence within the next two years, and 68
per cent were not cautioned or convicted within the next two years.
However, cautions need to be carefully targeted to ensure that
they are effective in preventing future offending. Research published
in August 1997 by the Home Office[25]
suggests that this is not happening in every police force, as
cautioning practice varies considerably between different areas.
In some police force areas, second or subsequent cautions accounted
for less than 10 per cent of all cautions. In other areas, the
rate of repeat cautions is far higher, and in one police force
area over 50 per cent of cautions issued were second or subsequent
cautions. This sort of inconsistency weakens public confidence
in the criminal justice system. It also means that some juveniles
are receiving caution after caution. Young people need to know
that continued criminal behaviour will have more serious consequences.
138. The Government has therefore introduced
proposals for a new statutory Final Warning scheme for young offenders
in the Crime and Disorder Bill. The new scheme will replace police
cautions for juveniles, and will ensure that the police response
to juvenile offending is both effective and consistent. The scheme
will mean that when a young person offends and admits guilt, the
police will have the choice of issuing a formal police reprimand
(if the offence is minor), issuing a Final Warning or charging
the individual. The police will always have the option of pressing
charges. In serious cases, the presumption will be that the child
or young person should be charged.
139. It is proposed that legislation should
specify that the response to a young person's offending should
be progressive:
— if a young offender
receives a police reprimand for a first offence any subsequent
offence should be met by a Final Warning or criminal charges—there
should be no circumstances in which an offender receives two police
reprimands;
— if a first offence
is met with a Final Warning, the next offence should automatically
lead to criminal charges (except in very limited circumstances);
and
— if a young offender
is prosecuted and convicted for any offence and offends
again, the police should charge him or her for the subsequent
offence.
140. Where the police decide to charge a
young offender, the statutory duty of the Crown Prosecution Service
under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to review the case
in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors before proceeding
to prosecute will still apply.
141. The Final Warning will usually result
in the offender being placed on a programme of interventions prepared
by the local Youth Offender Team. The purpose of the programme
would be to help the offender (and his family) to change the attitudes
and behaviour which led to the offending so as to prevent any
further offending. The programme could include:
— an assessment
of the young person to establish the reasons for offending behaviour
including any problems requiring attention;
— work with parents
to help them become more effective in supervising their child;
— short-term counselling
or group work with the young offender to bring about behavioural
change;
— supervised community
or youth activities; or
— work to improve
attendance and achievement at school.
142. Failure to complete an intervention
programme linked to a Final Warning would not result in prosecution
either for the original offence or for failing to complete the
intervention. However, failure to comply with the intervention
programme would result in action by the Youth Offender Team, which
might include modification or extension of the action plan. Cases
of unreasonable non-compliance would be recorded. If the young
person subsequently re-offended, a court would be invited to take
non-compliance into account when sentencing for the subsequent
offence.
143. The Government also wants to ensure
that juveniles who do re-offend after a Final Warning are dealt
with effectively in the court system. If a young person is convicted
of an offence within two years of receiving a Final Warning, it
is proposed that the option of a conditional discharge will not
be available to the court when sentencing him or her for the later
offence. This will ensure that young people who have benefited
from a Final Warning but who go on to re-offend regardless can
expect a significant punishment. The Government does not intend
to restrict the availability of absolute discharge.
144. The Government has set out detailed
proposals for the operation of the final warnings scheme and the
intervention programmes in the consultation document, "Tackling
Youth Crime".
21 No More Excuses-A New Approach To Tackling Youth
Crime in England and Wales. Cm 3809. November 1997. Back
22
Audit Commission, Misspent Youth: Youth People and Crime, November
1997. Back
23
This ruling currently requires the youth court, when a grave offence
is commited to the Crown Court, to await the outcome of the Crown
Court trial before proceeding with the other-related or unrelated-cases.
By implementing the recommendation of the Review of Delay, this
problem will be removed for related charges, as it will be possible
to send them to the Crown Court with the grave offence. The Crime
and Disorder Bill will also ensure that when a case is commited
to the Crown Court, the youth court does not have to delay dealing
with other unrelated cases against the same young offender while
the Crown Court trial is completed. Back
24
Page 99 Criminal Statistics 1995 Cm 3421. Back
25
Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Research Findings
52: Police Cautioning in the 1990s (Roger Evans and Rachel Ellis),
1997. Back
| 
