Jersey Youth Justice Review

2019  R.70

Jersey Youth Justice Review Ministerial Foreword

This Review is intended to address a recommendation of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry that "the youth justice system move to a model that always treats young offenders as children first and offenders second".

We believe, as do the Council of Ministers and the wider Government, that we have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that children are protected within the criminal justice system.

The Inquiry has laid bare the historic failures of Jersey's system of child protection, and in particular the treatment of children in the care of the state. Young people who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system as victims, witnesses or offenders are often those most in need of help. We must ensure that in future, even where young people have done wrong, the Government of Jersey considers their needs not their behaviour and we do not lose sight of the fact that they are, first and foremost, children.

This review drew on local expertise, but was led by a UK expert, Professor Jonathan Evans from the University of South Wales. This was done to ensure that the review was independent and external, and to avoid the Jersey system' from investigating its own shortcomings. It finds good practice and best intentions throughout the criminal justice system, but also many areas that can be improved. It makes a significant number of recommendations that have been accepted in principle by the Council of Ministers. These recommendations are significant and wide-ranging, and bringing them to fruition will require the commitment of time, resources and political will across all parts of the Government.

As a first step, we have instructed officers of Justice and Home Affairs and Children, Young People, Education and Skills to determine how these recommendations may best be implemented and to return to the Council of Ministers with a detailed plan of action by the Autumn.

This is a rare opportunity to make a comprehensive and coherent set of improvements to the criminal justice system that will, we believe, make a significant difference to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It will also allow the Government to demonstrate its commitment to putting children first'.

Senator Sam Mézec   Connétable Len Norman Minister for Children  Minister for Home Affairs

JERSEY YOUTH JUSTICE REVIEW

Jersey Youth Justice Review

Jersey Youth Justice Review Steering Group

This Report has been by produced by the Jersey Youth Justice Review Steering Group. Internal Reviewers

Brian Heath, MBE, Chief Probation Officer (Steering Group Chair) Robert MacRae , QC, HM Attorney General

Sylvia Roberts, Law Officers' Department

Supt. Stewart Gull, States of Jersey Police

Danny Scaife, Chair Comité des Chefs de Police

Susan Devlin, Group Director, Children's Service

Julian Radcliffe, Director of Inclusion and Early intervention

Mike Capern, Head of Youth Service

Andrew Heaven, Director of Children's Policy

Gill Hutchinson, Building a Safer Society

James Lynch, Building a Safer Society

Dr Helen Miles (in the early stages of the Review)

External Reviewers

Dusty Kennedy, Director of Youth Justice Board Cymru (in the early stages of the Review), Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner in South Wales, and Freelance Consultant

Professor Jonathan Evans, University of South Wales (Lead author)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who has assisted the work of the Jersey Youth Justice Review.

The Steering Group would in particular wish to thank Bridget Shaw, Magistrate. Although she did not play a part in co-authoring the Report, it is important to acknowledge that as a consultee she consistently provided clarification on a number of issues that relate to the Youth Court. Additionally, we would like to thank Professor Peter Raynor of Swansea University for providing clarification on aspects of his past research and related matters.

Contents: Structure of Report

Executive Summary

1. Introduction
2. Prevention, Early Intervention and Diversion
3. The Courts and Statutory Supervision
4. The Deprivation of Liberty and Related Issues
5. Summary of Recommendations

Jersey Youth Justice Review: Main Report

1. Introduction
2. Prevention, Early Intervention and Diversion
3. The Courts and Statutory Supervision
4. The Deprivation of Liberty and Related Issues
5. Conclusion: Revisiting the Key Questions
6. Summary of Recommendations

Appendices

1. Membership of Steering Group
2. International Framework of Children's Rights Relevant to Youth Justice
3. Summary of Methodology
4. A Proposal for the Future
5. Intensive Support Team
6. Attorney General's Guidance on Relevant Issues
7. Statistical Data
8. Literature Review on Desistance
9. Checklist on the Implementation of the 2010 Review Recommendations
10. Children and Criminal Records Disclosure Benchmarking Data: A Comparative Analysis of Jersey, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
11. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Trauma-Informed Practice
12. Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association and United Nations Children's Fund Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children in Contact with the Law

Executive Summary

Introduction

0. The Terms of Reference of the Jersey Youth Justice Review are produced in full in 1.3 of the main Report. Three main points of reference guided the drafting of these Terms of Reference: the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (2017), which recommended Jersey move towards a welfare-based model of youth justice; the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); and the Report commissioned by the States of Jersey,  Youth Justice: Options for Change (Evans et al, 2010). Underpinning the Work of the Review is a commitment to children's human rights and a philosophy that treats young people in contact with the law as children first and offenders second'. It recognises that children who break the law should be held to account along with those adults who have responsibility for them. In most cases this will include parents, family members and carers. However, it should also involve holding to account those responsible for delivering services to children in such areas as education, health, social services and leisure.
1. The 2018 Jersey Youth Justice Review established a Steering Group comprising key stakeholders in Jersey and two external consultants to assist with the work. The membership of that Steering Group can be found in Appendix 1. The terms of reference were drafted and agreed in April 2018 and in May 2018 the two external members of the Steering Group were appointed.
2. The terms of reference of the Review are very wide and – given the available resources, capacity and time constraints – ambitious. This Report does not pretend to be the product of a full evaluation or comprehensive research project. Nevertheless, the process, which has been informed by a rapid assessment approach, has not been without a measure of rigour. The Steering Group has received relevant data from key agencies, along with both published and draft policy documents and guidelines. There has also been engagement with stakeholders and key informants via meetings, email exchanges and telephone conversations. Initial findings were presented to, and tested with, a wider audience of stakeholders and key informants on 3rd September 2018. On the basis of that discussion a set of draft recommendations was presented to a meeting of the Steering Group on 21st September. On 19th October a draft Report was submitted for discussion at a meeting of the same group. The final Report is the end product of an iterative process.
3. This Executive Summary highlights the main findings and concludes with a full list of the recommendations.  

Prevention, Early Intervention and Diversion

0. A few preliminary points should be made about the nature of offending by children. Lawbreaking, usually at the less serious end of the spectrum, is widespread amongst young people and should be understood in terms of adolescent development, boundary-testing and experimentation. Most offending does not come to the attention of the criminal justice system and most young people grow out of crime' without any formal intervention. For those that are apprehended, the lightest brush with the criminal justice system is usually sufficient to deter them from further involvement in crime. However, prolonged and intensive exposure to the criminal justice system is likely to extend and entrench offending behaviour. There is merit, therefore, in diverting young people from the criminal justice system wherever possible. Those young people who persist in offending are more likely to have experienced problems and disadvantages in their lives. This can include problems in their families, the experience of trauma, mental health issues and the disadvantages that result from unequal access to opportunities. On the latter point it is worth noting that the adverse impact of social inequality on children is now being discussed openly in Jersey political discourse. This is welcomed by the Review because youth justice is not solely about addressing young people's offending behaviour. It is also concerned with ensuring that support and social justice are brought into the lives of young people who are at a disadvantage.
1. In line with its Rights-based approach, the Review considers it is important that all children have equal access to a set of universal social entitlements in such areas as education, health, accommodation, social services and leisure. When children come to the attention of the criminal justice system it is an opportunity to check on whether they are in the process of becoming detached from such provision and, where appropriate, reconnect them. The Review is pleased to note that the direction of social policy development being undertaken by the States of Jersey is in alignment with the approach advocated in this Report. The challenge is now to translate such aspirations into practical service delivery by removing the barriers that exclude some young people from accessing the services and resources they need to lead fulfilled, law- abiding lives.
2. Those young people with more complex needs (who may also exhibit challenging behaviour), require a more targeted approach. A good example of this approach was evident in multi- agency initiatives which worked with a small cohort of young people who presented a range of needs and challenging behaviours, including those at odds with the law. The results of this initiative are impressive.
3. The States Police are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. The 2010 Review reported that a somewhat confrontational style of policing was prevalent on the island. The

2018 Review is pleased to report that considerable progress has been made in the intervening period. There has been a welcome change to the way in which young people are policed and there is evidence of good partnership-working with other agencies, most notably the island's excellent Youth Service.  

4. Most young people who are apprehended for their offending are dealt with by the Parish Hall Enquiry. This unique institution, based on voluntary community involvement, provides a distinctive and effective first tier of intervention and diversion from prosecution. It is a good example of local informal justice based on the principle that those who have broken the law should make amends and be reintegrated into the community. The 2010 Review recommended that the Parish Hall Enquiry would be enhanced if the Probation Service undertook preliminary assessments on young people due to appear, and advise the Centenier in advance. That recommendation was accepted and we are pleased to report that this practice is well- established and seems to be working well. The Parish Hall Enquiry has its critics, but there was consensus that this well-established institution should remain; not least because it works for most young people in terms of diverting them from prosecution and the adverse effects of criminalisation. The positive role of the Parish Hall Enquiry in reducing the flow of young people into the Youth Court should be acknowledged.
5. One way to divert more children from the formal criminal justice system is to raise the age of criminal responsibility from the comparatively low of age of 10 years. The main arguments for raising the age of criminal responsibility relate to recognising the developing maturity of children, their relative powerlessness and position of dependency on adults. One of the implications of raising the age of criminal responsibility is that young people currently entering the formal criminal justice system will need to be dealt with by children's services, education and health. It is entirely feasible to move to a welfare-based Scandinavian style administrative tribunal model or Children's Hearings system akin to that operating in Scotland. However, the Review judged that the alternative infrastructure required for a new model along these lines are not yet in place. Given that the age of criminal responsibility is scheduled to be reviewed in 2021, the Review recommends that the feasibility of introducing a non-criminal justice alternative model of dealing with offending behaviour be considered at the same time.
6. In the meantime it should be acknowledged that due to guidance on prosecution issued by the Attorney General, it is extremely rare for children below the age of 12 years to be prosecuted. Indeed, it is also very rare for those aged below 14 years to be prosecuted.

The Courts and Statutory Supervision

3.0 The Youth Court is not the most child-friendly forum within which to deal with young people's offending, but the Review was impressed with the commitment of sentencers to engaging with children and their families. Serious efforts are made to make the Court a forum where problems are addressed. Although the Royal Court is inevitably a more formal and potentially intimidating environment, the Review was encouraged to have sight of a Draft Practice Direction that would

– if implemented - improve the experience of children in this setting.

3.1 Commitment to the welfare principle in practice was in evidence in the Youth Court. The Review nevertheless believes that this commitment to the welfare principle should be enshrined in statute in line with Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

3.2 One of the issues that concerned the Youth Court in 2010 was how best to deal with persistent, as opposed to serious, offenders. The pressure to move vertically up the sentencing tariff has seemingly been resisted and each offence is considered on its own merits in line with a commitment to a horizontal sentencing approach. The 2018 Review did acknowledge, however, that the Youth Court has limited community sentencing options.

3.3 Custodial sentences appear to be in line with international conventions in the sense that they are used as a measure of last resort' for the most serious offences. Custodial sentences have dropped significantly since 2010. The constraints of suitable accommodation in the community does, however, mean that some young people are at risk of being remanded in custody.

3.4 The courts are well-served by the Probation Service. Personal Information Forms are completed for children being sent to the Youth Court by the Parish Hall Enquiry. The Social Enquiry Reports, meanwhile, are of a high standard.

3.5 Children on statutory orders are supervised by youth justice specialists working in the Probation Service. Assessment and supervision appear to be child-appropriate and of good quality.

The Deprivation of Liberty and Related Issues

0. As has been mentioned, custodial sentences appear to be used as a measure of last resort. This has led to a reduction in the number of children deprived of their liberty. This success has, however, created a problem  of social isolation for that minority of young people who are deprived of their liberty. At the time of the Review, for example, there was only one young person serving a custodial sentence.

1. The Review welcomes the fact that the Placements Panel places most children in Greenfields Secure Children's Home rather than at La Moye Prison.
2. The Review is concerned that education and training opportunities are limited while children are serving custodial sentences.
3. The Review is concerned that it is still possible for girls to be placed with adult female prisoners. Although this is a rare occurrence, this is clearly in breach of international conventions.
4. As has been mentioned, there is an issue of securing appropriate accommodation in the community for young people. As a result they are placed at risk of being kept overnight in police custody and/or being remanded in custody. This is an issue that should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

Summary of Recommendations

0. Summarised below are the recommendations of the Jersey Youth Justice Review. General: Youth Justice Strategy
1. There should be an understanding promoted across all relevant professional staff that the reasons children and young people present with challenging behaviour are many, complex and often interacting. As part of this, there should be an awareness that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged often present the greatest challenge and that evidence-based approaches are likely to have the greatest impact.
2. To develop a multi-agency youth justice strategy that addresses the rights and needs of children as perpetrators and victims within the existing children's human rights framework. This strategy should include a statement of clear aims. These aims should enshrine principles that protect and promote children's rights in the youth justice system. Accordingly it is recommended that consideration be given to the following aims:
3. The Youth Justice system should be compliant with international children's human rights conventions.

1. Welfare should be a primary consideration and young people should always be treated as children first and offenders second.
2. Whenever possible children should be diverted from the criminal justice system with the expectation that their needs will be met.

3. Young people in the youth justice system should have the same access to their rights and entitlements as any other young person.
4. Children in the youth justice system are kept safe at all times.
5. Children in the youth justice system should be seen and heard.
6. Children in the youth justice system should be dealt with in the least restrictive way possible and only deprived of their liberty as a measure of last resort.
7. Victims should be heard, their needs met, and - where appropriate - provided with the opportunity to share their views and take part in restorative processes.
8. Services should be held to account for addressing the needs of young people.

4. Establish a strategic multi-agency Governance Board to oversee and drive through implementation of the Youth Justice Strategy. The Governance Board should develop an agreed set of outcomes and measures in order to evaluate performance, including independent academic evaluation and independent inspection arrangements (ideally, both should be used in order to establish methodological triangulation).
5. It is recommended that a value for money' exercise be undertaken in order to estimate the costs of the different stages and elements of the youth justice system (e.g., Parish Hall Enquiries, court appearances, secure accommodation, etc.). This work will inform the priorities set by the Youth Justice Strategy.
6. The Youth Justice Strategy should sit within a broader child and youth participation strategy. This should be proactive in seeking the views of children and young people in relation to all of the key agencies and processes of the youth justice system. Children's voices should also be represented in the main governance structures of the system in order that young people can feedback on existing provision and contribute to the planning of future service delivery.
7. The Children and Young People's Plan and Pledge to Jersey's Children and Young People should be complemented by a Children's Charter of Rights that are linked to tangible universal entitlements guaranteed by the States of Jersey. The launch of such a Charter should be accompanied by,

1. A rolling programme of education and awareness-raising amongst children, families and all relevant professionals; and
2. Clear signposting to advice and advocacy services for children and their parents/carers.

8. The Youth Justice Strategy should sit within a well-developed Early Help model that ensures children's holistic needs are identified and responded to at the very earliest opportunity. As part of this, a whole system commitment should be made to ensure children access the right help at

the right time, minimising the need for specialist and statutory services. A panel comprising relevant professionals from key agencies should be established to identify and support the small number of children who may have become detached from universal services, with presenting and interacting difficulties in the areas of school non- attendance, exclusion and offending. Support would be provided by a virtual team (the Children's Integrated Support Team), working to the principle of minimum sufficient, and real time intervention. The panel should sit within a broader strategic framework that ensures all agencies are held to account in discharging their responsibilities.

9. Building on existing good practice, a Restorative Justice Strategy for Jersey should be developed. It should include developing appropriate practice in the domains of community, education, public care, Parish Hall Enquiry and criminal justice.

Changes to the Law, Guidance and Legal Practice

10. In line with Article 3 of the UNCRC 1989, which states that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration', the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 should be amended to include an explicit reference to this welfare principle.
11. Consideration should be given to a revision of the relevant legislation so as to give further powers to the Youth Court to deal with trials and sentencing involving allegations against children below the age of 18.
12. Notwithstanding the welcome guidance of the Attorney General on the prosecution of children, it should be noted that Paragraph 78a of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Report (2016) to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which now covers the Bailiwick of Jersey in its reporting) states that there is need to Raise the age of criminal responsibility in accordance with acceptable international standards'. Given that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also stated that the age of criminal responsibility should be no lower than 12 years, it is recommended these views are taken into full consideration in the review of the age of criminal responsibility scheduled to take place in 2021.
13. Given that a review of the age of criminal responsibility is scheduled to take place in 2021 and the Independent Care Inquiry has requested that consideration be given to developing a welfare-based system of youth justice, we would recommend that the two issues be considered together. The terms of reference of the 2021 review should be widened to include an exploration of how a move to raise the age of criminal responsibility could be supported by an appropriate, welfare-based model that protects children's rights via appropriate judicial oversight.

14. In line with Paragraph 78d of the Report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016), the possibility of a child being detained in custody with adults should be removed completely (this remains possible in the case of girls in Jersey).
15. Currently, applications under Article 5 (5) of the Sex Offenders (J) Law 2010 (application to no longer be subject to notification requirements) have to be made to the court that set the notification period. Where a Youth Court set the period a person may not be eligible to apply until he or she is an adult. It may be inappropriate for an adult to apply to the Youth Court, but the Magistrates' Court would not, by law, be able to deal with the matter. Moreover, a Magistrates' Court hearing would be in public whereas the offender as a child would not have been identified in public. This legislative anomaly should be addressed.
16. Review and amend current legislation and guidance to increase the opportunities for temporary release (see Recommendation 24.1).
17. The principle of a horizontal sentencing framework should be upheld, but it is recognised that the courts have limited sentences available to them in the Youth Court. In the circumstances a reparative condition as part of a Probation Order, and as an alternative to a financial penalty, could be made available in appropriate cases.
18. Recommendation 78b of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016) states that diversion measures do not appear in children's records' and Council of Europe guidance that advises criminal records of children should be non-disclosable on reaching the age of majority' (apart from in cases where serious offences have been committed). It is therefore recommended that guidance is issued to ensure that a clear Criminal Records and Enhanced Disclosure Policy in respect of children should be developed.

 Parish Hall Enquiries

19. There is consensus that the Parish Hall Enquiry System works well for most children and should be retained, but improvements and enhancements should be considered without undermining the unique ethos of community-based informalism that it represents.

1. It  is recognised  that,  since  the  2010  Report,  the  Probation  Service  has  taken  a  more proactive role in supporting the Parish Hall Enquiry. Although this development represents a clear improvement in practice, this is an opportune moment to review whether this supporting role could be improved or possibly even involve agencies such as the Youth Service. A task and finish group should consider how children can be better prepared for, and supported through, the PHE process; and how Centeniers can be best informed and prepared ahead of a child appearing before the PHE.

2. When appropriate, consideration should be given to making greater use of restorative resolutions and explore whether this process should be supported by a victim advocacy scheme.

  Courts

20. Consideration should be given to how the Youth Court and Royal Court can make further progress towards being more child-friendly. An element of formality in proceedings should not necessarily be removed completely, but in some cases a more informal and sensitive approach is appropriate. The courts would clearly benefit from receiving some information and guidance about children's capacity and disposition in advance of hearings. We therefore recommend that the Probation Service be tasked with engaging with courts in order to review how the appropriate information and guidance can be better communicated in advance of hearings.
21. Where an adult and a child below the age of 18 years appear in the Magistrates' Court, the Magistrates' Court should be permitted to modify its procedures.
22. Membership of the Youth Appeal Court should be widened to include a judge sitting with Jurats or former Youth Court Panel Members (provided the latter were up-to-date with their training).
23. As part of a wider commitment to inclusivity and widening participation, the current age restriction of 60 years should be lifted on Youth Court Panel members.

Custody

24. Although there does not appear to be a problem with excessive or inappropriate custodial sentencing, there remains a risk of children being deprived of their liberty due to the unavailability of appropriate accommodation. This can potentially result in children being held overnight in police custody and inappropriate custodial remands. As a matter of urgency we recommend that a Bail and Accommodation Strategy is developed to ensure children are not subject to the inappropriate deprivation of liberty in police custody and secure accommodation. A Task and Finish Group should be established to explore innovative ways of providing a continuum of appropriate, safe and secure accommodation that takes full account of issues related to welfare, mental health and criminogenic needs. This should include specialist foster care as well as suitable residential units. Urgent attention should also be given to how to address late requests for remand. Finally, the Task and Finish Group should revisit and review the appropriateness of whether the Youth Court should enjoy equivalent powers in respect of

the Secure Accommodation Order as those available in Family Proceedings under Article 29 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

25. The decline in the use of custodial sentencing since the Review in 2010 is to be welcomed, but this has resulted in the risk of social isolation for some children in Greenfields Secure Children's Home. It is therefore recommended that the walls of secure accommodation are more permeable in terms of developing a more integrated approach to the use of the facility. This could include,

1. Greater use of properly risk-assessed day release in order for children to partake of community resources such as education and training; and
2. Access to Greenfields being given to community-based agencies that work with young people.

Training

26. All professionals and volunteers who have contact with children in the youth justice system should receive high quality and ongoing specialist training on working with young people. The content of the training should include (a) an understanding of how children's rights should be applied in practice; and (b) Adverse Childhood Experiences, child development, and trauma- informed practice, so that children currently at risk of being perceived as non-compliant are not unnecessarily criminalised. Those included in the training should be the States Police, Honorary Police, sentencers, advocates, probation officers and restorative justice practitioners.

Diversity, Recruitment and Monitoring

27. It should be the aim of every public service to reflect the community it serves in all its diversity. Accordingly consideration should be given to taking positive action to encourage applications from the widest possible range of potential candidates to all of the key voluntary and professional roles in the youth justice system.
28. In order to address diversity issues it is important to undertake monitoring in relation to recording the ethnic profile of children across all of the key domains of service provision, including youth justice. It is only through undertaking such monitoring that disparities and patterns of over-representation can be identified with confidence.

Research

29. It is acknowledged that research on Adverse Childhood Experiences is currently being undertaken and we would urge Jersey to continue its work in this area. In particular it is important to establish the prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (and related issues) in the general population.  

Jersey Youth Justice Review: Main Report

Introduction

0. The Youth Justice Review was established against the background of the publication in July 2017 of the report of the Jersey Care Inquiry, chaired by Frances Oldham QC. Although the main focus of the Inquiry was not criminal justice, some children do have contact with criminal justice agencies and a few enter the youth justice system. A number of vulnerable children will have contact with both children's services and the criminal justice system. Accordingly, recommendations 13.35 and 13.36 of the report (States of Jersey, 2017: 60-61) made the following observations in relation to children who have contact with the youth justice system.

The Jersey youth justice system continues to be court based and, while some revisions to practice seem to have been made, we recommend that a thorough review be undertaken with a view to moving to a welfare-based model rather than a punitive one. We heard from witnesses that the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 should have a section inserted into it recognising that the welfare of children should be a primary consideration. We agree with this, but our view is that this, in itself, would not be sufficient unless the whole system were amended to centre on the welfare of the child.  We recommend that the Youth Justice System should consider how it can move to a model that always treats young offenders as children first and offenders second.

In our view, it is essential that those charged with dealing with children and young people in a judicial capacity should have a sound understanding of the needs of young people and of the issues that can impact on their lives. To that end, we recommend that a suitable programme of training be put in place for all those acting in a judicial capacity on the island, and that there should be a requirement for regular refresher training to ensure that all are kept briefed on the latest thinking and research on these matters.'

1. A Steering Group was duly established in order to assume responsibility for undertaking the Youth Justice Review. The membership of the Steering Group is detailed in Appendix 1. It is worth noting here, though, that the Steering Group decided to seek external support for the Review: Jonathan Evans of the University of South Wales and Dusty Kennedy of Youth Justice Board Cymru were appointed. Jonathan Evans was to be lead author of the Report. Nevertheless, it was made clear at the outset that the Review would be a joint enterprise and the Report would ultimately be co-authored by the Steering Group.
2. The Terms of Reference of the Youth Justice Review are set out below.

In 2010, the Report – Youth Justice- Options for Change was commissioned in response to the growing political and public concern about whether Jersey was getting it right' in relation to how it deals with adolescent offenders and other young people in need.

The Report made a number of recommendations for change.

In 2017, the Independent Jersey Child Care Inquiry noted that the youth justice system in Jersey continued to be court based. Whilst some revisions to practice had been made in developing youth justice systems during the three year lifetime of the Inquiry, it recommended an independent assessment of progress to inform subsequent priorities for service improvement, policy and legislative development to ensure that young offenders are always treated as children.

As a result, a Steering Group has been established to take forward this recommendation and this review has been established to examine:

• The nature and characteristics of offending by young people aged between 10 and 17 in Jersey and the arrangements in place to prevent it;
• How effectively the youth justice system and its partners operate in responding to offending by children and young people, preventing further offending, protecting the public and repairing the harm to victims and the community, and rehabilitating offenders; and
• Whether the leadership, governance, delivery structures and performance management of the youth justice system are effective in preventing offending and reoffending and whether they provide value for money.

The review will consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the youth justice system in preventing offending, identify effective practice and make recommendations for improvement.

In particular, the review should acknowledge the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry recommendations and consider:

• Progress made towards the recommendations made in the  Youth Justice: Options for Change Jersey Report in 2010;
• The responsibilities of local services, including Children's Services, Health, Education, Housing, Police and other partners in preventing children and young people from offending;
• The effectiveness of the partnerships;

• Responses to offending by children and young people, including the informal measures available through the Parish Hall Enquiry system and how they are used;
• The operation and effectiveness of the models of supervision and rehabilitation of young offenders in the community;
• The operation and effectiveness of the model for detaining young people who are remanded or sentenced to custody;
• The leadership and governance of youth justice arrangements in Jersey including the arrangements in place to monitor and improve performance;
• Relevant domestic and international research studies and literature on youth crime and youth justice systems.

The review shall consider the views of key stakeholders including young people and their families and guardians.

3. An additional contextual factor that should be mentioned here is that through its status as a Crown Dependency, the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) has been extended to the Bailiwick of Jersey; a development welcomed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016: 1). In practice this means that, like all States Parties, the States of Jersey will be held to account for its implementation of the UNCRC and related international conventions. Those conventions that bear directly on children in conflict with the law include the Beijing Rules, Riyadh Guidelines, Havana Rules, Tokyo Rules and Vienna Guidelines. Relevant articles on all of these United Nations conventions are cited in Appendix 2. It should be noted, moreover, that due regard should be given to the Council of Europe's guidelines on child-friendly justice (Council of Europe, 2010). The implementation of children's rights is properly regarded as a process rather than event, but progress can be measured by tangible indicators such as statutory instruments, codes of practice, guidelines and significant appointments. Accordingly, it is important to record here that an independent Children's Commissioner has been appointed in Jersey and currently there are discussions about how best to progress ratification of the UNCRC: whether by adopting a due regard' model or by embracing full incorporation.
4. Given the background and context described above, the Youth Justice Review's terms of reference are extremely wide and – given the available resources, capacity and time constraints

– ambitious. It has therefore been necessary to sharpen the focus of the Review and identify

those areas where more work is required. Exaggerated claims for the robustness of the methodology of the Review are not made and the limitations should be made explicit: this document is neither a full evaluation nor comprehensive research project. Nevertheless, it has received and reviewed relevant data from key agencies along with both published and draft policy documents and guidelines. There has also been engagement with stakeholders and key informants. It should be noted, however, that some people with whom we met shared their insights on a non-attributable basis. This means that it has sometimes been difficult to cite the evidential basis for some our judgements. It is worth mentioning, however, that initial findings were presented to, and tested with, an audience of stakeholders and key informants on 3rd September 2018. On the basis of that discussion a set of draft recommendations were shared and discussed at a meeting of the Steering Group meeting on 21st September 2018. This process,  although  by  no  means  perfect,  has enabled  the  Steering Group  to reach  broad agreement on the findings and recommendations of the Review. A fuller summary of the methodology used by the Review is provided in Appendix 3. It is acknowledged that there remain lacunae in our knowledge base and unanswered questions, but it is hoped this Report represents progress in understanding the nature of policy and practice in relation to children in conflict with the law in Jersey. It is also hoped the recommendations will assist progress on the most important issues.

5. The salient issues that arise from the recommendations of the Independent Care Inquiry, the Steering Committee's Terms of Reference and the implications of UNCRC can be distilled and framed in terms of the following questions:

1. What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Youth Justice: Options for Change Report (Evans et al, 2010) published in 2010?
2. How can youth justice move to a welfare-based model that treats young offenders as children first and offenders second?
3. What are the training implications for the judiciary and others who have contact with children in conflict with the law?
4. What is the nature of offending committed by children?
5. How can offending by children be prevented?
6. How appropriate and effective are current responses to offending by children? In particular, how effective and appropriate are the following: (a) Parish Hall Enquiries; (b) models of supervision and rehabilitation in the community; and (c) remands and sentences to custody? How effectively does the youth justice system work with its partners in preventing offending and re-offending by children? Do the present arrangements deliver value for money?
7. How effectively and appropriately is the harm experienced by victims addressed?

viii. To what extent is current policy and practice compliant with relevant international

conventions?

ix.  To what extent do key messages from research inform policy and practice?

6. The above questions are addressed in the main body of the Report and its appendices, but are answered succinctly and explicitly in the conclusion of this Report. This Report makes reference to the Report, Youth Justice in Jersey: Options for Change (Evans et al, 2010) and reviews the extent to which progress has been made in the intervening period. It may be worth mentioning here that a journal article (Evans et al, 2015) on the progress made between 2010 and 2014 identifies some positive impacts made in this period as well as highlighting areas in which action had not been taken at that point. It should be noted, though, that the 2018 Review formed the impression there had been slippage and retrenchment in certain areas since 2014. On the positive side, there have also been fresh initiatives and promising developments in recent years.
7. In terms of the Report's structure, Chapter 2 focuses on findings in respect of prevention, early intervention and diversion; Chapter 3 presents the Review's thoughts on courts and statutory supervision; Chapter 4 addresses custodial remand and sentencing issues; Chapter 5, as has been mentioned, summarises the answers to the key questions posed in Section 1.5; and Chapter 6 presents the recommendations.

Prevention, Early Intervention and Diversion  

0. This chapter explores the 2018 Review's findings on the areas of prevention, early intervention and diversion.
1. The prevention of crime is a laudable aim to which everyone should be committed, but it should be borne in mind that if self-report studies are to be believed, most people have committed offences at some point in their lives. The methodologically robust Edinburgh Youth Transitions and Crime Study (McAra, 2018; McAra and McVie, 2007a, 2007b, 2010, 2012, 2016), which included a self-report element, found that 96% of a cohort of 4,300 young people admitted to committing at least one offence between the ages of 11 and 24 years. Most of these offences would be categorised at the less serious end of the offence gravity continuum, but 11% could be considered serious. Most of the offending was committed at the ages of 14 and 15 years. By the age of 18 years 56% reported desisting from offending and by 24 this figure had risen to 90%. Most young people, it would appear, grow out of crime. However, it would be a mistake to locate the explanation solely in terms of child and adolescent development. Social factors

and processes should also be included in any account of desistance (for a fuller account of desistance, please see Appendix 8). Four key themes emerge from the Edinburgh data:

• Persistent serious offending is associated with victimisation (e.g., abuse and neglect), acute vulnerability and social adversity.
• Early identification of at risk' children is not an exact science. It also poses the risk of labelling and stigmatisation (thus increasing the risk of reoffending and criminalisation).
• Pathways into and out of offending are facilitated or impeded by critical moments' and key decisions' made by practitioners and others (e.g., social workers, teachers and parents).
• Diversionary strategies facilitate the desistance process.

2. Poverty, where most adverse childhood experiences are concentrated, and contact with the criminal justice system are arguably the most important predictors of persistent serious offending (McAra, 2018). In societies characterised by high levels of social inequality, positive outcomes are more difficult to achieve (in terms of health, education, employment, involvement in the criminal justice system, etc.) for those belonging to lower socio-economic groups (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010). Jersey, like the United Kingdom, is a society that is characterised by social inequalities; a fact that is now openly acknowledged and discussed by politicians on the island. The Review heard from professionals who were concerned about the impact of inequalities on young people in education and health. A recommendation that there should be a fundamental redistribution of wealth on the island would go well beyond the terms of reference of this Review. Nevertheless, if preventing youth crime – or at the very least reducing the risk of serious offending by young people – is a serious aim, the worst effects of social inequality should be mitigated by ensuring all children have access to the services, resources and rights that will enable them to fulfil their potential. This includes supporting families where parents or carers may be struggling (UNCRC 1918, Article 18:2-3). The UNCRC 1989 represents a Human Rights framework that recognises four main categories of rights: survival rights (inherent right to life, food, healthcare, etc.); development rights (education, access to the arts, cultural rights, etc.); protection rights (protection from sexual exploitation, right to a fair trial rights, etc.); and participation rights (right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, access to information, etc.). The challenge for all States Parties is to translate those rights into tangible universal entitlements that young people and their families can access. The ten universal entitlements in Welsh Youth Policy are set out below as just one example of how this might be achieved (National Assembly for Wales, 2000):

1. education, training and work experience – tailored to their needs;
2. basic skills which open doors to a full life and promote social inclusion;
3. a wide and varied range of opportunities to participate in volunteering and active citizenship;

4. high quality, responsive and accessible services and facilities;
5. independent, specialist careers advice and guidance and student support and counselling services;
6. personal support and advice where and when needed and in appropriate formats – with clear ground rules on confidentiality;
7. advice on health, housing benefits and other issues provided in accessible and welcoming settings;

viii. recreational and social opportunities in a safe and accessible environment;

9. sporting, artistic, musical and outdoor experiences to develop talent, broaden horizons and promote a rounded perspective including both national and international contexts;
10. and the right to be consulted, to participate in decision-making and to be heard, on all matters which concern them or have an impact on their lives.

3. Three points should be made in respect of the above list. Firstly, these entitlements needed to be translated into more specific packages, services and opportunities at local authority level. Secondly, it is not being suggested that these entitlements have necessarily been applied effectively or evenly across the whole of Wales. Finally, it should be acknowledged that there are probably examples of better child and youth policies in other countries. The important underpinning principle of this approach, however, is that children and young people are recognised as rights-bearers and citizens with entitlements. It is an approach that shifts the balance of power away from a paternalistic state to one where children can exercise their citizenship rights (no doubt, in most cases, with the assistance of parents, carers, professionals and advocacy services).
4. There is sometimes a tendency to neglect the social rights of children who have broken the law as they are perceived as less deserving. The Beijing Rules 1985 (Article 1.4) remind us that juvenile justice should be located within a comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles.' Youth justice is often seen solely in terms of responding to the wrongdoing of a young person. Youth justice certainly holds young people to account for their actions, but it is also concerned with wider issues of social justice in the child's life. Also called to account are adults who have responsibility for the child, which typically include parents and carers, but also those adults who should be providing services and support: teachers, social workers and health practitioners. Children's rights and the associated entitlements of citizenship are especially important for young people in conflict with the law because in many cases they are very often likely to be detached, or in the process of becoming detached, from those services and resources that can assist them: typically, these will be in such areas as education, training and health. When a young person commits an offence it is an opportunity to check that all of the entitlements are being accessed. This can not only enhance the prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, but also promote their health and well-being. More widely, though, entitlements checks can be a way of helping to address young people who are presenting problems other than offending or challenging behaviour. A young person who is not accessing primary healthcare at the local General Practitioner may be building up health problems for the future – physical, emotional or mental – that will be more difficult to address if they become acute. The holistic, rights-based and non-stigmatising approach described here does not preclude in any way the more specialist and targeted services a minority of children require. This is certainly true of those young people who, for whatever reason, inflict harm on victims and pose a significant risk to the public. It is helpful to think about child and youth policies being organised around a tiered approach. The first tier of intervention assesses whether children simply need to be re-attached to services. The second tier requires a more targeted and specialist approach because of underlying complexities.

5. A good recent example of targeted intervention with a small cohort of young people assessed as being vulnerable and troublesome has been provided by a multi-agency project piloted in 2018. The nature of the project is summarised by Alison Fossey, Superintendent of Operational Policing at States of Jersey Police (Fossey, 2018: 1) below.

This project wasn't intended to replace or undermine any existing arrangements in place to support these young people, but rather supplement and provide for some intensive, problem solving and dynamic joined up co-ordinated activity. It was and continues to be a multi- agency initiative involving the States of Jersey Police, Jersey Youth Service, Jersey Sport, The Bosdet Foundation, Children's Service, Education and Probation.

A targeted approach was developed which focused on a team around the school and a team around the community. The team around the school was led by Education and focused on getting the young people into school and engaging and keeping them there. The team around the community was led by Youth Service and centred around the move on café, 1:1 work, a range of group activities and working in hotspots to improve relationships with young people and their communities.

The project sought to achieve the following outcomes for those vulnerable young people

identified:

• improved school attendance,
• reduced school exclusions,
• reduced criminal offending and anti-social behaviour
• reduced numbers of missing episodes'

6. The results of the project have been impressive in terms of the desired outcomes and a proposal based on the experience of this Operation involves the establishment of a Children's Integrated Support Team (CIST) (see Appendix 4). There are always ethical issues and related risks to operations that target young people in such interventions. Should, for example, the children and their families be informed? There clearly needs to be further discussion by stakeholders on the proposal, but the Review wishes to commend the excellent work undertaken and, subject to ethical safeguards, support the proposed establishment of a Children's Integrated Support Team. The Review particularly wishes to commend the proposed requirement that referring agencies should outline clearly how they have tried to address the presenting problem/s. This should reduce the risk of referring agencies dumping' their problematic children on the new Team.

Children and Young People's Plans and Policies

7. At the time of the 2010 Review there was a promising Children and Young People's Plan in development. The embryonic policy document appeared to be opportunity focused and rights- based. It also appeared that it would provide a wraparound service for young people and their families. It was envisaged that a community of practice could be established in which there was not only clear role clarification between agencies, but also a common set of shared practice principles that would transcend organisational boundaries. Disappointingly, in 2018 we were told that the policy had lain dormant, under-funded and neglected. As a consequence the envisaged policy and community of practice had not materialised in the way that had been intended.  
8. At the time of the 2018 Review a new Children's Plan / Children and Young People's Plan was in the process of being developed (Children First: The plan for Jersey's children, young people and their families). The Review has had sight of drafts of this developing policy and is greatly impressed by much of the content and general direction of travel. At the time of writing the Review would make the following respectful recommendations to the authors of the policy:

1. Ensure that children's rights are central, explicit and integral to the policy.
2. A clear statement should be made of how services and agencies are to be held to account for delivering on the commitments made in the policy.
3. Make explicit reference to reducing young people's involvement in offending and perpetrating harm (the detail of which can be delineated in a Youth Justice Strategy policy).
4. The Children and Young People's Plan and Pledge to Jersey's Children and Young People should be complemented by a Children's Charter of Rights that describes explicitly the tangible universal entitlements guaranteed by the States of Jersey.

9. The Children's Plan quite rightly highlights the importance of children's participation. This is a principle the Review wishes to endorse wholeheartedly; particularly in relation to children in conflict with the law. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that:

Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.'

As well as being set out in international and domestic law, there are other, more practical, reasons for focusing on participation in youth justice. There are benefits both to the individual child and at an organisational level to listening to views and experiences of time spent in the youth justice system. Evidence suggests that children who are involved in the planning and structuring of their interventions are more likely to engage in services and that positive gains are made in relation to behaviour, respect and confidence (Brodie et al 2009, Creaney 2014). Very often areas for improvement are identified after organisations have sought the views of children engaged in their services. This can lead to co-production of policies and documentation with children themselves; with which they can better engage and for which they have more respect due to increased ownership. For example, during the review we were shown literature given to children in order to explain subjects such as restorative justice. The style and language used, while appropriate for adult levels of reading and comprehension, were less suited to children and young people. The production of more child friendly literature in collaboration with service users for use by the Jersey Probation Service would be an opportunity to trial and develop participation and consultation. The challenges of engaging children who have offended should not be underestimated. As suggested above, as well as finding themselves subject to the worry and stresses of being involved in criminal proceedings, they have often experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences that can make participation difficult. However, neither should these challenges be used as a reason for services to overlook participatory action. There are a number of examples in other jurisdictions where states and agencies have successfully captured the voices of groups of children who are perceived as being hard to reach. Progress on participation has been made in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but further afield lessons can be drawn from Scandinavia.

The Risk of Criminalisation in Schools and the Public Care System

10. The 2010 Review conducted an in-depth case file review on a sample of eleven of the most troublesome young people appearing before the Youth Court at that time. The children concerned were identified by the magistrates. The case file review revealed that the children concerned shared a number of common characteristics: early experience of disrupted attachment to a significant parental figure; maltreatment (abuse and neglect); disengagement

from school; misuse of alcohol from an early age; exposure to violence, especially domestic abuse; and experience of the public care system. The 2010 Review questioned whether challenging behaviour in the domains of school and residential children homes was at risk of being re-framed as offending behaviour' and thereby resulting in inappropriate criminalisation. There was no significant evidence of children's challenging behaviour in school settings being dealt with outside the domain of education in the criminal justice system, but it is always important to question whether disciplinary measures are restorative or exclusionary in nature, and whether punishments are more or less likely to result in pupil disengagement. In the case of those with experience of public care there was evidence in some cases of relatively minor misdemeanours migrating to the youth justice domain rather than being dealt with in house'. It was against this background that it was recommended the expansion of the appropriate use of restorative justice should be explored in such settings. Good practice in restorative justice on the island had been cited, but there was clearly scope to increase capacity.

11. The 2018 Review was informed that some progress had been made in schools, but there was scope for further work. The unhealthily close relationship between the public care system and the youth justice system is well documented and has been analysed extensively in England and Wales (Prison Reform Trust, 2016; Evans, 2018). The residential children's homes introduced restorative measures following the publication of the 2010 Report, but the 2018 external reviewers formed the impression that there had probably been a decline in the use of restorative justice in children's residential units in recent years. This was attributed by some as being related to the departure of key staff members in leadership positions who were committed to de-escalating strategies and restorative approaches. It is worth noting here that the churn of staff has been cited as a potential risk factor in sustaining good practice in more than one area.
12. The Review met with the Intensive Support Team and received testimony from some practitioners that it provides an important service to children on the cusp of the Looked After Children Service as well as those returning to their families, carers or other appropriate community placements. A brief overview of the service provided is available in Appendix 5.
13. During the course of the 2018 Review both the Jersey Children First Practice Model and the Corporate Parenting Strategy were introduced. It is envisaged that these initiatives will make a significant difference to vulnerable children in conflict with the law or at risk of becoming involved in the youth justice system.

Policing

14. In 2010 the Review received evidence from young people and practitioners that elements in the Jersey States Police adopted a confrontational move on' strategy in respect of groups of young people gathered in public spaces. This was in part the result of an over-reliance on Operational

Response Units and a style of policing that tended to be reactive rather than problem-solving. Senior police officers demonstrated awareness of this issue and indicated that there was to be a move towards a more patch-based, community policing model. The 2010 Review supported this shift in policing strategy and additionally recommended that the police would benefit from specialist training to support that change and, whilst it was important to maintain an appropriate demarcation  of roles,  develop  closer  working  relationships  with  the  high-functioning  Youth Service whose street-based detached workers were a valuable resource. Moreover, it was recommended that young people should be consulted about issues of community safety, the use  of  public  space, crime  prevention  issues and  access to  leisure, recreation  and  other facilities.

15. In 2018 we were pleased to learn that the police had undertaken training and established a close working relationship  with the Youth Service.   Despite some young people reporting negative experiences in their encounters with individual police officers, on the whole it would seem  the  police  have  improved their  approach  to  interacting  with  young  people  in  public spaces.

Diversion and Parish Hall Enquiries

16. The 2010 Review found that the Parish Hall Enquiry provided a distinctive, community-based and effective first tier of intervention and diversion from prosecution. It was recognised that it is also well placed to identify when a child is disengaged from family, school and in need of being referred to other services. Moreover, it is in a position to judge whether it is appropriate to facilitate victim-offender mediation or restorative justice. Although there was a demonstrably good relationship between the Centeniers and Probation Service, an enhanced role by Probation staff attending Parish Hall Enquiries was envisaged by the Review. It was thought that Probation staff could provide more background information on the children due to appear. Initial information-gathering on educational background and whether the young person was known to other relevant agencies could thus be shared with the Centenier beforehand. Knowing something about a child ahead of an appearance before the PHE can be invaluable in planning how to interact with them most appropriately. The 2010 Review recommended that the Parish Hall Enquiry could, on the basis of this information, (a) use one of its customary alternatives to prosecution, as already happened, or (b) defer a decision to allow a fuller assessment and plan to be put in place (which might require securing the co-operation of certain agencies and the commitment of resources). Such a plan would then be presented and endorsed at a second Parish Hall Enquiry in order to authorise the proposal. The 2018 Review has not had the capacity to undertake a formal evaluation of any part of the youth justice system, and this includes the Parish Hall Enquiry's role in that system. Nevertheless, we formed the overall impression that the information-gathering undertaken by the Probation Service for the Parish Hall Enquiry was working well and it enhanced the effectiveness of the

process. We were told there were cases where schools had not been contacted beforehand, so this may be an area that requires further work. On closer investigation, it emerged that it is the practice for probation officers to use professional discretion in terms of assessing whether the school necessarily needs to know about the less serious offences. It is also customary to seek parental consent before contacting schools prior to appearance before a Parish Hall Enquiry. In cases where parents considered that the school might misuse the information or label their child negatively, this was not pursued unless wider public interest considerations prevailed. This practice is not inconsistent with the principle of domain integrity management described in the 2010 Review, whereby information in one domain is not automatically shared with another domain: in other words, a case therefore has to be made for sharing information. Seemingly, a proportionate and nuanced professional judgement is currently made on the basis of offence seriousness, public interest and the best interests of the child. It is important to state that on the whole the practice of information-gathering seems to be working well and certainly appears to enhance the Parish Hall Enquiry process. It should perhaps be emphasised here that schools are contacted routinely ahead of court appearances. Details of education - along with other factual information on employment, home circumstances and welfare issues - are provided to the court in Personal Information Forms (PIFs) following children's appearance at Parish Hall Enquiry.

17. In order to support the enhanced role of the Parish Hall Enquiry, in 2010 it was recommended that Centeniers should undertake training on effective practice and how best to facilitate age- appropriate restorative approaches. We understand that some training has been undertaken by Centeniers. There is, moreover, an appetite for more training.
18. It was recommended that in cases where a child commits a relatively minor offence whilst being subject to a court order, the Parish Hall Enquiry be permitted to deal with the matter. The 2018 Review found that the Youth Court and Attorney General were supportive of the principle of diversion and de-escalating strategies in such cases. Parish Hall Enquiries are thus able to exercise more discretion in such matters and deal with breaches involving minor offences.
19. It is important to state clearly that the Review is impressed by the role and work of the Parish Hall Enquiry in relation to children. It is a good example of community-based informal justice based on reintegrative principles. It is also well aligned with the Tokyo Rules' principle of community involvement and community-based responses to crime. Although the Parish Hall Enquiry has its critics, we did not meet anyone who proposed their abolition. Indeed, there would seem to be consensus that they should continue to play an important role. However, areas for improvement were identified: most notably in relation to issues of consistency of practice across the island and the need for enhanced training of Centeniers. One Centenier also took the view that there could be scope to make more extensive use of restorative resolutions; although it should be noted that all PHE cases are assessed for the possible use of Restorative Justice. It is understood that many victims do not wish to engage with restorative processes. Nevertheless, this is an area that could be revisited and explored further.

20. There has been a suggestion by some that there could be scope for conferring Parish Hall Enquiries with greater powers over the more challenging young people with whom it deals. The phrase Parish Hall Enquiry Plus' was used on occasions. The Review is open to specific recommendations on this subject. Any proposals should be consistent with the informal community ethos of the institution, though. It is also important to remember that the Parish Hall Enquiry is not a court. It is a pre-court process designed to deal with offences and resolve disputes outside of the formal criminal justice system. Additionally, and very importantly, it is an institution and process that makes decisions about prosecution; therein resides its greatest power. For a fuller exposition of the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry see Miles and Raynor (2014).
21. It will be well-known within Jersey that the Honorary Police force, including the senior members known as Centeniers, are elected. Ultimately, therefore, these community volunteers are accountable to their parish electorates. The Review questioned how, in operational terms, good standards of practice are maintained and how performance problems are addressed. The Attorney General provided a set of written guidelines, practice directions and letters that are available for perusal in Appendix 6.

The Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Adoption of a Welfare-Based Model of Dealing with Children in Conflict of the Law

22. The main arguments for raising the age of criminal responsibility relate to recognising the developing maturity of children, their relative powerlessness and position of dependency on adults. There is also widespread recognition that the adolescent years for most young people will often be characterised by experimentation and boundary-testing. Whilst transgressions of the law should be subject to varying degrees of sanction and support, this need not involve criminalisation. Criminal convictions label children as offenders and risk damaging their future prospects in education, training and employment. Just as punishments and support are offered to pupils in well-managed schools, so the wider community needs to find ways to manage challenging behaviour without reference to the criminal justice system. The age at which criminal responsibility should be set is inevitably a somewhat arbitrary decision, although it can be more nuanced when judicial discretion is permitted for children above the set age (for example, through the use of rebuttable presumptions regarding non-prosecution, as used to be the case with doli incapax in England and Wales). Delmage (2013) sets out the respective rationales of the different options with reference to not only criminal and family law, but also the neuroscientific evidence on brain development. Another approach is to reflect on the age at

which cognitive and moral competence is assumed to be present in equivalent areas of citizenship. For example, at what age should someone be considered suitable for jury service? Another example is the age of majority in terms of the right to vote for one's legislators. In the latter case, this would raise the age of criminal responsibility to 16 years; only a little above the European average of 14/15 years.

23. In the 2010 Review the issue of the age of criminal responsibility was discussed and it was recommended that the age be raised to 12 years. This age is consistent with statements by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2008. It should be recognised that such a change in Jersey would actually have affected very few children in practice. In any event, the recommendation was not accepted and has instead been dealt with by way of written guidance on prosecution by the Attorney General (see Appendix 6). In practice it is rare for children younger than 14 to appear in the youth justice system.
24. Given that a review of the age of criminal responsibility is due to be conducted in 2021 and the Independent Care Inquiry has expressed its wish that consideration be given to moving to a welfare-based model that treats young people as children first, offenders second', it is appropriate to revisit the main arguments for and against a change in the law in this area. It is important to acknowledge that Article 4.1 of the Beijing Rules exhorts States Parties, To not fix the beginning at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental, and intellectual maturity.' Research on the effect on children of justice system contact would also suggest that criminal careers tend to be extended rather than curtailed (McAra, 2018; McAra and McVie, 2010). In the circumstances it makes sense to raise the age of criminal responsibility in order to divert children from the youth justice system and deal with them through welfare, educational, health and therapeutic measures. There are, however, challenges and risks that need to addressed and managed.
25. Two main issues need to be considered. Firstly, if more children in conflict with the law are to be dealt with by agencies and services outside of the criminal justice domain then they need to be resourced accordingly and some staff are likely to require additional specialist training in order to deal with those young people who present challenging and transgressive behaviour. This means there needs to be investment and development of an appropriate alternative infrastructure that can both support and challenge young people. Secondly, despite the many disadvantages of dealing with children's transgressive behaviour in the criminal justice domain, the system does possess strengths; most notably the rigorous application of principles of due process, transparency and the protection of legal rights. One of the risks of dealing with children outside of the criminal justice system is that it can lead to the development of a shadow youth justice system' (Pitts and Kuula, 2005) within which decision-making can be opaque and sometimes unfair. This can sometimes result in welfare without justice. Indeed,

comparative research in this area shows that merely raising the age of criminal responsibility does not, in itself, automatically deliver either welfare or justice (Abrams et al, 2018). It can also disguise the real number of young people deprived of their liberty because therapeutic' institutions in the domains of welfare and health are often not included in the official statistics on child incarceration.

26. The afore-mentioned risks do not represent an argument against raising the age of criminal responsibility. Rather, they point to the need to make careful plans before moving to a model of dealing with greater numbers of children outside of the criminal justice system. There is no reason why a partnership of Children's Services, Education, Health, youth justice specialists from Probation, the Youth Service and others could not deliver welfare-based and child- appropriate interventions that address offending behaviour. As has already been stated, this requires planning, training and proper resourcing. It is also vitally important that children's rights are actively protected and promoted within this context. This means that transparent processes for challenging professional judgement are in place alongside accessible advocacy services. Judicial oversight of this domain would be desirable, although in practice most cases involving children breaking the law would not trouble the courts.
27. Another option is to adopt a hybrid bifurcation model in which those cases where young people's offending seems closely related to their family background or personal experiences beyond their control (including those known to children's services and the care system), they are dealt with by the family courts. In practice this might represent most children. It would, however, still give the power to deal with some of the more serious cases in the criminal justice domain.
28. The Review recognises that the overwhelming majority of children in conflict with the law are dealt with by the Parish Hall Enquiry and do not appear in the Youth Court. Nevertheless, the Youth Courts still play a significant role in the administration of justice; including those who appear for driving offences and those who have committed offences at the more serious end of the continuum. The Review does not consider Jersey is currently ready to abolish the Youth Court and move its work to the Family Court or replace it with either a new administrative tribunal model along Scott ish or Scandinavian lines. The infrastructure to support a radically different model is not in place. Nevertheless, we would encourage a thorough exploration of the possible options, which should include the afore-mentioned welfare-based tribunal model. Given that a review of the age of criminal responsibility is being undertaken in 2021, we would ask that the terms of reference be widened to include an exploration of how a move to raise the age of criminal responsibility could be supported by an appropriate infrastructure. This infrastructure should include the development of a service delivery model based on welfare principles, the promotion and protection of children's rights, and appropriate judicial oversight.

29. In the intervening period the damagingly stigmatising effect of criminal records and enhanced disclosure reports for offences committed below the age of 18 years should be minimised. Accordingly, policy and guidance should be developed on the non-disclosure of contact with the Parish Hall Enquiries and Youth Courts in line with the Council of Europe's guidelines on child- friendly justice (Council of Europe, 2010: IV, B (10)):

In order to promote the reintegration within society, criminal records of children should be

non-disclosable on reaching the age of majority. Exceptions are permitted in cases of serious offences or in cases of employment with vulnerable adults or young people.'

The Courts and Statutory Supervision

0. This chapter addresses court-related issues, sentencing and the efficacy and appropriateness of statutory supervision.

The Youth Court and Royal Court

1. The 2010 Review was impressed with magistrates' and panel members' commitment to the welfare of children in the Youth Court. Three main issues were identified in the Youth Court: firstly, how best to sentence persistent offenders; when to remand or sentence to custody; and the provision of appropriate training for sentencers and court personnel. The second issue is considered in Chapter 4, but the other two are discussed here.
2. On the issue of sentencing persistent offenders (as opposed to those who were committing progressively more serious offences), the 2010 Review recommended the adoption of a horizontal rather than vertical sentencing tariff. It was argued that the pressure to issue increasingly more punitive sentences for repeated offences of similar gravity should be resisted. Instead, each offence should be dealt with on its own terms. Such an approach would also enable the court to adopt a problem-solving approach that engaged the young people concerned, their parents (where appropriate) and the professionals tasked with working with them. The temptation to overload Orders with additional requirements, it was recommended, should also be resisted in most cases as this could result in an increased likelihood of breach proceedings being issued by the Probation Service. It was argued that the Probation Service should be allowed to use professional discretion in terms of how it should work with children; particularly as children's level of maturity along with their needs and personal circumstances are likely to change over the course of an Order. In 2018 the Review was satisfied that a horizontal model of sentencing was in operation in the Youth Court. However, after consultation with sentencers, we were sympathetic to their expressed view that the sentencing options available to them are somewhat limited.

3. In light of the changes recommended in Section 3.3, it was proposed in 2010 that the move to a problem-solving model would be well-served by training for sentencers in child-appropriate' approaches to dealing with children in the Youth Court. In 2018 we formed the impression some training had taken place in the intervening period and that this is ongoing. However, as with all personnel who have contact with young people in the youth justice system, we took the view that there was scope for more specialist training.
4. In addition to the recommendation mentioned in Section 3.4, it was recommended in 2010 that there needed to be specialist training for Advocates representing children. In 2018 the Review learned that whilst things had improved, there remained scope for further specialist training. We formed the impression that the quality of advocacy in respect of representing children remained uneven.
5. The 2010 Review was impressed with the Youth Court's commitment in practice to the welfare of the child. In 2018 we formed the clear impression that this commitment was still very strong. A Youth Court is not the most child-friendly problem-solving forum in terms of its layout and ethos, but the Review was impressed with the efforts of the Youth Court in engaging with the children appearing before them. This included cases where the young people could be disrespectful. We were also interested to learn of the system of Probation Reviews in which the sentencing Magistrate, Youth Panel members and young person return to court periodically in order to review the progress of those subject to statutory supervision. It is used as an opportunity to give praise when deserved and encouragement when the young person is struggling. This is a very welcome development we would wish to single out for commendation.
6. A child-friendly approach in the courts does not necessarily mean that formality should be abandoned completely. For many children an air of formality can help in conveying the seriousness of their actions and the gravity of the situation in which they find themselves. However, children should always be treated with respect and their dignity should be upheld. We encountered no evidence to suggest that young people were not being treated respectfully. However, the formality of the court can be oppressive and intimidating for some young people. In much the same way as Centeniers are given information in advance about the way a young person may present, such advance information may also be helpful for sentencers in both the Youth and Royal Courts (although it is recognised that the Personal Information Forms are of assistance). It is likely to help them to engage with a withdrawn or ostensibly truculent child who may be frightened, immature or have experienced recent personal trauma. Accordingly, we envisage a role for the Probation Service in briefing sentencers beforehand. This may be done verbally or in the form of brief reports. It is important to emphasise the point here that such information should not compromise due process. Sentencers and the Probation Service should therefore discuss and agree the best way in which this information should be conveyed. Finally, the Review should record that it has been encouraged by a Draft Practice Direction that, if implemented, would improve the experience of children in the Royal Court.

The Statutory Supervision and Management of Children in the Community

7. At the time of the 2010 Review youth justice supervision was undertaken primarily by the Probation Service, but additional support packages and activities were organised by a Youth Action Team. The Review considered that whilst the Youth Action Team's particular service model was not without merit, it was unsuited to the individual needs and circumstances of many challenging young people. It was also found to be duplicative of some of the work already undertaken by the Probation Service. Two recommendations were made. The first was that,

Those children causing most concern to agencies because of their offending behaviour should be managed according to a multiagency model akin to that of the Child Protection Case Conference or RAMAS but with the focus being on the child's best interests. This process has been labelled CAST (Children's Assessment and Support Team) in this report. All Departments should undertake to co-operate in this process and allocate resources as a priority to this group.'

(Evans et al, 2010: 34)

It was envisaged CAST meetings could be convened by any agency and would be chaired by the Probation and After Care Service. The second recommendation was that,

YAT should operate at arm's length from the criminal justice system working with those children at risk of school exclusion, who are looked after or who are at risk of coming to official notice. YAT can provide a valuable social work support in these circumstances and should be available to Probation, residential care staff and teachers as well as being able to accept direct referrals from parents. It is important for the reasons outlined earlier in this report, and its role as originally envisaged, that YAT is not seen as a Youth Offending Team (YOT), but as a key resource to the CAST process for our most needy children.'

It should be noted that the proposed CAST model was not implemented and the Youth Action

Team was disbanded. The Probation Service thus took sole responsibility for the statutory supervision of young people, but continued to work in partnership with other agencies.

8. At the time of the 2010 Review the standard of probation supervision practice was considered good, but it was recognised within the Service that it needed to continue to work on developing child-appropriate approaches and practices. Moreover, it was recommended that it was particularly important to work closely and effectively with families, schools and all of the other domains in which young people live their lives. This systems' approach was recognised as being complementary to individualised supervision. It was also important that practitioners employed proactive strategies to encourage children to engage with the requirements of statutory orders rather than simply requiring young people to follow a routinised pattern of reporting. This was particularly crucial in cases where children had complex needs or were from backgrounds where parental and family support was weak. The 2018 Review found that this recommended approach had been adopted by the Probation Service in the intervening period. Training in Family Problem Solving (Trotter, 2018a), prosocial modelling (Trotter and Evans, 2012; Trotter, 2015 and 2018b) and restorative practices are undertaken by all Probation staff. More recently youth justice specialist staff in Probation have been accessing training on the implications of neuroscientific research. This has been provided by educational psychologists.

9. It was recommended in 2010 that no child should be labelled as a Priority Persistent Offender without consultation with the Probation Service and Children's Services. Exercising professional discretion that takes full account of the young person's circumstances was preferred over an approach that simply counted offences within a specified period of time. Those children causing most concern because of their offending behaviour should be managed in accordance with a multi-agency model. Children who were repeatedly before the court should be considered children in need' and be afforded the same level of service as those looked after'. The 2018 Review found that multi-agency arrangements had been put in place, but believed they could work more effectively.
10. It was recommended in 2010 that there should be increased use of indirect reparation and compensation in Probation Orders. Although the expertise of the Community Service Scheme could be used, it was recognised that as a stand-alone sentence, it would probably fail to address the underlying reasons for offending and overlook welfare needs. Accordingly, it was recommended that agreements to undertake indirect restitution should take place within the statutory framework of the Probation Order. In 2018 the Review found that this arrangement was in place, but little used.
11. In terms of evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of probation supervision by youth justice specialists, the Review read relevant documentation, met with staff, accessed a selection of files and observed officers operating in both Parish Hall Enquiries and the Youth Court. We also spoke to a limited number of young people who had experienced contact with the Probation Service. The Review is aware of the independent academic research undertaken with probation staff in Jersey, most notably the Jersey Supervision Skills Study (Ugwudike et al, 2014; Raynor et al, 2014); although it should be noted that the main focus of that work has been undertaken with those staff supervising adults. Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that all staff, including youth justice staff, receive skills training in core correctional practices and are evaluated on their effectiveness. This includes video recording and feedback on interviews between supervisors and supervised. Due to issues of informed consent, interviews with children are currently under-represented. This was an issue identified during the course of the Review and is now being addressed. Current research on effective practice suggests that the development of appropriate practitioner skills is more impactful than the delivery of programmes. The ability of practitioners to individualise evidence-based interventions with young people is increasingly being recognised as being important. The core correctional practices involved in working with adolescents include prosocial modelling, problem solving, prosocial skills building (using structured procedures), effective use of authority, cognitive restructuring, relationship practices, motivational interviewing, and inter-agency communication/use of community resources (Ugwudike and Morgan, 2018). When meeting youth justice specialist staff it was very clear that they were committed to their own professional development and sought to apply these skills in their work with young people. It is understood that the Probation Service and its partners in multi-agency projects are currently exploring the possibility of undertaking training on trauma-informed practice.

12. The YLS/CMI (Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) is a robust, validated and internationally used instrument for assessing risk and identifying the needs of young people. The Review formed the impression that it is not applied mechanistically and is used as an aid to the assessment process. The Social Enquiry Reports we read were of a high standard and considered very useful by the courts. The factual Personal Information Forms (PIFs), meanwhile, appear to be a helpful aid to the Youth Courts in their initial dealings with children. We understand that care is taken to ensure that the use of PIFs do not compromise due process. The probation files we read were well maintained and appeared to reflect the work being undertaken.
13. There is evidence of good partnership working with some agencies. For example, we were to learn of the proactive partnership with the Department of Social Security, the Youth Service and Prince's Trust. More recently, of course, the Probation Service has been involved in multi- agency initiatives to support young people.
14. In summary, Jersey is well served by its Probation Service. There are areas of staff development that should be prioritised, though: most notably, in children's rights and trauma- informed practice. However, these training priorities apply to everyone working in the youth justice system.
15. In terms of evaluating the effectiveness of supervision, it is important to recognise that as more children are diverted from prosecution and dealt with according to the principle of minimum sufficient intervention, the remaining young people in the criminal justice system are likely to be more challenging and have more complex needs. This much smaller cohort will almost inevitably have higher rates of reconviction. Consequently, the measures of effectiveness should ideally be more nuanced and granular. Evaluations need to be able to measure whether the general direction of travel is towards desistance, less serious offending and positive progress in such areas as health, education, training, leisure and personal relationships.

The Deprivation of Liberty and Related Issues:

0. This chapter explores issues related to children being deprived of their liberty as a result of being remanded and/or sentenced to custody. The related issue of detention in police custody is also addressed.  

Sentencing, Remands in Custody and Bail

1. In 2010 the Review found that sentencers understood and wished to apply the principle of using penal custody as a measure of last resort, but in practice some children who might reasonably be expected to be dealt with in the community were deprived of their liberty. This might be partly explained in terms of the pressures that may be experienced by sentencers when persistent offending by individuals results in frequent court appearances. Those that have already received community-based sentences and disposals are thus perceived as having exhausted non-custodial options. Such a reaction, whilst perfectly understandable and consistent with the intention of Articles 4 and 5 of the Young Offenders Law 2014, is not consistent with the measure of last resort' principle which should be reserved for that minority of young people who represent a clear threat to the public. To be clear, the present statute is not aligned with the principle of using custody as a measure of last resort'. This inconsistency would be worthy of review. The need to apply a horizontal model of sentencing was duly identified in 2010 and accepted in practice by the Youth Court. It is worth noting that in 2010 there were 20 children sentenced to custody, but in 2013 there were only four (Evans et al, 2015). This is indicative of court practice, although it should be acknowledged that there was a corresponding reduction in the number of young people being brought to the Youth Court; in large part as a direct result of changes in practice in terms of policing, prosecution and diversion. As has been noted elsewhere, reducing the flow of children into the formal youth justice system generally results in a corresponding decline in custodial sentencing. The trend in low numbers of custodial sentences has been maintained in the intervening period. Since January 2016, for example, four children have attracted custodial sentences with one being sentenced by the Royal Court. It should also be noted there have been some serious offences that resulted in community penalties. Arguably, in other jurisdictions they may well have resulted in custodial sentences.

2. Another factor that appeared to be influencing sentencers was a concern that in some cases where children were vulnerable and/or at risk of reoffending, community resources were insufficiently supportive or robust. There was particular concern expressed about the appropriateness and quality of available accommodation. It was against this background that some young people were remanded or sentenced to custody. In 2018 many of the same concerns were raised. The 2010 Review responded with a number of recommendations. One was that the Youth Court should be empowered to make an Order equivalent to that available in Family Proceedings under Article 29 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (whereby a child's welfare circumstances can be investigated and the process for applying for a Secure Accommodation Order under children were under Article 22 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 can be initiated). This recommendation was not actioned. Another recommendation was that specialist emergency fostering and supported accommodation should be part of a continuum of options available to the courts when faced with children who are difficult to place. In 2018 there is need to revisit these issues and consider how to make the best and most flexible use of existing resources and commission new types of accommodation where there is need. Suitable accommodation as an alternative to a remand in custody should be an integral part of a clear bail strategy. However, such accommodation need not be confined to children who are in contact with the youth justice system. Placements should be sought on the basis of children's needs rather than being determined by the source of referral.
3. On reflection, the 2010 Review failed to give sufficient attention to the issue of children being detained in police custody. In 2018 the police custody suite was visited and we were impressed not only by the facilities, but also the commitment of police staff to their duty of care. Although the Review did not engage with as many young people in the youth justice system as it would have wished, one young person confirmed that his experience of staff at the custody suite had been positive. Having said that, of course, children should be kept in police cells for the shortest possible period of time. Concern was expressed that were occasions when children could not access more appropriate accommodation and were kept overnight in the police custody suite. Greenfields was not accessible after 10.00 pm and there was often no appropriate secure accommodation available for young people with acute mental health issues.
4. In 2010 the overall conditions that obtained in La Moye YOI and Greenfields Secure Children's Home were good. The staff in both institutions were committed to the welfare of the young people. The children with whom the Reviewers met were also positive about the staff. However, four issues required attention. Firstly, that unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, the presumption should be that children are accommodated in Greenfields (subject to modifications to the layout and management of the building). It was recommended that a Vulnerability Panel be established to assess where children should be placed. A Placements Panel was established and the use of La Moye has declined sharply in the intervening period. Secondly, due to the low rates of occupancy at any given time, which can include periods when the facility is empty, there was a problem of social isolation for some children. Although interaction with staff was perceived as being positive, there was limited contact with peers. In 2018 the young person in Greenfields with whom reviewers met did not experience this as a problem, but acknowledged that others may struggle with this experience. Thirdly, in 2010 there was an issue with young people accessing education, training and meaningful opportunities. This problem remains in 2018; particularly for those aged 16 and above. Fourthly, in 2010 there was a problem of girls being held with adult women in the main prison. This is clearly in breach of international conventions (UNCRC 1989, Article 37c). Although this was not a common occurrence, this did happen on occasions. The possibility of this happening remains in 2018.

5. The use of custody in Jersey is laudably low and appears to represent a measure of last resort in line with the UNCRC and other international guidelines. Within the parameters of the 2018 Review, which had a very broad scope and did not allow detailed examination of every area of practice in great detail during the allotted time, it appeared to the reviewers that the environment, regime and culture existing in Greenfields Secure Children's Home are generally positive. Conversations with staff and the few children accommodated there at the time of the review indicated a caring and nurturing culture, albeit with procedural and logistical limitations that prevented the facility being used to its full potential, and with the very fact of its low usage being a potential risk to the best outcomes for both residents and staff. We were told that for long periods Greenfields can occasionally be empty, but is more often home to just one or two children. There is, therefore very little opportunity for children to associate, socialise or learn with their peers. When there is only one child in residence there is a risk that this could be experienced as de facto isolation. We spoke to a child who had indeed spent long periods of over a month as the only child in residence. While the child told us that the time in Greenfields had been settled and an opportunity to reflect and did not report any feelings of isolation, the possibility that a less resilient individual would not feel so settled cannot be ruled out. We were also told by this child that there had been a very limited curriculum within the unit which had led to repetition of lessons with consequent educational disengagement. When asked if efforts had been made to organise temporary release or mobility to enable attendance at outside education or work experience, staff told us that this was not possible. Those with whom we spoke recognised that this is not a satisfactory situation. In other jurisdictions - for example Wales and England - release on temporary licence or mobility arrangements can be used for these purposes. It would appear that there is an opportunity for Jersey to explore the possibility for similar practice under current legislation and consider if this may need to be amended to allow children securely accommodated to access learning and enrichment opportunities in the community when properly assessed for risk.

6. When compared to similar secure environments in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the facilities and environment in Greenfields stand up very well. Bedrooms are bright and relatively welcoming, living areas are spacious and homely and teaching areas are well presented. We were also told of an interesting and progressive approach to behaviour management which enables physical restraint to be avoided. There is, however, an absence of the kind of lively interaction on the unit that one would expect in a residential or teaching establishment meant for children and young people. This has an inevitable impact upon the mood and morale of the staff; highly skilled individuals motivated to care for troubled children who are underutilised can begin to lose that motivation at work. It is interesting to note that the centre manager has sought to mitigate this by offering the impressive sporting facilities of the unit for use by a local gymnastics club. While this has no impact upon the children resident in the centre, it does show the potential for a more innovative use of Greenfields for youth justice interventions in general. We believe that options should be explored to make greater and more innovative use of the accommodation. Possibilities might include conversion of some of the living areas into supported accommodation for those on community orders where access to suitable accommodation is a challenge to their remaining at liberty or use of the teaching and sports facilities for groups of children supervised in community which, if suitably risk-assessed could include children securely accommodated on the premises. Measures such as these could inject some much needed life into Greenfields, give wider roles for staff and improve the value for money offered by a costly provision currently very much under-utilised.

Conclusion: Revisiting the Key Questions

0. A succinct summary of the answers to the key questions posed in Chapter 1 is presented below.

1. What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Youth Justice: Options for Change Report (Evans et al, 2010) published in 2010?

1. A summary of the progress made on the implementation of the key recommendations is presented in Appendix 9. It will be noted that no progress was made in terms of changes to statute, but there have been significant changes in practice. For the most part the changes in practice have been maintained over the intervening period. This has resulted, for example, in substantial reductions in first time entrants to the youth justice system and a marked decline in the use of custody.
2. In some cases there have been slippages in good practice. This seems to have been associated with key personnel leaving their posts.

2. How can youth justice move to a welfare-based model that treats young offenders as children first and offenders second?

3. In practice the principle of children first, offenders second' appears to have been embraced across the existing system. However, this should not prevent the exploration of models of juvenile justice that move away from a court-based approach to one that is explicitly welfare- based. This  should  be  considered  as  part  of the  planned review  of the  age  of  criminal responsibility.
4. It would seem that the welfare principle is currently observed in practice in the courts. However, there is need to enshrine the welfare principle in statute in line with Article 3 of the UNCRC.

3. What are the training implications for the judiciary and others who have contact with children in conflict with the law?

5. It is important to recognise that members of the judiciary already receive training, as do others working in the criminal justice system. However, there are two areas of training that should be undertaken: children's rights; and engagement with children who have experienced adverse experiences, including various forms of trauma.

4. What is the nature of offending committed by children?

6. It is important to emphasise the point that Jersey is a safe society and, for the most part, children are engaged in less serious offending than their adult counterparts. More detail on the offences committed by children are presented in Appendix 7.

5. How can offending by children be prevented?

7. It is an unrealistic to aim to eliminate all offending by young people, but this does not mean that there should not be investment in prevention measures. The children's policy currently in development aims to give young people universal access to those opportunities, services and resources that are most likely to promote healthy outcomes. This is to be commended. It should, however, be complemented by a Jersey Children's Charter of Rights. This will empower children by constructing them as rights-bearers and citizens who, with the support of their advocates, can make entitlement claims on the States of Jersey.
8. Additional measures need to be taken to identify, and provide additional support to, those who have become detached from their entitlements and/or have more complex specialist needs. The proposed Children's Integrated Support Team is a commendable model to deliver this objective.

6. How appropriate and effective are current responses to offending by children? In particular, how effective and appropriate are the following: (a) Parish Hall Enquiries;

(b) models of supervision and rehabilitation in the community; and (c) remands and sentences to custody?

9. Whilst there is always room for improvement, it is important to acknowledge that the Parish Hall Enquiry and Probation Service work effectively and appropriately with children in conflict with the law. The use of custodial sentences has been reduced significantly in recent years and the principle of imposing such sentences as a measure of last resort appears to be observed. There does remain a problem of children sometimes being remanded in custody inappropriately.
10. The presumption is that children will always be placed in Greenfields Secure Children's Home, which is a well resourced and comfortable environment. There are three issues that need to be resolved, however: the problem of social isolation typically experienced by children; inadequate access to education, training and other enriching experiences; and the possibility that girls can still be accommodated with adult female prisoners.

viii. How effectively does the youth justice system work with its partners in preventing offending and re-offending by children? Do the present arrangements deliver value for money?

9. There is some very good work undertaken across Jersey. This includes examples of some good partnership work. The Review formed the impression, however, that communication and co-operation between certain partners could be improved. That said, there seems to be a shared commitment to work together.
10. Value for money and cost-effectiveness are slippery concepts in any context, but in criminal justice they need to be applied with caution. Nevertheless, it can be stated with certainty that reducing the number of first-time entrants to the system, court appearances and custodial placements saves money. In these three areas the youth justice system has certainly saved public money. Given the commitment that the States of Jersey has made to children, it is important that a significant proportion of that money be invested in measures that are likely to prevent crime and promote positive outcomes for young people. It will be noted that one of the recommendations of this Report is that there should be an audit of the cost of the youth justice system.

viii. How effectively and appropriately is the harm experienced by victims addressed?

11. This is an area that the Review has not studied in depth. We were made aware of some very positive restorative justice work across different domains (i.e. not just criminal justice), but there is an under-capacity issue that needs to be addressed. It is recommended that a restorative justice strategy covering all domains occupied by children be developed. This should include criminal justice, of course, but also education and children's residential units.
12. One note of caution should be introduced in respect of restorative justice and children. If a children's first' philosophy is embraced by the island, then it should be acknowledged that there will be occasions when it is in the child's best interests not to participate in the process. This does not mean that victims' needs should be ignored, but they may sometimes require being dealt with outside of the restorative justice process.

9. To what extent is current policy and practice compliant with relevant international conventions?

13. Jersey's adoption of the UNCRC represents a significant step in the right direction. The appointment of an independent Children's Commissioner is to be welcomed as is the current work being undertaken by the States of Jersey on the area of children's rights. At the present time Jersey is still in the early stages of working through the full implications of developing a children's rights based approach to service planning and delivery. This work needs to be undertaken sector by sector and service by service. Agencies and their personnel in the criminal justice system need to play an active part in this process. The first step is to ensure that a programme of training and awareness-raising is rolled out as soon as possible.

10. To what extent do key messages from research inform policy and practice?

14. The Review was impressed by a shared commitment to evidence-based policy and practice. The challenge is how best to translate research conducted in other countries and jurisdictions into the local context.

Summary of Recommendations

General: Youth Justice Strategy

0. There should be an understanding promoted across all relevant professional staff that the reasons children and young people present with challenging behaviour are many, complex and often interacting. As part of this, there should be an awareness that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged often present the greatest challenge and that evidence-based approaches are likely to have the greatest impact.

1. To develop a multi-agency youth justice strategy that addresses the rights and needs of children as perpetrators and victims within the existing children's human rights framework. This strategy should include a statement of clear aims. These aims should enshrine principles that protect and promote children's rights in the youth justice system. Accordingly it is recommended that consideration be given to the following aims:

1. The Youth Justice system should be compliant with international children's human rights conventions.
2. Welfare should be a primary consideration and young people should always be treated as children first and offenders second.
3. Whenever possible children should be diverted from the criminal justice system with the expectation that their needs will be met.
4. Young people in the youth justice system should have the same access to their rights and entitlements as any other young person.
5. Children in the youth justice system are kept safe at all times.
6. Children in the youth justice system should be seen and heard.
7. Children in the youth justice system should be dealt with in the least restrictive way possible and only deprived of their liberty as a measure of last resort.
8. Victims should be heard, their needs met and, where appropriate, provided with the opportunity to share their views and take part in restorative processes.
9. Services should be held to account for addressing the needs of young people.

3. Establish a strategic multi-agency Governance Board to oversee and drive through implementation of the Youth Justice Strategy. The Governance Board should develop an agreed set of outcomes and measures in order to evaluate performance, including independent academic evaluation and independent inspection arrangements (ideally, both should be used in order to establish methodological triangulation).
4. It is recommended that a value for money' exercise be undertaken in order to estimate the costs of the different stages and elements of the youth justice system (e.g., Parish Hall Enquiries, court appearances, secure accommodation, etc.). This work will inform the priorities set by the Youth Justice Strategy.
5. The Youth Justice Strategy should sit within a broader child and youth participation strategy. This should be proactive in seeking the views of children and young people in relation to all of the key agencies and processes of the youth justice system. Children's voices should also be represented in the main governance structures of the system in order that young people can feedback on existing provision and contribute to the planning of future service delivery.

6. The Children and Young People's Plan and Pledge to Jersey's Children and Young People should be complemented by a Children's Charter of Rights that are linked to tangible universal entitlements guaranteed by the States of Jersey. The launch of such a Charter should be accompanied by,

1. A rolling programme of education and awareness-raising amongst children, families and all relevant professionals; and
2. Clear signposting to advice and advocacy services for children and their parents/carers.

7. The Youth Justice Strategy should sit within a well-developed Early Help model that ensures children's holistic needs are identified and responded to at the very earliest opportunity. As part of this, a whole system commitment should be made to ensure children access the right help at the right time, minimising the need for specialist and statutory services. A panel comprising relevant professionals from key agencies should be established to identify and support the small number of children who may have become detached from universal services, with presenting and interacting difficulties in the areas of school non- attendance, exclusion and offending. Support would be provided by a virtual team (the Children's Integrated Support Team), working to the principle of minimum sufficient, and real time intervention. The panel should sit within a broader strategic framework that ensures all agencies are held to account in discharging their responsibilities.
8. Building on existing good practice, a Restorative Justice Strategy for Jersey should be developed. It should include developing appropriate practice in the domains of community, education, public care, Parish Hall Enquiry and criminal justice.

Changes to the Law, Guidance and Legal Practice

9. In line with Article 3 of the UNCRC 1989, which states that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration', the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 should be amended to include an explicit reference to this welfare principle.
10. Consideration should be given to a revision of the relevant legislation so as to give further powers to the Youth Court to deal with trials and sentencing involving allegations against children below the age of 18.
11. Notwithstanding the welcome guidance of the Attorney General on the prosecution of children, it should be noted that Paragraph 78a of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Report (2016) to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which now covers the Bailiwick of Jersey in its reporting) states that there is need to Raise the age of criminal responsibility in accordance with acceptable international standards'. Given that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also stated is the age of criminal responsibility should be no lower than 12 years, it is recommended these views are taken into full consideration in the review of the age of criminal responsibility that scheduled to take place in 2021.

12. Given that a review of the age of criminal responsibility is scheduled to take place in 2021 and the Independent Care Inquiry has requested consideration be given to developing a welfare- based system of youth justice, we would recommend the two issues be considered together. The terms of reference of the 2021 review should be widened to include an exploration of how a move to raise the age of criminal responsibility could be supported by an appropriate, welfare- based model that protects children's rights via appropriate judicial oversight.
13. In line with Paragraph 78d of the Report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016), the possibility of a child being detained in custody with adults should be removed completely (this remains possible in the case of girls in Jersey).
14. Currently, applications under Article 5 (5) of the Sex Offenders (J) Law 2010 (application to no longer be subject to notification requirements) have to be made to the court that set the notification period. Where a Youth Court set the period a person may not be eligible to apply until he or she is an adult. It may be inappropriate for an adult to apply to the Youth Court, but the  Magistrates'  Court would  not,  by  law,  be  able  to  deal  with  the  matter. Moreover,  a Magistrates' Court hearing would be in public whereas the offender as a child would not have been identified in public. This legislative anomaly should be addressed.
15. Review and amend current legislation and guidance to increase the opportunities for temporary release (see Recommendation 6.24.i).
16. The principle of a horizontal sentencing framework should be upheld, but it is recognised that the courts have limited sentences available to them in the Youth Court. In the circumstances a reparative condition as part of a Probation Order, and as an alternative to a financial penalty, could be made available in appropriate cases.
17. Recommendation 78b of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2016) states that diversion measures do not appear in children's records' and Council of Europe guidance that advises criminal records of children should be non-disclosable on reaching the age of majority' (apart from in cases where serious offences have been committed). It is therefore recommended that guidance is issued to ensure that, a clear Criminal Records and Enhanced Disclosure Policy in respect of children should be developed.

Parish Hall Enquiries

18. There is consensus that the Parish Hall Enquiry System works well for most children and should be retained, but improvements and enhancements should be considered without undermining the unique ethos of community-based informalism that it represents.

1. It is recognised that, since the 2010 Report, the Probation Service has taken a more proactive role in supporting the Parish Hall Enquiry. Although this development represents a clear improvement in practice, this is an opportune moment to review whether this supporting role could be improved or possibly even involve agencies such as the youth service. A task and finish group should consider how children can be better prepared for, and supported through, the PHE process; and how Centeniers can be best informed and prepared ahead of a child appearing before the PHE.
2. When appropriate, consideration should be given to making greater use of restorative resolutions and explore whether this process should be supported by a victim advocacy scheme.

Courts

19. Consideration should be given to how the Youth Court and Royal Court can make further progress towards being more child-friendly. An element of formality in proceedings is not necessarily to be removed completely, but in some cases a more informal and sensitive approach is appropriate. The courts would clearly benefit from receiving some information and guidance about children's capacity and disposition in advance of hearings. We therefore recommend that the Probation Service be tasked with engaging with courts in order to review how the appropriate information and guidance can be better communicated in advance of hearings.
20. Where an adult and a child below the age of 18 years appear in the Magistrates' Court, the Magistrates' Court should be permitted to modify its procedures.
21. Membership of the Youth Appeal Court should be widened to include a judge sitting with Jurats or former Youth Court Panel Members (provided the latter are up-to-date with their training).
22. As part of a wider commitment to inclusivity and widening participation, the current age restriction of 60 years should be lifted on Youth Court Panel members.

Custody

23. Although there does not appear to be a problem with excessive or inappropriate custodial sentencing, there remains a risk of children being deprived of their liberty due to the unavailability of appropriate accommodation. This can potentially result in children being held overnight in police custody and inappropriate custodial remands. As a matter of urgency we recommend that a Bail and Accommodation Strategy is developed to ensure children are not subject to the inappropriate deprivation of liberty in police custody and secure accommodation. A Task and Finish Group should be established to explore innovative ways of providing a continuum of appropriate, safe and secure accommodation that takes full account of issues related to welfare, mental health and criminogenic needs. This should include specialist foster care as well as suitable residential units. Urgent attention should also be given to how to address late requests for remand. Finally, the Task and Finish Group should revisit and review the appropriateness of whether the Youth Court should enjoy equivalent powers in respect of the Secure Accommodation Order as those available in Family Proceedings under Article 29 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
24. The decline in the use of custodial sentencing since the Review in 2010 is to be welcomed, but this has resulted in the risk of social isolation for some children in Greenfields Secure Children's Home. It is therefore recommended that the walls of secure accommodation are more permeable in terms of developing a more integrated approach to the use of the facility. This could include,

1. Greater use of properly risk-assessed day release in order for children to partake of community resources such as education and training; and
2. Access to Greenfields being given to community-based agencies that work with young people.

Training

25. All professionals and volunteers who have contact with children in the youth justice system should receive high quality and ongoing specialist training on working with young people. The content of the training should include (a) an understanding of how children's rights should be applied in practice; and (b) Adverse Childhood Experiences, child development, and trauma- informed practice so that children currently at risk of being perceived as non-compliant are not unnecessarily criminalised. Those included in the training should be the States Police, Honorary Police, magistrates, advocates, probation officers and restorative justice practitioners.

Diversity, Recruitment and Monitoring

26. It should be the aim of every public service to reflect the community it serves in all its diversity. Accordingly consideration should be given to taking positive action to encourage applications from the widest possible range of potential candidates to all of the key voluntary and professional roles in the youth justice system.
27. In order to address diversity issues it is important to undertake monitoring in relation to recording the ethnic profile of children across all of the key domains of service provision, including youth justice. It is only through undertaking such monitoring that disparities and patterns of over-representation can be identified with confidence.

Research

28. It is acknowledged that research on Adverse Childhood Experiences is currently being undertaken and we would urge Jersey to continue its work in this area. In particular it is important to establish the prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (and related issues) in the general population.

Appendix 1: Membership of Steering Group

Jersey Steering Group Members:

Brian Heath, MBE, Chief Probation Officer (Steering Group Chair) Robert MacRae , QC, HM Attorney General

Sylvia Roberts, Law Officers' Department

Supt. Stewart Gull, States of Jersey Police

Danny Scaife, Chair Comite des Chefs de Police

Susan Devlin, Group Director, Children's Service

Julian Radcliffe, Director of Inclusion and Early intervention Mike Capern, Head of Youth Service

Andrew Heaven, Director of Children's Policy

Gill Hutchinson, Building a Safer Society

James Lynch, Building a Safer Society

Dr Helen Miles (in the early stages of the Review)

External Steering Group Members

Dusty Kennedy, Director of Youth Justice Board Cymru (in the early stages of the Review), Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner in South Wales, and Freelance Consultant

Professor Jonathan Evans, University of South Wales (Lead author)

Consultee

Magistrate: Bridget Shaw

Appendix 2: International Framework of Children's Rights Relevant to Youth Justice

International Conventions on Children's Rights

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules (1985)

The Directing Principles for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) (1990)

The Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Liberty (The Havana Guidelines) (1990)

The Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules) (1990)

The Economic and Social Council Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System (Vienna Guidelines) (1997)

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 2: 1-2 (Non-discrimination):

States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.'

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.'

Article 3.1 (the welfare principle):

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.'

Article 9.1 (separation from family):

States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.'

Article 12.1-2 (seeking the views of the child):

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weigh in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.'

For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.'

Article 15: 1-2 (Freedom of association and assembly)

States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.'

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

Article 18:1-3 (appropriate assistance to parents):

States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.'

For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.'

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.'

Article 37: a-d (cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and the deprivation of liberty):

No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time'

Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances'

Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance'

Article 40.1 (promotion of child's sense of dignity and worth; promotion of reintegration into society):

recognise the right of every child as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child assuming a constructive role in society.'

Beijing Rules

Fundamental perspectives:

1.1: To further the well-being of the juvenile and his or her family.

1.2: To develop conditions that will ensure a meaningful life in the community for the juvenile.

1.4:  To make the administration of juvenile justice an integral part of the national development process of each country, within a comprehensive framework of social justice for all juveniles.

Age of Responsibility:

4.1: To not fix the beginning age at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental, and intellectual maturity.

Aim of juvenile justice:

5.1: To emphasise the well-being of the juvenile and ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstance of both the offender and the offence.

Scope and discretion:

6.2: To make efforts to ensure sufficient accountability at all stages and levels in the exercise of any such discretion.

Protection of privacy:

8.1: To respect the right to privacy at all stages to avoid harm being caused by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.

8.2: To not publish any information that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender. The Riyadh Guidelines

Guidelines underpinned by diversionary, early intervention and non-punitive principles within a multi-disciplinary framework:

the successful prevention of juvenile delinquency requires efforts on the part of the entire society to ensure the harmonious development of adolescents'  (para. 2);  formal agencies of social control should only be utilised as a means of last resort' (para. 5); and no child or young person should be subjected to harsh or degrading correction or punishment measures at home, in schools or in any other institutions' (para. 54).