Forum Brief: Criminal Justice Bill

The Criminal Justice Bill has been debated in the House of Commons.

The Children's Society asked the ePolitix.com Forum for views on how the Bill could affect the welfare of children and young people.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: "The Bill is about the protection of the public and the protection of the standing and credibility of our justice system. That is our priority. It is not about protecting the status quo of outdated processes for their own sake."

Forum Response: The Children's Society

Bob Reitemeier, Children's Society chief executive, said: "This Bill will muddy the waters by adding more legislation to an already muddled system.

"The amendment is urgently needed to meet the immediate needs of children and young people. But we are also urging the government to wipe the slate clean - it's time for a fresh approach to dealing with young people caught up in crime."

Forum Response: Barnardo's

Pam Hibbert, principal policy officer for Barnardo's, told ePolitix.com: "Attitudes to children in Britain are often ambivalent, and nowhere is this more apparent than in our attitudes to children who come into conflict with the law.

"Currently 88 per cent of all crime is committed by adults but the extent of youth crime has actually declined in the last decade - by almost 21 per cent between 1992 and 2000.

"Currently a magistrate can send an adult to prison for a maximum of six months yet a two year Detention and Training Order can be imposed on a child as young as 12 in the Youth Court.

"One of the new sentences for adults outlined in the Criminal Justice Bill is that of Custody Plus, where a short period in custody is followed by a longer period receiving support and supervision in the community. This will result in inequality of sentencing for children who are co-accused with an adult.

"An adult sentenced to Custody Plus will serve a minimum of two weeks in custody and 26 weeks receiving support and supervision in the community. The child, for the same offence, will serve a minimum of eight weeks in custody and receive only eight weeks of supervision and support.

"Barnardo's are calling for a comprehensive review of law and policy for children in trouble, based on a children's human rights framework. This would provide a clear set of principles to inform law, policy and practice. A review would also need to take into account welfare legislation affecting children, such as the 1989 Children Act, as well as health and education legislation and policy.

"If crime prevention and decriminalisation are high priorities for government, then urgent attention needs to be given to dealing with children who offend within a welfare-based model, capitalising on the impressionability and potential for change in children."

Forum Response: Voice UK

Kathryn Stone, director for Voice UK, told ePolitix.com: "Voice UK supports children's charities and others interested in penal reform in calling for greater consideration of the welfare of children, as this bill is being debated.

"Anything that brings about improved access to justice for victims and witnesses has to be welcomed. In common with many other charities working with vulnerable people who have been abused or victims of crime, we would like to see the clause about increasing sentences for racially motivated crimes or crimes motivated for religious reasons, include disability.

"More importantly, if a commitment is being made to further protecting victims and witnesses then it's important that the measures on the statute book already - Special Measures in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act - are implemented consistently and appropriately.

"Our experience is that currently these are implemented in a piecemeal way. The phrase postcode lottery is a hackneyed one but is entirely relevant in this context."

Forum Response: National Youth Agency

A spokesman for The NYA, told ePolitix.com: "The NYA shares some concerns already expressed on the Bill.

"Clause 1 of the Bill allows for extension of powers to stop and search. This extension is likely to lead to an increase in young people being stopped and searched arbitrarily, which may impinge upon the right of free association (Article 15 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). It is also likely to have little real impact on reducing crime.

"Clause 92 proposes to remove section 62(2) and (3) from the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (offences committed by person under 14 years disregarded for purposes of evidence relating to previous convictions. Convictions committed when the defendant was under 14 years could therefore be disclosed as evidence of 'bad character' if they are over 21 years. This appears to contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - the right to a fair trial - and does not recognise the stages of development of children.

This will in effect prevent a person from moving on from convictions in childhood.

"Clause 127 (1) sets out proposed factors that should determine how serious an offence is. These include the offender's culpability in committing the offence and the harm, or risk of harm, that the offence caused or was intended to cause. In cases where the offender has one or more convictions, the court may take each conviction as an 'aggravating factor.' If an offence was committed while the offender was on bail then this too should be treated as an 'aggravating factor '.

"Because of the way the reprimand and final warning scheme work, it is easier for children and young people to accrue 'criminal convictions'. Sentencing which takes into account previous convictions and the time elapsed since the last offence is likely to lead to more custodial sentences for juveniles. Again this ignores the recommendations made by the Committee on the Rights of the Child relating to Article 37 (b) of the CRC. A holistic approach, that seeks to tackle the causes of offending could be a more effective way of reducing offending in the long term.

"Clauses 130 and 160 propose to alter the definition of a community sentence and introduce a new term - 'youth community orders' (applying to 10-17 year olds inclusive. Again this fails to recognise Article 1 of the CRC - that someone is a child until 18 years of age. Giving 16 and 17 year-olds adult sentences does not adhere to Article 40.3 of the CRC, which states that signatories should seek to establish a justice system specifically applicable to children, it is time to remove 'adult' sentences from provisions for children.

"Clause 143 (3) and clause 144 (3) propose that if the offender is aged under 17 years and is not represented by counsel or a solicitor, then a copy of the pre-sentence report or any other report by a local probation board or YOT need not be given to the offender, but to their parent/guardian. A young offender should have the right to be made aware of the contents of any report which is submitted to a court in line with Articles 13 and 40 of the CRC and Article 8 of the ECHR.

"Clauses 151- 159 allow for the establishment of a Sentencing Guidelines Council to be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. This Council will work alongside the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which already exists. No mention is made of the need for sentencing guidelines for children and young people. It is likely therefore that guidelines will be drawn up for adults, which will then apply to children. This does not adhere to Article 40 of the CRC which stipulates that establishment of procedures within the justice system should be specifically applicable to children."