E LAW | Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law - Copyright Policy
Family Conferences in the Juvenile Justice System of
South Australia
PART A: Family Conference as a Sentencing Option - Port
Adelaide Youth Court, 1994
Rosanne McInnes
PART B: Family Conference - The Role of the Conference
Coordinator
Sue Hetzel
Editorial Note
- Rosanne McInnes is a stipendiary magistrate in Adelaide, South
Australia. In January 1994, the Adelaide Youth Court began to
administer the implementation of new juvenile offender legislation
in all major metropolitan court areas, with the exception of the
Port Adelaide court area. Rosanne McInnes was transferred to the
Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, where she was responsible for
implementing the new legislation until the Adelaide Youth Court
was able to take over, in April 1994. At Port Adelaide, she used
Family Conference as a sentencing option.
- Sue Hetzel was the Senior Youth Justice coordinator who introduced
Family Conference into options for dealing with juvenile offending
in South Australia, under the new legislation. She has a private
social work practice, which provides private counselling and conducts
human resources management education programmes. The material
for dealing with the role of the conference coordinator is extracted
from a chapter Sue Hetzel has contributed to a book about Family
Conference around the world, which is being published in the USA
in early 1996. The editors are Hudson, Galloway, Morris, and Maxwell,
who are based at universities in Canada.
INTRODUCTION
- From 1993 to late 1994, the Young Offenders Act 1993 and
the Youth Court Act 1993 of South Australia were interpreted
by the stipendiary magistrate at Port Adelaide Youth Court , to
allow the use of Family Conference as a means of diverting young
offenders from the court system before the laying of a charge
and also as a sentencing option for young offenders. This interpretation
was certainly, on one view, in accordance with the recommendations
of the Legislative Council Select Committee of Inquiry into the
Juvenile Justice System 1992, which led to the enactment of the
new legislation.
- Unfortunately, this interpretation was not shared by the Adelaide
Youth Court under the administration of the Senior Judge. That
branch of the Court interpreted the same legislation without reference
to the Select Committees recommendations. The interpretation which
eventually prevailed was that Family Conference were not a sentencing
option, but only a system of diverting young offenders away from
the criminal justice system in the first place.
- However the one year Port Adelaide experience of Family Conference
as a sentencing option is invaluable in showing that Family Conference
are an effective means of preventing recidivism when used as a
sentencing option as well as a diversionary system.
- In this paper, Part A by Roseanne McInnes, considers;
1. The History of Diversion of young offenders in South Australia
2. The Select Committee's Review and recommendations
3. The major provisions of the new legislation
4. The Port Adelaide Youth Court's interpretation of the legislation
and the use of
5. Family Conference as a sentencing option in
practice- including the co-operation achieved between the police,
the court, social workers and families
6. Lessons from the Port Adelaide experience
7. Reversal of the Port Adelaide interpretation
8. Reflections on the propriety of the use of Family Conference
as a sentencing option.
-
An appendix to this part of the article is provided at the end
of the paper and sets out the legislative provisions relating
to Family Conference, and a New Zealand Judge's personal reflections
on the operation of the Family Group Conference scheme in New
Zealand
-
Part B of this paper by Sue Hetzel provides an overview of the
role of the conference coordinator and concludes that in spite
of the many issues which remain to be resolved, Family Conference
have been successful in empowering young people.
PART A
THE HISTORY OF THE DIVERSION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
AWAY FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL COURTS
Diversion- the Aid Panels
- Diversion of young offenders away from criminal courts was
introduced into South Australia in 1972. First offenders and minor
offenders were channelled away from criminal courts, if they admitted
guilt, and instead of being sentenced in court, these young offenders
appeared before Aid Panels. Each Aid Panel consisted of a police
officer and a social worker employed in the State welfare department
(now known as "Family and Community Services").
- The main purpose of the Aid Panels was to facilitate crime
prevention. It was thought that the number of first offenders
who never re-offended might be increased if the cause of the offending
behaviour was addressed, as well as the effect. Informal processing
of young offenders offered an effective way of identifying and
responding to underlying causes triggering a behaviour pattern
by a young person which, on at least one occasion, resulted in
the commission of an act which constituted a criminal offence.
Offences finalised by Aid Panels were not treated as previous
offences which were listed on criminal history records of individual
young offenders.
- In 1979, the Aid Panels took over responsibility for the determination
of which young offenders should be diverted, and which young offenders
should be sentenced in court in relation to the offences they
had committed. Courts were not given power to review Aid Panel
decisions, either with respect to diversion screening, or with
respect to determining penalties for young offenders.
- Sentencing courts were perceived to have a particular inadequacy;
they were not addressing the causes of criminal offending as well
as the effects. As a result, Parliament removed from the courts
their sentencing jurisdiction, in relation to certain young offenders.
This jurisdiction was handed, by Parliament, to police and social
workers.
- The role played by the Aid Panels prior to 1994 has been described
in detail by Joy Wundersitz, in "The Net-Widening Effects
of Aid Panels and Screening Panels in South Australia" (1992)
25 Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 115.
- Section 7 of the Childrens Protection and Young Offenders
Act 1979 (the CP&YOA) defined the principles that Aid Panels
and children's courts were required to consider whenever a young
offenders criminal matter was finalised. The section emphasised
rehabilitation of the offender.
The Legislative Council Select Committee of Inquiry into the
Juvenile Justice System, 1992
- In 1992, the operation of the CP&YOA was reviewed by the
Legislative Council Select Committee of Inquiry into the Juvenile
Justice System, which reported to the South Australian Parliament
in November 1992.
- The Select Committee was comprised of parliamentarians from
every point on the political spectrum. It took evidence for almost
a year, from all kinds of organisations and people, from those
working in courts and juvenile justice agencies to victims of
crime to young people and their families.
- Despite the diversity of its members, the Select Committee
was unanimous in its finding that the juvenile justice system
required complete restructuring, and in its recommendations as
to how this should be achieved. The Report of the Select Committee
was widely published. There was a further period of public consultation
before new legislation was enacted in 1993, restructuring the
juvenile justice system.
- The recommendations of the Committee were the basis for the
new legislation, the Youth Court Act 1993, and the Young Offenders
Act 1993.
The Select Committee's recommendations - The Abolition of Aid Panels
- Aid Panels were criticised in submissions to the Committee.
Generally, the criticisms were aimed not at the concept of diverting
some young offenders away from courts. The criticisms were concerned
with the way the Aid Panels were operating.
- The Committee found that:
(i) all diversionary systems caused some surrendering of individual
rights in exchange for other advantages;
(ii) that Aid Panellists were not effectively utilising the powers
to deal with young offenders, when offences were finalised at
the Aid Panel rather than referred to a children's court, and
(iii) that there were conceptual inadequacies inherent in the
legislation setting up the Aid Panels; of particular concern was
the fact that there was no provision for any kind of victim involvement
in the Aid Panel process at any stage. (Report, Chapter 8).
- The Committee found that about 3.1% of youths in South Australia
were dealt with by an Aid Panel, and that 1.4% came before a children's
court, in a single year. Aboriginal children constituted 1.7%
of the juvenile population, but they accounted for 9.5% of the
appearances before courts and Aid Panels in a single year.
- The Committee found that one in five children appeared before
aid panels and courts between the ages of ten and eighteen; of
those, only 5.6% ever appeared in court. Of the total population,
29% of the boys and 12.6% of the girls appeared before either
courts or Aid Panels. Only 35% of young offenders had a single
appearance before an Aid Panel or a court, and 4.7% appeared more
than 5 times. 5% of the total population were the young offenders
were responsible for a third of all court and panel appearances.
These figures were based on a study of children born in 1972.
- The Committee was also told that 72% of the people in adult
prisons had appeared before either an Aid Panel or a children's
court in relation to juvenile offending, before committing offences
as adults. (Report, Chapter 2)
- The Committee also detailed, in chapter 2, statistics concerning
aboriginal children that gave rise to very great concern about
the way that they were being dealt with in the juvenile justice
system. Particulars are noted later in this article. As a result
of these findings, the Committee recommended that Aid Panels be
abolished.
Sentencing of Young Offenders in Youth Courts
- Despite the abolition of the Aid Panels, this did not mean
that the power to sentence all young offenders, which had been
removed from the courts prior to 1972, would be returned to the
courts under the new legislation. The Committee recommended increasing
court powers in relation to length of sentences of detention,
but it simultaneously recommended that courts only be permitted
to have jurisdiction to sentence a small range of young offenders.
- In effect the Committee recommended less sentencing jurisdiction
for courts, not more. Recommendation 9.13.7, "That the Youth
Court be reserved for the most serious cases" is, when stripped
of the language of diplomacy, a finding by the Committee that
there are better ways to deal with young offenders than putting
them into criminal courts for sentencing.
- From other material in the Report, it appears that the Committee
felt that courts should only be involved with less than a third
of all young offenders, and then only if all other options had
been tried, and had failed to prevent recidivism.
- Rather than making any recommendations designed to improve
court performance (perhaps, for example, recommendations requiring
sentencing courts to take into account the need to identify and
address causes of offending behaviour, and to structure penalties
to deal with causes as well as effects), the Committee recommended
diverting most young offenders away from courts altogether. Indeed
they sought to improve the diversionary systems, so that even
fewer young offenders came within the group which courts had powers
to sentence for criminal offences.
- Nonetheless, some recommendations were made concerning the
operations of the youth courts. Particular recommendations included:
"That procedures be developed to enable the victim to
contribute
to the sentencing process" (Report, Para 9.13.5); and "The
court should have the standard range of sentencing options, including
reparation, community service (maximum of 500 hours), change of
residence, fines and detention..." (Report, Para 9.13.7)
New systems of diversion
- In order to improve diversion of young offenders away from
courts, the Committee examined existing diversionary models used
in other Australasian jurisdictions.
- The Committee was impressed with two kinds of diversionary
models, and recommended that both be introduced into South Australian
juvenile criminal justice, with local modifications.
- The first of these models, is police cautioning. Formal police
cautioning of young offenders can mean young offenders undertake
to carry out up to 75 hours of community service work, make apologies,
and abide by certain limits , for example curfews, for short periods
of time. However, this article is concerned with the second kind
of diversionary model, the Family Conference.
- The Select Committee was very impressed by the New Zealand
Family Group Conference system, and this influenced the recommendations
which were made concerning Family Conference. It was believed
that the New Zealand Family Group Conferences had greatly reduced
recidivist offending by indigenous young offenders in New Zealand.
- However, the final provisions made for Family Conference in
the South Australian legislation differ from the New Zealand Family
Group Conferences in a number of ways. Significant differences
include the following:
i) Not all young offenders are referred to a family conference.
(s.7, YOA)
ii) The initial decision as to whether a young offender should
be referred to a conference or referred to court is vested in
police.(s.7, YOA)
iii) The court can review the exercise of the police discretion
to refer a matter to court rather than to conference. (s.17(2),
YOA)
iv) The court does not review conference outcomes.(s.12(10), YOA)
v) No provision is made to reimburse victims for any costs they
incur if they attend conferences.
Improving diversion
- In their recommendations on improving the diversionary systems
through the abolition of Aid panels and the institution of Family
Conference and Cautioning, the Committee made clear recommendations
on who should determine which young offenders were to be diverted.
- They recommended;
"That responsibility for the screening process rest with
senior police officers. If a senior police officer chooses not
to deal with the matter himself/herself, by way of police caution
(s)he will: Refer to a family conference except where the young
person is a serious offender and the Family Group conference is
deemed inappropriate or the young person has previously been dealt
with by way of a FGC, but that Conference has failed to redress
the offending."
If a senior police officer refers a matter to the Youth Court,
the presiding Magistrate or Judge should "have the power
to assess the appropriateness of that referral and, where appropriate,
direct that a formal caution be administered or a Family Group
Conference be arranged". (Recommendation 8.8.10)
- The Young Offenders Act 1993 created a definition of "minor
offender" rather than a definition of a serious offender.
Police powers in accordance with recommendation 8.8.10 were contained
in the definition of "minor offender" and in section
7, which is in a Part headed "Minor Offences" (the only
use of this term anywhere in the Act other than the definition
in the definitions section), in a Division headed "General
powers".
- The court power to review appropriateness of referrals is
contained in section 17(2), which is in a Part of the Act headed
"Court Proceedings against a Youth", in a Division headed
"The Charge."
- Section 17(2) states:
"The Court may, even though a charge has been laid, refer
the subject matter of the charge (after a youth's guilt has been
established either by admission or by the Court's findings) to
be dealt with by a police officer or by a family
conference."
Various Select Committee recommendations concerning Family
Conference
- Despite the fact that many of the Select Committee recommendations
contained in paragraph 8.8 of the Report were translated into
legislation, others were not, particularly recommendations which
could be dealt with by administrators without legislation to assist
them. Various recommendations of particular interest to the institution
of Family Conference include those recommendations concerned with
the coordinator, participants and outcome of the conference.
(i) Youth Justice Coordinators
- The Select Committee recommended that the youth justice coordinators
who were not members of the judiciary should be accredited mediators
from a wide range of backgrounds, and that special regard should
be paid to recruiting members of the aboriginal community. (Recommendations
3,4,5 & 6, Report, Para 8.8)
- Further it was recommended that the coordinators should have
"intensive instruction on the philosophical and implementational
components of Family Group Conference, including comprehensive
training in mediation techniques." (Recommendation 7, Report,
Para 8.8).
- Finally, (Recommendation 10), "That the role of the youth
justice coordinator at the Conference be that of mediator, with
the primary task of assisting the key participants to arrive at
a mutually acceptable outcome".
- s. 9 of the Act defines a Youth Justice Coordinator as a Magistrate
or a person appointed by the Minister for a period not exceeding
three years. s.11(1) requires that a youth justice coordinator
"(who will chair the conference)" has to be present
at a family conference. The Act does not contain any explicit
reference to mediators.
(ii) The "key participants"
- The "key participants" were defined in recommendation
8.8.9, and the people listed are the same people as are listed
in ss.10 & 11 of the Young Offenders Act. Essentially, families
of young offenders and victims are invited to attend Family Conference
but they are not required to do so. The conference quorum is constituted
by a police officer, the young offender, and the youth justice
coordinator.
(iii) The outcome of a family conference
- Recommendation 8.8.12 was "That the police have the power
of veto over any agreement proposed at the conference which they
consider inadequate". S.11(2) of the Young Offenders Act
: "A decision of a family conference is not however to be
regarded as validly made unless police and the young offender
concur in the decision." Neither the Report nor the Act tried
to define what was to be the subject concerning which "an
appropriate outcome" (the term used in the Report) was to
be reached.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT AT PORT ADELAIDE IN
1994.
The local area
- Port Adelaide Magistrates Court covers the bulk of the western
suburbs of Adelaide, which is by far the largest city in the State,
and the State capital.
- Levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, are
very high. Both offenders and victims in the Port Adelaide court
area are from more diverse cultural backgrounds than those in
any other court area. For many years, newly arrived immigrants
settled around the migrant hostel which accommodated them when
they came to Australia.
- Young offenders come from indigenous, Asian, Middle Eastern,
South American and Polynesian families, and from European families
originating anywhere from the Baltic's to the Arctic. There is
a very stable population of "blue collar" families who
have lived in the area for four generations or more.
Using Family Conference as one aspect of overall sentencing strategy
- At Port Adelaide, those of us working in the juvenile justice
area found, by experience, that the family conference system recommended
by the Select Committee is a good system which prevents recidivism.
It is not a universal panacea, but it was never anticipated that
it would be.
- It was found that Family Conference of the kind Sue Hetzel
describes in Part B of this article work well when they are being
held against a background of co-operation between the court, police,
social workers and parents, and a court system which is treated
with respect by young offenders.
- Maintaining the necessary levels of co-operation and respect
requires constant work. The role of the magistrate has to be extended,
in a way which is very similar to the role of the "key worker"
in public sector management in the State of Victoria.
- A detailed strategy was used with respect to youth court administration
and sentencing. It lies outside the scope of this article. It
suffices to say that the basic principles were:
a) attempting to deal with identified types of offender behaviour
patterns when structuring penalties; and
b) dealing with criminal charges with speed and certainty; and
c) setting limits on behaviour at a limit short of criminality;
warning of the consequences of breaching limits; and ensuring
the limits were enforced.
d) releasing parents of alleged young offenders from the obligation
to act as monetary guarantors, and placing responsibility for
compliance with bail conditions on the alleged young offender.
- In practice, if a young offender had received a detailed warning
about the consequences of breach when a bail or bond condition
was imposed, and the young offender was later found to be breaching
the bail or bond condition, the young offender immediately spent
five days remanded in custody, as a direct consequence of the
breach. Warnings were noted by using $99 in the monetary amount
of the bail or the obligation, and this too was explained to the
young offender when it happened. Particularly dire warnings resulted
in $499 bails.
- Use of this kind of detention is quite different to the "clang
of the prison gate" philosophy of scaring young offenders
in the hope they will desist from further offending. It empowers
police, social workers and parents to intervene after "at
risk" behaviour becomes apparent but before a victim gets
hurt.
- Many young offenders diverted from court to conference were
on $99 bail with stringent conditions. Those who breached bail
and spent five days in custody (awaiting a bail report as to how
best to reduce the risk of re-offending) were then referred to
conference in respect of the breach bail charge as well.
- In connection with this strategy, the Young Offenders Act
1993 was construed as follows:
(a) Family Conference were treated as bringing mediation to the
resolution of the sentencing dispute between police and the young
offender, ie. the dispute as to the punishment to be borne by
a young offender as a result of the commission of a criminal offence.
(b) Family Conference were treated as an option which could be
incorporated into a sentencing package by the sentencing court,
provided regard was had to the principle that the overall penalty
for commission of multiple sentences should reflect the totality
of the offenders. In this way, disparity in sentencing of co-offenders
could be reduced.
(c) the appropriateness of police decisions to divert young offenders
to court was reviewed in most cases coming before the court, from
March 1994.
The effect of empowerment
- At Port Adelaide in 1994, the view was taken that if participation
and empowerment was needed by Aboriginal families trying to cope
with children who had become young offenders as recommended by
the Select Committee, then it was probably also needed by the
families of non-Aboriginal children appearing in court, to prevent
their young offenders becoming recidivist offenders.
- The view was also taken that if families were feeling disempowered,
the cloak of authority might also be hiding similar feelings of
disempowerment among front-line police officers and social workers
dealing with young offenders. Consequently, penalties imposed
in court sought to reinforce the setting of behaviour limits on
young offenders by all of the adults around the young offender.
- At an early stage a sentencing principle was developed that,
where possible, no sentence of detention would be imposed on a
young offender who had never been to a family conference.
- Initially, this policy increased rates of referral to Family
Conference rather than the court. It then became clear that when
diversion had been used, it rarely became necessary to impose
a sentence of detention. The sources of the statistics are less
than ideal; notes jotted on cause lists were put into a spreadsheet
after working hours.
- In the vicinity of 1000 separate charges were finalised at
Port Adelaide court in 1994, including those in a substantial
backlog carried over from 1993 (because of uncertainty surrounding
the new legislation that was to be introduced in 1994).
- About ten sentences of immediate detention were imposed during
the whole of the year (one per hundred charges finalised). One
sentence of detention was for six months and another was for four
months. The rest were for three months or less.
- More and longer sentences would have been imposed if young
offenders had continued to offend, however, they did not appear
in court charged with fresh offences and showing such blatant
disobedience for the law and for the rights of other people in
the community that long sentences of detention were called for.
- It was also found that it was not necessary to impose sentences
of detention in order to raise morale amongst police patrol officers.
Quick and effective enforcement of the authority of adults to
set behavioural limits on young offenders, and the resulting reduction
in frequency and severity of offending committed by individual
young offenders was just as (if not more) effective in raising
the morale of parents, police and social workers working with
the young offenders.
- I have been shown police figures which indicate that within
nine months of implementing all aspects of the strategy, the number
of young offenders reported or apprehended for offences per month
went from about 100 per month to about 180 per month.
- The number of charges laid in court during the year was about
the same number as the number laid in the previous year. Increased
use of diversion protected the court from being swamped by young
offenders when patrol police stopped taking the attitude that
"he's only a juvenile; nothing is going to happen so it's
a waste of time bothering with the paperwork." That attitude
had done little to assist either young offenders or the victims
of their offences.
- No statistics were kept concerning the personal details of
young offenders appearing in court, such as race, gender, or previous
offending histories. However, in early 1994, aboriginal young
offenders were appearing in court in numbers disproportionate
to the rest of the juvenile population, as they had done under
the old legislation.
- Yet by the end of 1994, aboriginal young offenders rarely
appeared in court charged with offences. If those who had been
recidivist offenders were committing further offences, they were
not doing so within the Port Adelaide court area. Nor were they
being replaced by a new generation of aboriginal young offenders.
- The strategy depended on co-operation between police, parents
and social workers, with the court coordinating this co-operation.
No-one could have asked for more co-operation than I received
from the Port Adelaide, Hindmarsh and Henley Beach police, particularly
the constables on patrols; the Port Adelaide Prosecutions Unit;
the parents of children living in the Port Adelaide court area;
and the community service work and adolescent offender teams at
the Woodville office of the Department of Family and Community
Services.
A snapshot of court outcomes for drug, public order, dishonesty,
violence and serious traffic offences
- The following statistics detail the recorded outcomes of charges
laid in court in respect of young offenders in the third quarter
of 1994; the third quarter is used as the figures contain fewest
inaccuracies. The number of individual young offenders dealt with
is probably about 150, but this figure is not reliable.
- Port Adelaide youth court 1/7/95-30/9/95
finalisation orders- numbers;
Without further penalty 13
Community service work 28
Fine 15
Detention (nb. includes 10
some remands in custody
without finalisation)
Suspended detention 5
Referrals
- to Family Conference 54
- to higher court (with 8
sentencing jurisdiction)
- to police caution 2
- to trial court 22
Resolved at pretrial
conference eg apology 1
Dismissed/withdrawn 20
Obligation
- social work supervision 9
- parent/guardian supv/n 5
- other 4
TOTAL: 196
--------------------------------
UNFINALISED, ORDERS:
Warrant/Mandate (non-appearance);
Fresh summons to issue; Remand.
TOTAL: 196
================================
TOTAL ORDERS MADE: 392
================================
--------------------------------
Finalisation orders-%
of total finalisation orders
Without further penalty 7%
Community service work 14%
Fine 8%
Detention (nb. includes 5%
some remands in custody
without finalisation)
Suspended detention 3%
Referrals
- to Family Conference 28%
- to higher court (with 4%
sentencing jurisdiction)
- to police caution 1%
- to trial court 11%
Resolved at pretrial
conference eg apology 1%
Dismissed/withdrawn 10%
Obligation
- social work supervision 5%
- parent/guardian supv/n 3%
- other 2%
=================================
TOTAL : 100%
=================================
LESSONS FROM THE PORT ADELAIDE EXPERIENCE
- The use of Family Conference as a form of alternative dispute
resolution, bringing mediation to the criminal sentencing dispute,
and active review of police utilisation of screening discretions
as practised in the Port Adelaide Youth Court was held to be not
in accordance with the wishes of Parliament as expressed in the
legislative provisions (see section 4 below)
- The fact that Family Conference were used in this way for
a year, without objection being raised by police, parents, youth
justice coordinators, victims, defence counsel or defendants,
means that lessons were learnt which could not have been learnt
anywhere else.
- As Family Conference were not being used as a form of ADR
in sentencing at any other court, nor were police exercises of
discretion being closely scrutinised and since about 28% of the
matters coming before the Port Adelaide court were being referred
from court to conference, the Port Adelaide experience provides
valuable information about the effectiveness of Family Conference.
Policy and Legislative Intent
- The first lesson is this: policy makers cannot assume that
courts will apply the legislation incorporating a policy in the
way that the policy makers intend, if policy makers do not clearly
analyse their intentions and include clear statements of intention
in the legislation they enact.
- Only the parliamentarians of the day know how they intended
Family Conference to be used. Because they did not clearly state
how they wanted Family Conference to be used, two very different
schemes operated in the same court system, using the same legislation
and the same conference coordinators.
The Police "three strikes" Guidelines
- In South Australia, Family Conference were never viewed as
some kind of utopian solution that would work in every case, before
the conference legislation came into operation, or afterwards.
- From the outset, police guidelines endeavoured to distinguish
between young offenders who might benefit from attending conferences
and young offenders so hardened that a conference was a waste
of time. The police department developed a "three strikes
guideline" which was based on the department's experience
with the successes and failures of the pre-1994 Aid Panels.
- The "three strikes" guideline precluded juvenile
prosecutors from referring young offenders to Family Conference
if:
- the young offender had committed more than 3 offences on one
occasion; or
- the young offender had committed more than three offences on
separate occasions. Juvenile prosecutors stepping outside this
guideline did so at their own risk.
- It soon became clear that after Aid Panels were abolished,
young offenders similar to those who were previously dealt with
by Aid Panels were now being referred to court by police. These
young offenders were not only not being diverted away from courts
but they were acquiring criminal records they would not have had
if the old diversionary system had still been in place. Worse,
some of them had offended when the old system was in operation
but they were being dealt with under the new system because of
delay between investigating police reporting the offending and
prosecutors laying charges.
- It became clear that prosecutors needed court support, because
in order to refer many suitable young offenders to conferences,
the individual prosecutors carried the burden of stepping outside
very cautious departmental guidelines. Once charges had been laid
in court, the guidelines precluded juvenile prosecutors from exercising
any discretion to divert the alleged young offender to a family
conference. As a result, all charges before the court at Port
Adelaide were examined to see if referral to caution or conference
was appropriate.
- Once the Police knew they had court support for making referrals,
the Port Adelaide juvenile prosecutors went into over-drive. The
young offenders who would have been diverted under the old system
began to be diverted under the new one. Having been among the
first to test the conference process, the Port Adelaide prosecutors
became convinced of its value, and perhaps its biggest advocates.
- One of the difficulties with the "three strikes rule"
was that the number of offences sometimes depended upon circumstances
unrelated to the offending: the young offender who steals 4 items
from a department store is not easily distinguished from the young
offender who steals one item from the premises of each of 4 independent
retailers in a single shopping arcade.
- There was also a problem related at looking at the number
of offences over time without considering either the time interval
or the seriousness of the offence. Are three offensive language
charges on three occasions indicative of a recidivist offender
when one house break offence is not?
- Successful conferences were held with children who had committed
more than three offences, with significant time intervals between
each offence. A few of these had appalling criminal offending
histories, but they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
A "successful" conference was one which resulted in
an apparently long term cessation of offending behaviour occurred.
- There were also a number of young offenders whose offending
noticeably diminished, both in frequency and in severity, after
they had attended Family Conference
- With older offenders, the frequency and severity of offending
may have diminished, but the effect seemed to be more likely to
wear off in the ensuing weeks or months, especially if drug abuse
played a part in the original offending and the offender either
continued or resumed that drug abuse.
- Defining the frequency and severity of previous offending
which means a family conference has little prospect of success
has proved to be an art, rather than a science. Mechanical application
of numbers can be relied upon. In court demeanour has proved to
be a guide which is as reliable as the "three strikes"
guideline, but it is much harder to define.
- It is unfair to be too critical of the early police guidelines.
The police department had no experience of Family Conference which
it could draw upon. As their experience grows they will undoubtedly
continue revision of the guidelines, but in the meantime they
have provided an excellent foundation for other agencies, including
courts, to work
Cases appropriate for consideration of referral to a family
conference
- Assuming there were no prosecutorial "system breakdowns"
of the types discussed above, consideration of diversion was found
to be useful in the following situations:
Crimes where individuals have been the victims of the offence
- There are victimless crimes, there are crimes which impact
on organisations, and there are crimes which cause suffering to
individuals. Estimates vary, but it seems that about 70% to 80%
of the victims invited to attend Family Conference do attend and
participate in the Family Conference.
- There is one person affected by any decision as to whether
or not a matter should be referred to a family conference, who
has neither the right to be heard, nor the right of appeal, and
that is the victim of a particular crime. Actually seeing the
offender sometimes helps individual victims to recover from trauma
caused by the offending. Sometimes recovery from this type of
trauma can be assisted if the victim gets the opportunity to tell
the offender just what the result of the crime has been, and what
the victim thinks of the offender's behaviour. Being able to "put
a face" to the offender may mean individual victims no longer
feel as if they are grappling with a supernatural evil. That is
a common reaction to a crime committed by a stranger.
- The inherent danger is that confronting the offender will
be very distressing for the victim, aggravating the trauma reaction.
In many cases, the victim is probably better placed than a court
to determine whether seeing an offender will do more harm than
good. A family conference gives a victim this option. Courts do
not. Victims have no right of audience when an offender is sentenced
in court. They are merely members of the public the prosecutor
represents.
- In addition courts may order an offender to do community service
work, but courts cannot order an offender to do work for the victim
in recompense. Nor can courts extract apologies from offenders,
or pass them on to victims if apologies are tendered in court.
In contrast, section.17 of the new legislation does not exclude
any potential benefits for the victim from the considerations
relevant to the exercise of the referral discretion.
- There is a good deal to be said for having young offenders
who have "tagged" public transport using spraycans to
do some work for the public transport operator in recompense.
Organisational victims are often well equipped to arrange for
a young offender to undertake voluntary work for their organisation
which has suffered loss as a result of the young offender's behaviour.
- Family Conference can and do arrange for offenders to do work
for victims in recompense for the harm that has been caused, and
Family Conference provide venues where heart felt apologies can
be made by offenders to victims.
Where the Family conference is used as one element of a sentencing
package
- The 'totality principle' applies to young offenders as well
as adult offenders. The 'totality principle' means that sentences
for individual offences are not merely totted up into some kind
of total which becomes a head sentence. Rather, the overall sentence
must be proportionate to the totality of the offending, and the
offender. This principle is discussed in detail in Mill v The
Queen 166 CLR 59.
- The Supreme Court has ruled that under South Australian juvenile
sentencing legislation, sentences of detention cannot be backdated
(Police v E, February 1995). The line of reasoning that was
adopted also means that sentences of detention cannot be made
cumulative, one upon another.
- In order to ensure young offenders understand the overall
sentence imposed on them, when they are sentenced for a number
of different offences, youth courts frequently use "roll
up penalties". A single sentence is recorded on one charge
which "rolls up" the penalty for the totality of the
offending. No penalty is recorded in respect of the other charges
that are finalised. Sometimes the totality is recorded across
more than one charge, as when an order of suspended detention
is made on one charge and a community service work order is made
in respect of another.
- If a victim of an offence is told that no penalty was imposed
in respect of the offence, it is unlikely that the victim will
also be told about the totality principle and the "roll up
penalty" which was recorded on a charge for an unrelated
offence.
- At Port Adelaide, in cases where "roll up penalties"
would normally be imposed, referral to family conference was considered
as an alternative to creating a complete sentencing package. This
was usually achieved by refraining from imposing up to 100 hours
of community service work as part of the overall sentencing package.
Instead of recording "no penalty" on the charges other
than the main charge, these other charges were referred to a family
conference.
- Use of sentencing packages like this is not attractive to
police. There is no criminal record of the commission of the offence
which can be referred to if the offender offends again. The weakness
in this argument is that in many cases where a "roll up penalty"
is appropriate, the offender has committed so many offences of
such variety that the offences being referred to family conference
are never going to be of anything more than academic interest.
- If the matter proceeds in court in the usual way, using a
"roll up penalty", the victims of other charges receive
no apology, no compensation and no satisfaction from being told
that a court has imposed a penalty for the harm the offender has
caused them. For these reasons, Family Conference were used as
components of sentencing packages at Port Adelaide in 1994.
- Despite these advantages, in May 1995, Police v W disapproved
of the practice of using Family Conference as one component of
a sentencing package, primarily because the court did not see
Family Conference.
When an offender is a first offender
- If an offender was before the court who could have been diverted
to a conference, even under the "three strikes guidelines",
but diversion had not occurred, consideration was given to making
a s17 referral to a family conference before in-court sentencing
occurred.
- In most cases, there is little justification for a genuine
first offender to be referred to court, rather than diverted away
from court. A genuine first offender is a young offender who has
never before been accused of committing a criminal offence. Some
of these young offenders are very frightened by the experience.
In extreme cases, they vomit when they appear at court. With these
young offenders, a relatively public "dressing down"
in court does little good and it can do a lot of harm. Some feel
that as they have been told off for so little reason, they should
do something they deserve to be told off for.
- On the other hand, treatment in court which is too sympathetic
can backfire, with the result being further offending. It is better
to divert first offenders to a more private forum where they gain
some insight into their actions and reactions, which helps the
overwhelming majority avoid future repetition of criminal behaviour.
- It is difficult to accurately foretell which young offenders
are unlikely to offend again, and which ones are going to become
recidivists, during a first short court appearance, although sometimes
their demeanour makes it possible to do so.
- Whenever a genuine first offender appeared, if the crime had
no victim the court usually invited police whether a police caution
was a more appropriate way to finalise the matter. It was normally
found that it was more appropriate, once police examined the file
and spoke briefly with the first offender. If the crime did have
a victim, the first offender was usually referred to a family
conference.
- The new legislative system is very different to the old legislative
system, in that under the old system it usually took at least
three offences before a child appeared in court as a "first
offender". Under the new system, many "first offenders"
really are first offenders, who would have been diverted under
the old system.
- It should not be forgotten that under the old system, some
80% of those diverted away from court not only never re-offended,
but in addition they have no criminal record of ever having been
criminal offenders.
Special categories of offence
- Two particular situations were identified in which mediation
at a conference seemed to be a better way of resolving the sentencing
dispute than using the traditional court imposed penalty solution.
- One of these was where there was a relationship between the
victim and the defendant, independent of the nexus created by
the offending, which would continue to exist after the criminal
proceedings ended. Court imposed penalties are designed to destroy
relationships, not to repair them. Destroying relationships does
more harm than good if the people in the relationship cannot end
the relationship.
- One form of domestic violence is the commission of vicious
assaults by young offenders on parents, siblings, or other family
members. Some of these assaults are hideous. But whatever happens
in court, the young offender and the victim are still blood relatives
who have lived together for the whole of the young offender's
life.
- A family conference cannot deal with deep-seated and long
standing problems in the course of an hour, or an afternoon. Family
Conference are designed to reconcile the differences between police
and the young offender, not the young offender and the victim.
However, in the course of reconciling the police and young offenders,
Family Conference could, and did, explore peaceful ways of ending
the pre-existing relationship between the victim and the offender
(eg through housing transfers, in neighbour cases).and they also
explored ways of restoring formerly harmonious relationships within
families.
- Some of the reconciliations within members of family units,
after Family Conference, were nothing short of extraordinary.
It is impossible to know how much of a role the Family Conference
played in these reconciliations. What is clear, though, is that
court imposed sentencing solutions would have increased rather
than diminished the tensions in the relationships, which would
have been of little benefit to any of the people involved.
- Another "special category" are cases where both
the victim and the young offender are deserving of more sympathetic
consideration than is usual.
- In colloquial terms, there are some cases when there are "two
good guys" pitted against each other in court, and no "bad
guys". These are "no win" situations for courts.
Whatever a court does, either one side or the other will consider
that the merits of their case were ignored, not balanced, by the
court when it imposed sentence.
- For example, in the case of J, he was a genuine first offender
living with his father who was dying of cancer at the time when
J got drunk and smashed half of the shop windows in Port Adelaide.
The overwhelming factor in favour of a conference was that there
was so much to be said for J and there was so much to be said
for the shopkeepers who over the years have been plagued with
more than their fair share of troublemakers, given their geographic
proximity to a certain hotel.
- For a court to make the shopkeepers feel they had been fairly
dealt with, it would be necessary to impose a penalty on J that
was far in excess of that which ought properly be imposed. To
deal with J in court in such a way that he felt he was fairly
treated would exacerbate any existing hostility of the traders
towards the courts and the police.
- Yet both the shopkeepers and J and his family were happy with
the conference outcome, which was about the same as the penalty
which would have been imposed if the matter had been finalised
in court. However, the victims received the benefit of the community
service work, done by J, that was agreed upon at the conference.
A no win situation for the court was averted by the conference.
Special categories of offender
(i) where the cause of offending behaviour has not been identified,
and is unlikely to be identified in court
- No-one ever expected Family Conference to cure heroin addiction.
But a family conference may be the quickest way to identify the
young offender whose heroin addiction is resulting in dishonesty
offending. Heroin addiction is not likely to be identified when
a first offender appears in court for a sentencing process which
is usually completed in less than five minutes.
- It is much easier for those at a conference to realise a young
offender has "track marks" than it is for a court to
see the same scars while a young offender is in court for a brief
appearance. particularly as most users are adept at hiding the
scars from officialdom.
- Sexual abuse and other forms of post traumatic stress are
not easily picked up in a formal courtroom. They may not be picked
up at a conference either, but there is more chance that it will
happen.
(ii) Peer group pressures
- Family Conference are not a soft option. If presented as role
play, they can be seen as a circle of people standing and pointing
accusing fingers at a child curled up on the ground. At a successful
conference, after the pointing of fingers, hands reach out and
help the child up to join the group. As a result, Family Conference
seem to be an effective way to combat offending which is occurring
because of peer group influences.
(iii) Cultural considerations
- Some young offenders come from a background where matriarchal
or patriarchal child training techniques in the home differ from
school and community norms. Furthermore, Australian courts, including
youth courts, are the products of Christian societies in Western
Europe. Procedures, principles and penalties reflect this heritage.
The values of this system differ from those of other cultures.
For example, punishment such as exile from the family group was,
and often still is, the ultimate punishment within the Indo-Chinese
family and within the Aboriginal family. Within many Aboriginal
families, ridicule serves the same purposes as "blame"
serves within families of Western European origin.
- Within the Aboriginal communities, there has been detribalisation,
and urbanisation has occurred, but maternal techniques for managing
children during early childhood have never been totally destroyed
or replaced with Western European techniques.
- Indo-Chinese families are a relatively new phenomenon in Australia,
but the maternal management of young children is different to
Western European techniques. For example, great effort goes into
teaching anger management and anger suppression.
- It makes more sense to use a behaviour management system which
is familiar to a young offender in order to try to end criminal
behaviour patterns. It is very difficult to do this during sentencing
in a youth court, because so many cultural assumptions about behaviour
management are embedded in the law relating to sentencing of young
offenders.
- These assumptions begin at the outset of the hearing, when
the charge is read. How is it to be explained to a young offender
that when he says "guilty" he is meant to feel guilty?
For the bulk of young offenders, there is no need to explain this.
But when the young offender is from a family where shame is related
to the effect on the family rather than the effect on the individual,
the ritual reading of the charge becomes an exercise without meaning.
And it gets no easier, as the sentencing process proceeds along
an ancient and semi-ritualised path.
- When it comes to successfully intervening with Aboriginal
young offenders, Australian courts, adult and juvenile, do not
have an impressive track record. What is clearly more appropriate
to deal with offenders from these cultures is a system which accommodates
and takes their cultural experience into account. It must be noted
here that the New Zealand family group conference had its origins
not in Europe but in the cultures of the families who had migrated
to Polynesia from Asia, hundreds of years earlier.
- The policy adopted at Port Adelaide was that there was little
to be lost by trying to use Family Conference to deal with young
offenders who came from families using non-Western European behaviour
management within the home, whereas the potential gains were enormous.
- Apart from behaviour management considerations, there are
other reasons to use Family Conference in some cases. Some children
take advantage of cultural differences in child raising techniques.
They try to play their parents and school teachers and police
and courts and social workers off against each other, sometimes
with outstanding success. Children of migrant families may have
become expert in controlling their parent's access to information,
taking advantage of language barriers. Some come to court with
their parents, ready to act as interpreters for their parents
during their own sentencing. In some cases the young offender
has every intention of translating only what he considers the
minimum his parents need to know about his activities outside
the home.
- In such cases, the sharing of information about both behaviour,
and behaviour management techniques, between those being played
off, may be sufficient to end the manipulation, even in the case
of apparently hardened offenders. The longer it continues, the
harder it is to stop this kind of manipulation. It is virtually
impossible to do this in court, but it is possible to do it at
Family Conference.
- As such, at Port Adelaide, the family conference became the
option of first resort whenever it appeared that there might be
cultural reasons for thinking that traditional sentencing might
not be an effective method of managing the behaviour of a young
offender. Indeed, the Family Conference appeared to be more successful
with young Aboriginal offenders and young Indo-Chinese offenders than with
any others. This may have been a distorted impression, but it
seemed that traditional court sentencing, as a form of behaviour
management, was too different to the forms of behaviour management
used within their families to work effectively at an early stage
in the criminal offending cycle.
- What was obvious, from the faces of the young offenders appearing
in court, was that what began as a black children's court ended
up as a white youth court by the end of the first year.
Cases which were unsuitable for Family Conference
- The conference process, like other court processes, is set
up to deal with consequences, not causes. It deals with events,
not the behaviour pattern which on one occasion led to the occurrence
of an event. This is inherent in the legislation setting up the
conferences which deal with "the subject matter of"
a criminal charge.
- While conferences may identify causes of offending behaviour,
that is not to say they can address them. Care has to be taken
not to raise false hopes about what will occur at a conference
or what a conference can achieve.
- If the cause of the offending behaviour is known, and it cannot
be addressed by a conference, there is no point in having a conference.
There are a number of cases where it would be unsuitable to have
a Family Conference.
(i) Where the young offender is psychologically dysfunctional
- The conference process appears to make it possible to more
quickly identify the child at risk of recidivism because of a
psychological disfunction which is triggered by trauma. On the
one hand it would seem to be expecting too much of conferences
and coordinators for them to conduct mental health group therapy
sessions which will address mental health issues such as unresolved
grief syndrome or forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. However,
the conference does appear to work to some degree as a preventative
for this type of psychological dysfunction.
- In some cases, the stress of a conference may do more harm
than good and result in greater disturbance and almost immediate
re-offending. Yet a conference did succeed in reintegrating one
psychologically disturbed child back into his extended family.
However, he later left the extended family, returned home for
a period and then suicided. The conference was never able to get
medical treatment for him or get him to medical treatment.
- Whether the trigger trauma is sexual abuse, death of a sibling
or a caregiver, or related to educational institutions or accommodation,
if severe psychological disfunction is suspected, a mental health
report should be obtained as quickly as possible, ideally before
making a decision about whether the matter should be referred
to conference, as Family Conference are not a mental health service
substitute. Particularly since, the most recalcitrant recidivist
offenders are often children who are suffering an abnormal psychological
disturbance of this kind.
(ii) Drug addiction
- Conferences can help to identify drug addiction which is leading
to offending behaviour but drug addiction cannot be cured in an
hour or an afternoon spent discussing "the subject of"
a criminal charge.
(iii) The hardened offender
- Some hardened offenders will be sobered by a conference; most
will not. The attitude of these offenders will be affected by
the fact the conference can only impose non-custodial penalties.
The "three strikes guideline" was developed to try to
deal with this, but it falls far short of being an accurate way
to identify the young offender who is too hardened to benefit
from a conference.
- As a rule of thumb, the maximum detention for breach of a
conference penalty is 14 days; any child who has been in the system
long enough to think 100 hours community service work or 14 days
detention in lieu is a penalty which is a joke should not be referred
to a family conference.
General remarks about the experience
- By 1995, individual juvenile prosecutors were far more confident
about making appropriate conference referrals, having regard to
both the offence and the offender. Referral of sexual assault
offences to Family Conference is relatively common. Prosecutors
seem to have identified which of these kinds of offences are best
dealt with by Family Conference rather than courts.
- Family Conference have found a niche, whether because of,
or in spite of, the original prosecution guidelines. The offences
being referred to conferences are not merely cases concerned with
victimless crimes such as disorderly behaviour, or offensive language.
Serious criminal offences are being dealt with, with the victims
of the offences both present and participating in the police-young
offender negotiations concerning the appropriate outcome. Sometimes
even armed robbery charges go to conference rather than to court.
- The paper, Victims and Family Conference by Timothy Goodes,
unpublished, May 1995 indicates that 87.9% of victims agreed with
conferences outcomes and 93% of victims had not changed their
mind about the outcome several weeks later. 45% were individuals
and 55% were organisations.
- Figures will be published later this year concerning the rate
of victim attendance at conferences. The suggestion has been made
that about 70% of victims are accepting the invitation to attend
the conference but as yet there is no firm data. Similarly, there
are no statistics as yet published concerning the number and nature
of the offences referred to conferences.
- If and when such information is published, it will be very
interesting to compare the ways in which juvenile prosecutors
have learnt to use their diversion discretion and the guidelines
they were given when they were learning to use it.
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME LEGISLATION
Two youth courts
- The Adelaide Youth Court (AYC), under the leadership of the
Senior Judge, dealt with the implementation of the new legislation
and with sentencing young offenders in all of the metropolitan
areas except the Port Adelaide court area.
- In January 1994, I was transferred to the Port Adelaide Magistrates
Court (PAC), and directed to deal with implementing the new legislation
for three months, by which time it was thought someone else could
take over from me. The AYC eventually took over, in April 1995,
some fifteen months later. Unlike most people working in any area
of juvenile justice, my involvement in the area has always been
as a conscript, rather than as a volunteer.
- A Youth Court was held at Port Adelaide once a week, which
dealt with general matters such as pleas and sentencing. I also
dealt with juveniles when they were arrested and made application
for bail on other days. The bulk of my time was devoted to normal
civil and criminal work in the adult courts.
- The Port Adelaide Youth Court worked in parallel with the
AYC. Although both were under the administrative direction of
the Senior Judge of the AYC, those directions, (with two written
exceptions unrelated to this article), took the form of an administrative
circular forwarded to all magistrates by the Chief Magistrate
at the request of the Senior Judge of the Youth Court. This was
in accordance with the doctrine of stare decisis. Decisions
of the Supreme Court of South Australia are binding upon the Port
Adelaide Youth Court. while decisions made in the AYC are not.
Statutory Interpretation in South Australia
- Section 22 of the Acts Interpretation Act (SA) states:
"(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a provision of an Act
is reasonably open to more than one construction, a construction
that would promote the purpose or the object of the Act (whether
or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act)
must be preferred to a construction that would not promote that
purpose or object.
(2) This section does not operate to create or extend any
criminal liability."
- The Act is silent as to use of extrinsic aids. The common
law as to use of extrinsic aids such as Select Committee Reports,
is stated in Barker v The Queen
(1983) 153 CLR 338; see in particular the remarks of the then
Mr. Justice Mason (later Chief Justice Mason) at page 346.
- In South Australia, the common law applies- see, for example,
the remarks of Mr. Justice Zelling when determining the case In
the Estate of Kelly deceased, (1983) 34 SASR 370, at pages
379-380, where he uses a Law Reform Committee Report as an aid
to construction.
- Essentially, where the Acts Interpretation legislation is
silent as to the use which may be made of extrinsic aids, and
the legislation is consequent upon a report, courts can use the
report itself as an extrinsic aid to interpretation, in certain
circumstances. The report can be used to order to ascertain the
"purpose or object" of the legislation if the legislation
does not substantially depart from the recommendations made in
the report, as the report can be consulted in order to identify
the deficiency in the law which the legislature intended to remedy.
In addition, the report can be used to understand the background
to the recommendation which has been enacted.
Different interpretations by the Youth Courts
- What occurred in South Australia was this; The AYC only used
the provisions of the Act to interpret the legislation. The other
court, operating in isolation from the main court system (at Port
Adelaide), used extrinsic aids to interpret the legislation. The
extrinsic aids included both the Report, where recommendations
had been enacted in the new juvenile justice legislation, and
case law concerning general matters of sentencing principle. Most
of this case law is to be found in the decisions of the High Court
of Australia. It is on the basis of the authority outlined in
the preceding section that this extrinsic material was used to
assist in interpreting the new young offender legislation at Port
Adelaide.
- At the Port Adelaide Youth Court in 1994, whenever there were
two possible ways to interpret the Young Offenders Act 1993,
and one interpretation was consistent with the Select Committee
recommendations this interpretation was preferred and implemented,
so long as it was in accord with general sentencing principles.
(In a different article, I have addressed general sentencing principles
and the sentencing of women and children using general sentencing
principles. That article is to be electronically published by
Lawnet)
The effect of the different interpretations
- This difference in statutory interpretation led to very different
use of the same legislation, particularly the legislation relating
to Family Conference.
- At Port Adelaide as outlined earlier in this paper,
-Family Conference were treated as bringing mediation to the resolution
of the sentencing dispute between police and the young offender,
ie. the dispute as to the punishment to be borne by a young offender
as a result of the commission of
a criminal offence.
-Family Conference were treated as an option which could be incorporated
into a sentencing package by the sentencing court, provided regard
was had to the principle that the overall penalty for commission
of multiple sentences should reflect the totality of the offenders.
In this way, disparity in sentencing of co-offenders could be
reduced.
-the appropriateness of police decisions to divert young offenders
to court was reviewed in most cases coming before the court, from
March 1994.
- In the AYC;
-Family Conference were treated as an alternative "diversionary
process" which did not sentence offenders.
-Family Conference were seen as dealing not with the charge but
with "the subject of the charge".
-Family Conference were seen as a system which in appropriate
cases brings the family, the victim and the police representative
together to decide upon an appropriate sanction to be imposed
upon the youth for his or her offending behaviour."
Two Cases which reject the Port Adelaide Interpretation
- It was not known that the AYC, working under the direction
of a new Senior Judge, were using very different interpretations
of the Young Offenders Act to the interpretations used at Port Adelaide until late 1994. This
came to light when, towards the end of 1994, a copy of the Senior
Judge's reasons for decision in CLM v SA Police reached Port
Adelaide. In that case, the Senior Judge clearly held that the
Family Conference system is not a sentencing option at all.
The decision in CLM v S.A. Police (1994) 178 LSJS 390.
- CLM was an aboriginal youth living in a country town, who
was charged with assaulting another non aboriginal juvenile, occasioning
actual bodily harm. Defence counsel alleged the assault occurred
after the victim used certain words, which amounted to a form
of racial vilification, and that attack was a form of pre-emptive
strike, the defendant having heard that the victim intended to
amount a physical attack on the defendant.
CLM had previously been dealt with, presumably in court, for the
offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- CLM applied to the local magistrate in the town, seeking that
the matter be referred to a family conference. The magistrate
refused, and CLM appealed to the Adelaide Youth Court which has
jurisdiction to hear appeals against interlocutory orders. From
the affidavit evidence, it appeared that the youth admitted guilt
after the charge was laid in court.
- It was held:
(i) that the court referral power only relates to minor offences
as defined in the definitions section of the YOA
(ii) that the court referral power was in effect a safety valve
to be used when a new material fact arose which was not known
to the police officer who laid the charge in court.
(iii) that charges properly before the court need not be subject
to further scrutiny each time they come before the court to determine
whether on a plea of guilty the matter should be "diverted
back to a family conference."
(iv) that there is "no suggestion in the Act that the family
conference system should be generally used for the disposition
of court matters".
(v) that the family conference system is not a sentencing option
at all. "To the contrary, the family conference system...is
a diversionary option"... "It should clearly be seen
as a diversionary process and not an alternative sentencing option
for matters which have been properly brought to the Youth Court
on a charge."
(vi) that "there is a mechanism in the Act to allow the 'subject
matter' of the charge and not the charge itself to be referred
to...a family conference in appropriate cases."
(vii) that appropriate cases are cases where "the youth has
failed to admit the commission of the offence in the first place
and has now changed his or her plea or because the systems set
up to divert appropriate matters away from court
has miscarried for some reason."
(viii) that "the police officer who is in charge of the case
is the gatekeeper of the system".
(ix) that "The Act does not incorporate mediation concepts
into disputes as to appropriate penalties when a charge has been
properly laid."
(x) that "on the face of it", the matter was "far
removed from a matter which would normally be referred to a family
conference";..."The first matter to be considered in
categorising an offence as a minor matter is 'the limited extent
of the harm caused' the second is the antecedents of the alleged
offender. Both criteria in this case clearly direct that such
a matter would not be appropriate for referral to a family conference.
The police officer in charge of the matter did not see fit to
refer the matter to... a family conference."
(xi) that "There is much to be said for the new family conference
system which in appropriate cases brings the family the victim
and police representative together to decide upon an appropriate
sanction to be imposed upon the youth for his or her offending
behaviour. "Family participation" "in the decision
making process which imposes the sanction for offending behaviour"
"encourages the family to be part of the process and is to
designed to allow the family...of youths to play a significant
role. This is a process to be encouraged in all families including
those of aboriginal culture."
(xii) "The powers of the Youth Court enable a range of sentencing
options quite apart from the power to refer to ...a family conference.
The Court can encourage rehabilitation and programs to assist
the youth in controlling his anger and frustration and to aid
him in proclaiming his aboriginality in a more positive way by
considering the options of an obligation imposed with conditions
such that he attend suitable programs; do community service work
or in appropriate cases order detention, suspended or not suspended".
S.A. Police v W
- In the only other reported case on the interpretation of the
South Australian Family Conference provisions, S.A. Police v
W (1995) Judgement No. S5105, Mr. Justice Cox, of the Supreme
Court of South Australia held that Family Conference are not an
additional sentencing option.
- In this case concerning a non-aboriginal young offender, the
Judge only used the words contained in the Act in order to interpret
the Act.
- The case concerned a police appeal in relation to a young
offender (W), who had been involved in a large number of thefts
of equipment from schools over a one month period. W was a member
of a small group involved in this offending. He was not a ringleader.
The ringleaders were adults.
- W had had one previous brush with the law, in relation to
a minor larceny charge which had been finalised in Adelaide Youth
Court some months earlier. W had never been dealt with by a diversionary
system of any kind. At first instance, in relation to some charges,
W was placed on an obligation with "stringent conditions"
which, it was explained to him, amounted to a de facto suspended
detention order. W was also ordered to carry out 120 hours of
community service work. The remaining charges were referred to
family conference. After the police appeal was allowed, W received
a lengthy suspended detention order in Adelaide Youth Court and
he had to enter into an obligation to comply with certain specified
conditions.
- Mr. Justice Cox held:
(i) That Family Conference and court hearings are fundamentally
different
(ii) That s17(2) does not provide courts with an additional sentencing
option
(iii) That section 17(2) provides an opportunity to retrieve from
the court system cases which should never have reached court
(iv) That "one would expect that courts would generally confine
the application of section 17" to cases that meet the requirements
of the definition of minor offence and which" appear to be
cases that may suitably be handled by a family
conference."
(v) That these were very serious offences and "it is not
easy to see how any police officer could ever hold the opinion
that these nine breaking offences could suitably be dealt with
as minor offences and referred to a family conference."
- It is unfortunate that police did not inform either the magistrate
or the judge that police had referred at least one of W's companions
in the thefts to family conference, rather than to a youth court.
Consequently the judge was never in a position to consider disparity
in the treatment of the young offenders who were co-offenders.
IN CONCLUSION-REFLECTIONS ON WHETHER A FAMILY CONFERENCE OUTCOME
IS A "SENTENCE" FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENCE?
- In the justice system, the word "sentence" has carried
two distinct meanings for almost a thousand years. It means both
the punishment and the act of pronouncing the punishment (see
the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, for detailed expositions of the
meanings cited). "Punishment" has also carried two meanings. It may be
the act of punishing, or it may be the fact of being punished,
of suffering a penalty imposed to ensure the enforcement of a
law. "Penalty" is imposed for breach of law, rule or
contract; a loss or disability or disadvantage of some kind, either
fixed by law or agreed upon in case of violation of contract.
- When artificial insemination was developed, to overcome the
problems created by male infertility, for the first time it became
necessary to distinguish between "biological" fathers
and "social" fathers. The word father could no longer
carry both meanings in every context. With respect to adoptions,
the social father had always been treated, in law, as being the
biological father.
- Family Conference have had the same effect on "sentence"
as artificial insemination had on "fathers." The term
"Sentence" can no longer carry two meanings in every
context.
- The effect of a family conference is that a loss or disability
or disadvantage of some kind, for a young offender, is agreed
upon, as a direct result of the commission of a criminal offence.
From this perspective, it is a "sentence." For the young
offender, fifty hours of community service work is fifty hours
of community service, whether the fifty hours is agreed with police
at a family conference or whether it is ordered by a court.
- But the outcome of a family conference is not imposed by a
court; there is no "act of pronouncing" a punishment.
From this perspective, the outcome of a family conference cannot
be a sentence. There is no-one imposing the punishment.
- The Young Offenders Act and the Youth Courts Act did not
define "sentence". It was left to the courts to determine
what meaning should be adopted.
- At Port Adelaide Youth Court in 1994, family conference outcomes
were treated as sentences, sentences arrived at by agreement between
the young offender and police, with the assistance of a youth
justice coordinator acting as a mediator, on neutral ground. "Sentence"
was viewed from the standpoint of the young offender.
- If a young offender breached the undertaking given to the
conference, and the matter was referred to court, the sentence
imposed in court, in respect of the original offence, was usually
identical to the penalty which would be imposed for breach of
a court imposed penalty in identical terms.
- The failure to comply with the conference undertaking was
treated not as an offence but as an antecedent, to be weighed
in sentencing in the manner prescribed by the High Court, in Veen
v R (No.2), 164 CLR 465, at p477.
- The 'Port Adelaide' approach to the meaning of "sentence"
was used because there were three perceived advantages in adopting
such a meaning.
- Firstly, Family Conference became another arrow in the quiver
of options open to the court; using mediation to resolve disputes
between parties occurs daily in the magistrates courts, and Family
Conference could be treated as extending mediation beyond trials
and into criminal sentencing. It was easy for the court to incorporate
Family Conference into an existing understanding of the legal
system.
- Secondly, it coincided with self oriented world view of most
adolescents, including young offenders. Who determined the outcome
seemed likely to be less important to young offenders than the
effect of the outcome on them, in their everyday lives.
- Thirdly, if it was necessary to sentence the offender in court
because a conference undertaking had been breached, it was not
difficult to use ordinary sentencing principles when determining
penalty.
- There is an inherent difficulty in using the approach that
a "sentence" can only be imposed by a court, and cannot
be agreed to at a Family Conference. If a young offender does
not comply with an undertaking given to a family conference, a
charge alleging the original offence is laid, in a youth court
exercising criminal jurisdiction. The young offender is sentenced
in the youth court, for the original criminal offence which was
"the subject of the charge" dealt with at the conference.
If there was no "sentence" agreed upon at the family
conference, then it is necessary to disregard the breaching of
the conference undertaking when sentencing for the original offence.
If the breach of undertaking is taken into account in relation
to the offence, the young offender is being sentenced for an offence
for which not only has no charge ever been laid, but no charge
can ever be laid because there is no such offence known to law.
- There is a fundamental sentencing principle that a defendant
is to be punished solely for the offence of which he stands convicted.
To punish him for charges with have never been laid amounts to
nothing less than a denial of natural justice because the defendant
cannot plead not guilty to a charge which has never been laid.
The High Court has recently reaffirmed this principle, in Savvas
v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 564
- Such basic sentencing principles apply not just to adult offenders,
but to young offenders as well. If the court treats the conference
outcome as irrelevant, how should the young offender perceive
the court outcome? Why should the young offender see a court consequence
as any different to the conference consequence, a consequence
which can be ignored?
- Juvenile sentencing has never been easy. Family Conference
have made the tasks confronting sentencing courts even harder.
Family Conference raise new and important matters of principle.
- It will take a long time for courts to work them through.
PART B
FAMILY CONFERENCE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA:
THE ROLE OF THE CONFERENCE COORDINATOR
Sue Hetzel
PREPARING FOR A FAMILY CONFERENCE
The role of the coordinator
- It is the Youth justice coordinator who contacts and prepares
all potential participants, clearly explaining the process, asking
who else should attend, and assuring them of their right to legal
advice before and during the conference. Telephone is the usual
means of contact due to limited staffing resources and the need
to convene a conference within 28 days of referral if possible.
- The amount of time needed to prepare for a conference varies
according to the number of victims and offenders, how easily they
can be located, and the cultural background of the participants.
- While all participants play a role in the decision making,
and a Youth Justice Coordinator must be present, it is the police
officer and the young offender who must agree if the conference
is to reach an outcome.
- If the conference does not reach an outcome, the matter must
be referred to a Youth Court judge or a Youth Court magistrate.
The young offender
- The young person is always asked whom they would like to support
them at the conference. A parent or guardian must be invited but
there is no statutory requirement that they must to attend. where
culturally appropriate a community elder is invited. The coordinator
is able to use his/her discretion to invite other persons who
have a particular interest in the welfare of the young person,
or skills which are likely to be useful at the conference.
- The young offender's lawyer can attend the conference, to
advise the young offender, but the lawyer cannot represent the
young offender, by speaking for the young offender, during the
conference.
The victim
- The victim is a key participant, if there is a victim. It
can make an enormous difference if the conference can hear at
first hand about how the offence has affected the victim, and
what they think should be done to make up for the harm. No reimbursement
is offered to victims for their participation, which is voluntary,
but times and venues are planned to suit them. Victims frequently
provide placements if community service is an outcome of the conference;
some victims have offered paid employment, meals and follow up
support to the young offender.
The Police
- A Police Youth Officer must be present at a conference. The
Police Youth officer provides the police viewpoint, and represents
the victim's interests if the victim is unable to be present.
Venue
- The choice of venue is important. It must not be seen to favour
any participant or group of participants. It must also make participants
feel at ease. For the most part, more "neutral zones"
such as community centres, Youth services,
local councils or buildings adjacent to court complexes are preferred
to police stations or the homes or workplaces of either victims
or offenders. In tribal lands in northern South Australia, conferences
are often held under trees, in dry creek beds.
THE CONFERENCE
- There are three distinct phases during a conference: the introductory
phase, the stage at which impact of the offence is discussed,
and the resolution stage.
The first stage, the introductory phase
- A conference usually begins with participants being shown
to their places within a circle of chairs. To try to create a
more casual atmosphere, no table is used.
The atmosphere is invariably tense.
The coordinator, as convenor, introduces participants and reminds
the group of the structure and purpose of the process they are
about to embark upon. It is essential to gain everyone's agreement,
at this point, to ground rules and a common agenda. Later, especially
during stage two, it may be necessary for the coordinator to remind
the participants of this agreement.
- Because the young person's input is crucial, various strategies
are used by the coordinator to increase their willingness to speak
out. These include making sure that they know that they can seek
legal advice at any time, that they have the right to leave or
to stop the conference if they think that what is happening is
not fair, and that they are legally entitled to disagree with
outcomes.
The second stage; discussing the offence
- At the beginning, the police officer briefly outlines the
details of the offence. The young person is then asked to tell
their story of what happened, followed by the victim, and other
participants.
- Next, the coordinator then encourages victims, family members
and supporters to speak freely about the offence and its impact.
The young person is then asked to respond to their statements
and feelings. During this, the coordinator seeks to set up an
atmosphere of respect in which the young person's input is taken
seriously, while at the same time ensuring the pother participants
feel free to challenge statements made by the young person.
- The atmosphere can become very emotional at this time, as
the effects of the offence are revealed. Much of this may come
as a surprise to the young person. Tears often flow.
The third stage; discussing resolution
- The goal of the third stage is to achieve a fair outcome which
takes into account the victim's needs for restitution and reparation;
community expectations; and the young person's needs.
- There is a statutory requirement that the outcome must "have
regard for" possible court penalties for such an offence.
Resolution often, but not always, involves the young person agreeing
to undertake specific tasks such as performing community service
work, paying for damage, or writing an apology. The coordinator
first calls on the young person, then on participants other than
the police officer, for suggestions. Negotiations continue until
there is agreement within this group.
- It is a crucial part of the coordinator's function to ensure
that, as far as possible, the young person does not agree to anything
they cannot achieve, whether to make amends or just to get the
conference over and done with. If a young person fails to carry
out an undertaking without there being very good reasons for this,
the breach of the undertaking will be referred to police and charges
may be laid in court, in respect of the original offence and in
respect of the breach of the undertaking. The police officer is
then asked for an opinion, and if necessary discussion continues
until the whole of the group is in agreement.
AFTER THE CONFERENCE...
- Post conference, the Youth justice coordinator's role is to
follow up the undertakings which have been made, by arranging
voluntary work placements, or referrals for counselling or training
or employment.
- The coordinator also has to be available to supervisors and
young people when compliance is threatened, as for example when
a work placement breaks down, or when a change in circumstances
means the young offender cannot comply with an agreement to pay
the agreed compensation within the agreed time. A young person's
life may change dramatically and suddenly, so it is not unusual
for times and placements to have to be renegotiated. Decisions
must be made in consultation with police about whether undertakings
have been complied with or whether a matter must be referred to
court because an undertaking has been breached.
EMPOWERMENT..?
- Juvenile justice family conferencing in South Australia is
now in its second year of operation.
- There have been considerable successes.
- There are many issues yet to be resolved.
- It is almost impossible to avoid the dilemmas which arise
in a justice system that aims, as the South Australian juvenile
justice system does, to incorporate both restorative and retributive
justice processes.Family Conferences set out to empower both victims
and young people. Conference participants can expect to speak
for themselves, and to have their concerns taken seriously. But
how freely can a young person speak, when often they are the only
person in the circle who is not an adult? When the police are
present? When parents are present?
- What about a victim's fear of reprisals, which is sometimes
well founded? What about an offender's fear of reprisals, which
is sometimes well founded?
- The young person can choose not to attend. The young person
can choose to walk out, or to disagree with a proposed conference
outcome. Once the young person exercises this right, their right
to be involved in any decision making is taken away from them.
- It remains to be seen whether a system that is undeniably
coercive is also capable of being empowering.
APPENDIX
As South Australian legislation is only available in hard
copy or in commercial electronic databases which charge fees for
accessing information, all of the provisions of the Young Offenders
Act 1993 relating to Family Conference are set out in this appendix.
This Appendix also contains a short description of the New Zealand
Family Group Conference system, written by Judge David Harvey
of the New Zealand Youth Court.
THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) 1993
(1) The legislative provisions relating to Family Conference
Part 1 Preliminary
Section: 3
(1) The object of this Act is to secure for youths who offend
against the criminal law the care, correction and guidance necessary
for their development into responsible and useful members of the
community and the proper realisation of their potential.
(2) The powers conferred by this act are to be directed towards
that object with proper regard to the following statutory policies:
(a) a youth should be made aware of his or her obligations under
the law and of the consequences of breach of the law;
(b) the sanctions imposed against illegal conduct must be sufficiently
sever to provide an appropriate level of deterrence;
(c) the community, and individual members of it, must be adequately
protected against violent or wrongful acts.
(3) Effect is to be given to the following statutory policies
so far as the circumstance of the individual case allow:
(a) compensation and restitution should be provided, where appropriate,
for victims of offences committed by youths;
(b) family relationships between a youth, the youth's parents
and other members of the youth's family should be preserved and
strengthened;
(c) a youth should not e withdrawn unnecessarily from the youth's
family environment
(d) there should be no unnecessary interruption of a youth's education
of employment;
(e) a youth's sense of racial, ethnic or cultural identity should
not be impaired.
Section: 4
..."minor offence" means an offence to which this Act
applies that should in the opinion of the police officer in charge
of the investigation of the case, be dealt with as a minor offence
because of-
(a) the limited amount of harm caused through the commission of
the offence; and
(b) the character and antecedents of the alleged offender; and
(c) the improbability of the youth re-offending; and
(d) where relevant- the attitude of the youth's parents or
guardians.
"youth" means a person of or above the age of ten years
but under
the age of eighteen years"...
Part 2 Minor offences
Division 1 -General powers
Section: 6 [Informal police cautions]
Section: 7
(1) If a youth admits the commission of a minor offence, a police
officer may deal with the matter as follows:
(a) The officer may deal with the matter under Division 2
(b) the officer may notify a youth justice Coordinator of the
admission so that a family conference may be
(c) the officer may lay a charge before the Court.
(2) [procedural]
(3) [procedural]
(4) a charge may only be laid-
(a) if the youth requires the matter to be dealt with by the Court;
or
(b) if, in the opinion of the police officer, the matter cannot
be adequately dealt with by the officer or a family conference
because of the youth's repeated offending or some other circumstance
of aggravation.
Division 2- Sanctions that may be imposed by a police officer
Section: 8 [Cautions "requiring the youth to enter into an
undertaking" "that may be appropriate in the circumstances",
which can include apologies, compensation and up to a maximum
of 75 hours of community service work.]
Division 3- Family Conference
Section: 9.
(1) The following are to be Youth Justice Coordinators:
(a) the Magistrates...
(b) the persons who are appointed by the Minister
(2) [YJC appointments not to exceed 3 years]
(3) [ consultation re YJC appointments]
(4) [YJC responsible to Senior Judge of Youth Court]
Section: 10 Convening of Family Conference
(1) When a police officer notifies a Youth Justice Coordinator
of an offence so that a family conference may be convened to deal
with the matter, the officer must supply the Youth Justice Co-
ordinator with the names and addresses of -
(a) the guardians of the youth; and
(b) any relatives of the youth which may, in the opinion of the
officer, be able to participate usefully in the family conference;
and
(c) any other person who has had a close association with the
youth and may, in the opinion of the officer, be able to participate
usefully in the family conference; and
(d) the victim of the offence and, if the victim is a youth, the
guardians of the victim.
(2) The Youth Justice Coordinator-
(a) will fix a time and place for the family conference; and
(b) will issue a notice requiring the youth to attend...; and
(c) will invite the persons referred to in subsection
(1)...[including victim's associates]; and
(d) will invite other persons [thought to be appropriate after
consultation with the youth]
Section: 11 Family conference, how constituted
(1) A family conference consists of -
(a) a Youth Justice Coordinator (who will chair the conference);
and
(b) the youth; and
(c) such of the persons invited to attend the conference as attend
in response to that invitation; and
(d) a representative of the Commissioner of Police.
(2) A family conference should act if possible by consensus of
the youth and such of the persons invited to attend who attend
in response to that invitation.
(3) A decision of a family conference is not however to be regarded
as validly made unless the youth and the representative of the
Commissioner of Police concur in the decision.
(4) A youth is entitled to be advised by a legal practitioner
at a family conference.
(5) If a family conference fails to reach a decision , the Youth
Justice Co ordinator must refer the matter to Court and the Court
may decide any question, and exercise any power, that could have
been decided or exercised by the family conference.
Section: 12 Powers of the family conference
(1) A family conference has the following powers:
(a) the conference may administer a formal caution against further
offending;
(b) the conference may require the youth to enter into an undertaking
to pay compensation to the victim of the offence;
(c) the conference may require the youth to enter into an undertaking
to carry out a specified period of (not exceeding 300 hours) of
community service work;
(d) the conference may require the youth to enter into an undertaking
to apologise to the victim of the offence or to do anything else
that may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(2) In exercising the powers under this section, the family conference
must have regard to the sentences imposed for comparable offences
by the Court
(3) [administrative provision, concerning documentation]
(4) An undertaking will have a maximum duration of 12 months.
(5) [administrative provision, concerning documentation]
(6) [administrative provision, concerning documentation]
(7) [administrative provision]
(8) If a youth-
(a) fails to attend...; or
(b) does not comply with a requirement of the family conference;
or
(c) does not comply with an undertaking under this section, a
police officer may lay a charge before the Court for the offence
in relation to which the conference was convened.
(9) [waiver of time to lay proceedings, re (8)]
(10) if-
(a) a youth is cautioned, and no further requirements are made
of the youth, under this section; or
(b) all requirements made of the youth under this section (including
obligations arising from an undertaking given by the youth) are
complied with, the youth is not liable to be prosecuted for the
offence.
(11) [providing information to victims who do not attend
conferences]
Other relevant sections:
Part 4- Court proceedings
Court Proceedings against a youth
Division 1- the charge
Charge to be laid before the Court
Section: 16 If a youth is to be charged with an offence to which
this Act applies, the charge must be laid before the Court.
Proceedings on the charge
Section: 17(1) Subject to this Act the Court will deal with a
charge in the same way as the Magistrates Court deals with a charge
of a summary offence.
(2) The Court may, even though a charge has been laid, refer the
subject matter of the charge (after guilt has been established
either by admission or by the Court's findings ) to be dealt with
by a police officer or by a family conference.
(3) [Circumstances in which a child may be tried as an adult in
an adult court]
Division 2 [trial and committal procedures to be the same as the
procedures in the Magistrates Courts]
Division 4- Sentence
Power to sentence
Section: 22
(1) Subject to this division, a court has the same powers to sentence
a child for an offence-
(a)...(summary offences)...as the Magistrates Court
(b) ...(indictable offences)...as the District Court.
[obligations( in lieu of bonds), detention (in lieu of imprisonment)
fines, etc, dealt with in the remainder of the Division]
THE NEW ZEALAND FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES
Judge Harvey of the New Zealand District Court has kindly
provided, by email, the following outline of the New Zealand Family
Group Conference scheme, which diverts young offenders away from
criminal courts in New Zealand. Judge Harvey is a judge of the
New Zealand Youth Court. He also chairs the Committee responsible
for introduction of Information Technology into New Zealand courts.
"Our Children and Young Persons and Their Families Act
1989 contains two major foci - one is towards the 'welfarist'
model which deals with the care and protection of children...
The other is towards the Youth Justice model which is directed
towards criminal behaviour of young people between 14 and 17.
The Youth Justice model focuses upon responsibility - of the
young person for his/her offending and of the family, for their
young person.
The Family Group Conference (FGC) is an essential part of
this, and underpins the policies and principles that are set out
in the Act and which guide us in case of doubt.
Many cases of offending never get to Court. They are the subject
of a pre-trial FGC conducted by the Police, the family and the
Youth Justice Co-Ordinator and are diverted - a resolution is
reached and is enforced by the family. The aim is to keep young
people away from Court.
Where cases do come to Court, the matter may be denied, in
which case a hearing of the evidence takes place, or it is not
denied. In all cases where there is a "not denied" or
liability is established, the matter is referred to a FGC for
consideration by the participants. The victim may be present and
must be consulted where not present so that his/her/their views
may be ascertained. In 90% of the cases the FGC will arise at
a suitable resolution which is implemented by the Court.
We are required, where possible, to implement the recommendations
of the FGC. There have to be very good reasons for going beyond
those recommendations.
Thus ALL cases go to an FGC at some stage.
If you want to look at the issue of detention of young people
against the background of the principles of the Act, see my paper
on "Secure Detention of Young People in Residence in New
Zealand", Australian Institute of Criminology Conference
Proceedings No.25 - National Conference on Juvenile Detention
The fundamental goal of the process is to empower families
to find solutions for dealing with their young, to have them and
their young take responsibility. Families know their children
better than I do. They are more qualified to make an appropriate
recommendation.
Recidivism on the part of those who have gone through Youth
Justice is falling. The system...has received a considerable amount
of support from the Police, who see the long-term advantages."
Source:
Personal comment 1995, Judge David Harvey, New Zealand.
Document authors: Rosanne McInnes and Sue Hetzel
Document creation: August 6, 1996
HTML document preparation: Archie Zariski, Technical Editor, E Law
HTML last modified: August 8, 1996 - 02:28 AM
Modified by: Bret Lester, Assistant Technical Editor, E Law
Authorised by: Archie Zariski, Technical Editor, E Law
Disclaimer & Copyright Notice © 1996 Murdoch University
URL:
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n2/mcinnes.html