Youth justice reforms prioritise evidence over ideology

The latest Youth Justice White Paper - ‘Cutting Youth Crime, Changing Young Lives’ -contains much that is welcome.

The increased use of early intervention, including funding for the government’s Turnaround programme, and out-of-court resolutions (one of the recommendations of the Leveson Review) recognise that there are often more effective means of reducing offending, both among young people and in later life, than punishment.

Additionally, the piloting of new Youth Intervention Courts might be among the more headline-grabbing (not to say ‘transformative’) of the proposed changes, strengthening the relationships between the courts and other specialist support services which will, the government hopes, ‘tackle the drivers of offending and keep young people on track’.

This development coincides with, and seems to build upon insights gained from, the use of ‘Child Focused Courts’ (CFCs), previously known as ‘Pathfinder Courts’, piloted through the Family Court system in various parts of the country since February 2022.

The results speak for themselves: the Family Court backlog as a whole dropped by 50% (which by itself would have those overseeing our criminal courts salivating at the prospect) and there were reports of cases resolving up to seven and a half months faster than they would have otherwise. 

David Lammy had clearly recognised the value of these institutions, since he confirmed an expansion of the scheme and an additional £17 million in funding on 17^th March this year, in a move welcomed by Judges.

Family Law has its own issues and procedures, and lessons learned here will sometimes, necessarily, require translation into other domains of law, such as crime. But critically, the approach taken by the CFCs was emphatically focussed on ‘the voice of the child’, taking a less adversarial and more investigative, ‘problem-solving’ approach to dealing with the issues they faced. 

This bears emphasising as, in a criminal context, this can very easily get lost in the process of attempting to establish guilt or innocence, and the consequences which should follow. Even in a Youth Court, where there are procedural differences from dealing with an adult and there is a stronger presumption against immediate custodial sentences, the ‘voice of the child’ can easily be drowned out by the competing voice of the law and its institutions. 

This approach also requires a large amount of labour, investment and communication between stakeholders from the start, since one of its aims is to reduce the overall number of hearings as much as possible. 

Such an argument for investment will be one where the government can speak with the evidence on its side, if it has the courage to do so. But there are other parts of this White Paper announcement that must give pause.

The White Paper itself rejects as false the notion that it is trying to appear either ‘tough’ or “soft” on crime, and is concerned simply with ‘what works’. Its authors try frequently to frame its proposals as sober, responsible and unmotivated by sentimentality. The ‘welfare of the child or young person’, to echo the language of the Youth Sentencing Guidelines, is clearly a concern for the authors of the White Paper, but it also sits strangely with that other need to appear more distant and utilitarian in its approach to justice.

The result is a set of proposals which see-saw at times between recognising what must be done and a perceived need to appease some imagined crowd of vindictive onlookers. The language of the Paper adopts conflicting registers. Community sentences, per the announcement, must be ‘tough’, and while short custodial sentences are described (rightly) as ‘ineffective’, and there is a highly laudable commitment to ‘ending unnecessary custodial remand for children’, the government feels the need to drive home that ‘custody will always be necessary’, if only for the most high-risk of offenders.

More concerning still is the commitment to expanding the use of Parenting Orders, where parents of a young person who has committed an offence can be compelled to some form of engagement by the Courts under threat of criminal action.

The Alliance for Youth Justice, whose chief executive gave a response on their behalf to the BBC, have questioned whether or not threatening parents with imprisonment provides a child either with stability or support, noting that engaging with families on a voluntary basis is generally better at building the trust that is essential to a good working relationship. 

Again, in a criminal context, it can be very easy for court users to feel cowed or oppressed by the institutions with which they sometimes come into contact, and this will be better handled by taking a less punitive approach.

Additionally, the AYJ has expressed its deep disappointment that too many of the proposals, including on raising the age of criminal responsibility, are either set out for ‘consideration’ without any concrete plans to put them into action, or in some cases (as with implementing legislative restrictions on custody) are not explored at all. 

In the words of its CEO, Jess Mullen: “a truly transformative plan requires bold action, not tentative exploration… the government must move from 'considering' change to committing to it.” 

In seeking to grasp the problem of youth justice, a greater measure of boldness will serve the government, and the young people who stand to benefit from its reforms, far better. The case for change is well made; it must now act accordingly.