Re-offending rates among young prisoners in the UK are so high that alternatives to custody should be considered in all cases, according to a report published last May by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The study accuses the government of ignoring the resettlement needs of young offenders.

It points out that almost 70% of young offenders are reconvicted within two years of their release, yet they are given little help in prison, or on their release, to help them rebuild their lives.

It claims that the current lack of support means that sending young people to prison is putting the public at risk because it makes re-offending more likely.

It says: “Imprisoning young men at this critical stage in their lives can have a massively detrimental effect upon their development and their future life chances. Alternatives to custody should be sought in all possible cases.”

It adds: “The criminal justice system should instead work to resolve conflict and repair harm. All must recognise that imprisonment, even for a short period, ruptures lives and the damage is often irreparable.”

This report is not likely to find resonance with Government thinking. The Prime Minister questions whether human rights, laws of evidence and civil liberties have tipped things too much against the rights of victims.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has intervened on 339 occasions over three years to increase “unduly lenient” sentences received by convicted criminals. The contested cases concerned rulings by more than 200 judges, a tenth of the senior judiciary in England and Wales. His appeal has been upheld in 230 cases.

The total number of prisoners (adult and child) in the UK has soared from 44,000 in 1991 to a record 77,800 in November 2005. The latest Home Office figures show that the current prison population is being squeezed into cells meant for only 70,500. It is estimated that, within five years, the prison population could top 90,000. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says the unprecedentedly high prison population will lead to higher suicide rates and is a fertile environment for unrest among prisoners.

The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows that crime in the UK is in long-term decline, down 43% since 1995. The same trend is evident all across Europe. The BCS doesn't include under-16s. We note below that the trend is down here also. So why are British prisons bursting at the seams?

The single overwhelming reason is that longer sentences are being given for more crimes. An unquenchable thirst for punishment has seen the numbers given prison sentences rise by 53% in the same decade that crime has fallen.

Knife crime is the panic of the day. In 1995 there were 243 murders with sharp instruments; in 2005 there were 236 murders. Over the decade the average weekly number of knife murders has been four and a half. This has dropped to four a week. And yet the media say that knifings are “out of control” and the Home Secretary plans to introduce a mandatory five-year sentence for carrying a knife.

It is estimated that about 3.6 million people in the UK, mostly young, use cannabis at some point in a year. 45,000 were caught for possession in 2004 and 2,200 were charged with dealing (being in possession of enough cannabis to make 30 or more joints). The Home Office has just announced plans to give a 14-year sentence to anyone caught with enough cannabis for 10 joints.

The Government plans to introduce a “custody plus” sentence next November which will give magistrates the option to give petty criminals a short prison taster before a community sentence. Magistrates will have no power to insist that offenders participate in drug or alcohol treatment programmes.

The finger of blame must point at the British media with its relentless “nothing works” projection of a society in perpetual decline. The Government, ignoring its own research, responds to media pressure and opts for longer prison sentences for more and more offenders.

What has been the impact on crime? The Prison Reform Trust points to official figures showing how prison overcrowding raises the reoffending rate. In 1995 56% reoffended within two years of release - now it is 67%. In contrast reoffending amongst those given community sentences is estimated at 53%.

Prison governors say the problem lies with overcrowding which means prisoners are forever moved on far from home. They lose contact with their family and, of course, lose their job. There is disruption in treatment, education and training. Most prisons now miss their targets for “purposeful activity”.

The Prime Minister argues that the rights of victims should get priority over the rights of defendants. The one victims’ right that matters most is cutting the risk of crime. So what really works? Unpublished Home Office research assessing the cost-effectiveness of ways to reduce crime has produced astonishing results.

Estimating crimes reduced per £1,000 spent, they find that current drug treatment cuts only 1.3 crimes. Perhaps the problem here is that there are very few residential drug-treatment places and most addicts require intensive help.

Hot-spot policing cuts 1.9 crimes. Reoffending-reduction schemes in prison cut 2.3 crimes. But parenting programmes cut 11 crimes. And Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (see below) cut 15 crimes per £1,000 spent.

Government Ministers, with both eyes on the media, ignore their own success stories and spurn the advice of their own experts. Prison numbers continue to rise but with little impact on crime. Home Office research shows that every 15% increase in incarceration reduces crime by only 1%.

It costs £37,000 to keep one prisoner in custody for a year. The Audit Commission in January 2004 criticised this waste, with a hard financial calculation of the money misspent by the time a teenager gets sent to prison. The Commission, the official body that audits local government, estimated the cost of the help a dysfunctional family could (but rarely does) get. This help could include Sure Start, parenting support, language therapy, educational psychology, anger management and a learning support assistant. The amount which could be spent on these early interventions from birth through adolescence was estimated at £42,000. Calculations showed that this would save approximately £113,000 on every incarceration avoided as a results of the interventions.

The Home Office insists that it has provided viable alternatives to custody. For example, robust community sentences can include a wide range of requirements, like unpaid work, drug treatment, and curfews. A spokesperson said that constructive community sentences can play an important role in reducing re-offending amongst less serious offenders, however imprisonment should continue to be used to protect the public from the most serious offenders - those who are violent, dangerous or seriously persistent.

Lord Phillips, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, agrees that prison must be retained as a punishment for dangerous offenders. He is convinced that the sensible place for rehabilitation is in the community. He says: “Prison overcrowding is proving absolutely fatal for efforts to tackle the treatment of inmates”.

High Court Judge, Mr Justice Baker, QC, came in for a lot of criticism recently for being too lenient in his sentencing. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper he said: “Prison makes many criminals, particularly youngsters, worse and is highly undesirable. Prison is not designed to promote rehabilitation”.

Lord Woolf, who retired as Lord Chief Justice last September, says: “We need wider understanding and acceptance that the principles of sentencing are not just founded on punishing offenders.”

Writing in the Guardian (17.08.05), he argued for a fundamental change in the use of imprisonment, restricting its use to the most dangerous offenders and the most serious crimes, as a recognition of special offences and as a fall-back where all other efforts have failed. He stressed the need to find more effective ways of cutting crime.

“Whilst I firmly believe that for serious and violent crimes there is no alternative to a custodial sentence, I also believe passionately in taking steps to turn people away from crime. We do not want a system that shuts people outside society, once they have left the prison gates.”

Lord Woolf supports moves towards restorative justice, which sees offenders making amends to their victims; and he suggests there might be a wider use of the approach taken with young offenders by the Youth Justice Board, which pulls together different agencies in a concerted attack on the roots of crime: “I see great value in looking at the specific needs and problems of particular groups.”

The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, says it is time for the new Home Secretary, John Reid, to think long and hard about practical alternatives to jail, including electronic tagging, for three specific groups of prisoners. They are:

· The 3,900 remand prisoners who are currently in jail but who, when convicted, are not given a custodial sentence - about one third of all remand prisoners.

· The 5,000 profoundly mentally ill people held in prison. MPs say that overcrowding limits the ability of prison to provide care for them and only 700 a year are transferred to hospital.

· The rapidly rising number of children held in prison service accommodation.

The United Kingdom has amongst the highest rates of juvenile detention in Western Europe. The number of 15 to 17 years olds detained (in prisons) on 30 June 1995 was 1,675, rising to 2,479 on the same date in 1997. On 31 December 2004 the corresponding figure stood at 2,169. By June 2006 it had climbed to 2,300. An equivalent pattern obtains for young offenders (between the ages of 18 and 20); on 30 June 1995, 5,872 were detained, rising to 7,684 on the same date in 1997 and standing at 8,073 on the last day of 2004.

The adoption of the Crime and Disorder Act and the establishment of the supervisory Youth Justice Board in England and Wales in 1998, underlined the importance of holistically addressing all aspects of juvenile disorder and offending. The creation of Youth Offending Teams, composed of representatives from the police, Probation Service and a wide range of social services, enabled intervention to be targeted towards young offenders more effectively. Social welfare reforms introduced a wide range of programmes intended to address the differing needs of deprived children of different ages for example, ‘Sure Start’, ‘Connections’, the ‘Children’s Fund’, ‘Youth Inclusion Programmes’, ‘Positive Action for Young People’. Priority was also given to reducing the numbers of juveniles and young offenders in detention. A range of alternative community sentences was introduced including Supervision Orders, Community Rehabilitation and Punishment Orders.

Unfortunately, according to Gil-Robles (European Commissioner For Human Rights): “these welcome initiatives have been significantly undermined by the introduction of a series of civil orders aimed at reducing urban nuisance, but whose primary effect has been to bring a whole range of persons, predominantly the young, within the scope of the criminal justice system and, often enough, behind bars without necessarily having committed a recognisable criminal offence”.

The media has convinced most people that youth crime is rising and that something must be done to combat it. The reality is that youth crime is falling. The number of 10-to-17-year-olds convicted or cautioned fell from 143,600 to 105,700 between 1992 and 2002, a drop of almost 26%.

In 2001 the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) appointed five civil servants to work full time for nine months, trawling through statistics and research, visiting prisons, interviewing experts, talking to officials in government departments, all in search of an answer on how best to reduce reoffending by ex-prisoners. They published their report in July 2002. The SEU found that released prisoners were streaming unchanged out of custody and committing something like 1m offences a year and that these offenders alone were costing at least £11bn a year plus the value of the items stolen or damaged. In summary the SEU’s conclusions were:

a) Prison sentences are not succeeding in turning the majority of offenders away from crime.

b) A prison sentence can - and frequently does - make things worse.

c) The real key to reducing offending is to attack its causes. Homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol problems, mental health problems, physical health problems, educational problems - these are the seeds from which crime grows, seeds which are fertilised by the impact of imprisonment.

These conclusions were backed by irresistible evidence, supported by seven different government departments which had been consulted, and delivered direct to the Prime Minister, who duly welcomed them as “a significant contribution to our understanding of what works in combating crime”. This was a chance finally for the criminal justice system to start to make a difference. Unfortunately at that time the Prime Minister was preoccupied dealing with “street corner and shopping centre thugs” and the report was shelved.

Meanwhile, out of the media spotlight, the government’s Youth Offending Teams are doing well.

Intensive Support And Surveillance Programmes (ISSPs) have been introduced to deal with serious and persistent offenders. Mostly on electronic tags to enforce a curfew, these young offenders get 25 hours a week of education and intensive work with an array of drug and alcohol treatments, and psychological support. Early evaluations of ISSPs show a marked reduction in crime and the seriousness of crimes committed afterwards - far better results than prison gets.

Six months on an ISSP costs £8,500, compared with six months in a young offender institution, which costs £21,000. ISSPs should now be made available to most non-dangerous criminals of all ages.

Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) identify children with behaviours that could lead them to offend and involves a wide range of agencies from social services to sport clubs, to help divert them from a life of crime. Scoring children aged from eight to 13 against a hit-list of risk factors, the Panels can pinpoint children likely to be heavily involved in crime by the time they reach adulthood, even if they have yet to commit a single offence. There is little doubt that if children of this age slip into crime, there is high risk of them going on to become persistent or violent adult offenders. A child is considered to be at risk if he/she fulfils at least six categories on a nine-point checklist, including persistent antisocial behaviour, a disruptive attitude at school, being excluded from class and having a mother unable to curb his rudeness, aggression and violent tantrums.

Unfortunately young offenders do not get priority and early intervention is largely ignored, not only in the UK, but worldwide.

The general objective of the 11th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, which took place from the 18th to the 25th April 2005 in Bangkok, Thailand, was to promote the adopting of policies for the prevention of crime and fairer and more effective methods of penal justice in a global context.

The Congress was attended by government delegations, representatives from both inter and non-governmental organizations, groups from the United Nations, as well as independent experts in the area of penal justice. A total of 2,370 government representatives attended as well as 167 non-governmental organizations and another 1,135 independent experts.

Although the recommendations which came out of the 11th Congress will have impacts on the development of the criminal justice policies and will strengthen the application of the law and emphasise the focus on prevention in each country, the 11th Congress did not give reference to the specialized area of the administration of Juvenile Justice. That is to say, directives were not specified by the States on the development of the policies and programs referring to children and adolescents in conflict with the law, as is up-held by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other standards of the United Nations.

In the official discourses of the opening of the Congress, presented by Antonio María Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Suwat Liptapanlop, Thai minister for justice (President of the 11th Congress) and Kofi Anan, Secretary General of the United Nations (discourse read by the Executive Director of UNODC) there was a special focus on the fight against terrorism, but other issues, amongst them the administration of Juvenile Justice, were not mentioned. What is more, in the final stage of the Congress during the debates about the formulating of the Declaration project, there was a tendency to give the same focus to the situation of children and adolescents in conflict with the law and to the situation of children and adolescents who are victims of crime, although they are distinct realities which correspond to specialized areas of work. Paragraph 25 of the Preliminary Text of the Project of the Declaration of the Congress assumes this same uniform focus.

Due to this, the result of the finalizing of the 11th Congress it is without doubt that there is still a lot of work to be done on an international scale to promote the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to Juvenile Justice. This is the challenge of the organizations dedicated to the promotion and protection of the rights of children and, in general of all the organizations for the Defence of Human Rights, in the understanding that the best method of the prevention of crime is through making opportunities for the exercising of the rights of children and adolescents.

This will be one of the main points for discussion at our Congress in Belfast – August 27 to September 01, 2006.

You could be there!

Willie McCarney, President

1. Community-based Diversion and Reintegration via Peer Education

Implementing Organisations:

Free Legal Assistance Volunteers Association (FREELAVA)

Cebu,Visayas, Philippines - Save the Children UK

Country: Philippines

Background Information

Research in the Philippines has shown that children in conflict with the law experience particularly high levels of abuse at the time of arrest and in police custody. The conditions in detention facilities are generally bad and children are often detained with adults. There is almost no practical experience of crime prevention programmes or diversion in the formal system, and little support to help children returning to their communities to become socially reintegrated after detention.

There is currently no legislation setting out a separate system to address situations of children in conflict with the law. There is a number of Juvenile Justice Bills awaiting Congress’ attention. Crime prevention and diversion are components of these Bills but there are as yet very few practical models that could be followed. This project is one of them.

What is done?

In October 2001 SCUK formed a partnership with FREELAVA (a well known NGO active in Cebu, the second largest city in the Philippines) to establish a ‘Community-based Prevention & Diversion/Mediation Programme for Children in Conflict with the Law’. This set out to divert children from the formal justice system, help them change their behaviour, to reintegrate children after their release from custody and to institutionalise a prevention of offending model.^[1]

The project’s diversion scheme is for less serious offences, which make up the great majority of cases of children currently arrested and taken into police custody. In addition, research in Cebu indicates that 94% of children arrested by the police between 1999 and 2001 were first-time offenders. The project does not view diversion as appropriate for cases of murder, extreme violence, rape, high levels of recidivism or major drugs trafficking. However, the project’s reintegration after custody scheme might assist such offenders.

The project now operates in 12 local government areas called barangays, which have populations varying from 10-100,000. In each of these a Children’s Justice Committee (CJC) has been set up to resolve less serious offences through mediation instead of a child being formally arrested and held in police custody prior to going to court. The CJC has 11 members but it is the appointed chair and vice-chair of the barangay justice committee who usually conduct the CJC’s business with input from others.

In each of the 12 barangays, Community Volunteers and Peer Educators, who are young people who were themselves previously in conflict with the law, advise and assist children brought to the CJC or those returning to the area after release from detention. Both Community Volunteers and Peer Educators have undergone training. There are usually about 10 Community Volunteers and 10 Peer Educators in each local authority barangay. An effort is made to choose community volunteers from the different settlements within the barangay. The minimum requirements to become a community volunteer are: an interest in helping young people, knowing the law, communication and facilitation skills, and patience. Their training helps develop these skills. The community volunteers meet monthly and make oral reports which are recorded by FREELAVA. The community volunteers are well-known to the CJC members and they are sometimes asked to attend the CJC mediation and/or to assist a child afterwards.

The peer educators are chosen because they have adopted a positive lifestyle and attitude since their release, often with the assistance of a community volunteer. The peer educators receive sensitisation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, leadership and the importance of respecting others. Under the guidance of the project staff and the community volunteers, their role is to support children who have come to the CJC. This frequently means that they participate with these children in sporting and cultural activities. Many of the peer educators have returned to school with the financial assistance of FREELAVA. As yet, there are no girl peer educators; girls make up about 3 per 100 offenders and, unlike boys, are usually assisted by the social welfare department because of their perceived vulnerability.

FREELAVA appoints its own outreach workers to assist the community volunteers and peer educators in each barangay. There is also a peer educators’ parents group.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

• The local authority leader in one barangay reported that 1000 children had been diverted from the formal justice system in the two years since the project started.

• There are about 120 trained Community Volunteers attached to the project and working with the CJCs in the 12 barangays. The 10 community volunteers in Ermita barangay are working with about 200 children in conflict with the law. The success of the project in that barangay has meant there is an urgent need for more volunteers.

• The fact that quite a number of Community Volunteers were elected onto CJCs in last year’s elections shows that their work is appreciated.

• There are about 100 peer educators. They say that their relationship with the community volunteers has changed their perception of themselves; they now see themselves as having value. They enjoy helping other children by relating their own experiences and bringing them into their activities. The project has both reintegrated peer educators socially and assisted them to play a positive role in the lives of child offenders.

• The police seem to have a positive attitude towards the peer educators.

• The detention cells in the barangay centres are no longer used for children. Instead, if necessary, children are kept in unlocked rooms. If apprehended, children are not usually kept overnight.

• The local police now have a sound knowledge of Child Rights, and they do not handcuff children, but rather explain why they are apprehending them and taking them to the CJC instead of the police station.

• Mediation follows a set protocol. A copy of the agreement is given to the victim, the offender, CJC and FREELAVA. Files are kept confidential. A general report of cases dealt with is sent to the Department of Local Government quarterly.

• A two day meeting with 30 recently released children was held in which they gave their views about their experiences of the criminal justice system.

• FREELAVA is looking at other ways of establishing CJCs in the local government system to suit barangays that are less progressive and have a different structure.

• FREELAVA is forging links with other NGOs that are involved with child protection and are interested in supporting children in conflict with the law.

Necessary Conditions

• Good relationships kept with Barangay Captains and Councillors, and Municipal mayors. This will also assist the CJC structure to be adopted through local ordinances.

• Continuity: Elections can produce a major change in personnel in the local government structures, so ways are needed to bring continuity to the CJC membership.

• Commitment: from CJC members and many NGOs if the concept of community volunteers and peer educators is to be replicable.

• Monitoring and Evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of various aspects of the project are awaited, i.e. numbers of children seen by CJCs, agreements made, support given; the work of community volunteers and peer educators and their opinions about it; how the process of mediation is conducted and regarded by those involved; links with social work, local government and NGO bodies.

• Follow-up Support: on cases of children who have gone through the CJC to identify the longer-term impact on them in relation to their successful reintegration in society.

Source Document:

Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process.

The Experience in the Philippines, Save the Children UK, 2004

***

2. Alternative Conflict Resolution Mechanisms at Community Level

Collaborating Organisations:

UNODC and partners

Country: Senegal

Background Information

Urban crime in Dakar is largely a youth-related phenomenon. Criminality among young people essentially takes the form of petty theft (e.g., from parked vehicles) and aggravated theft (e.g., handbag snatching). However, attacks on persons and street violence have increased over the past years (homicides, armed robberies) and fuel a growing sense of insecurity, which has led to the proliferation of protection and security firms. The outskirts of Dakar, to which the poorest sectors of the population are relegated, have become areas of marginalisation, violence and danger. The deprivation of population groups living in these dilapidated and underprivileged districts is not only an economic but also a social problem.

People in these areas feel they have no right to expect the same level of health care, education, welfare or safety as other sectors of the population that enjoy such services. This leads to an erosion of the sense of belonging to the community, a feeling reinforced by the absence of public services provided by the State in these neighbourhoods. It is largely this sense of exclusion from the community that is conducive to violence and delinquency.

Urban crime and juvenile delinquency can only be curbed by initiatives close to the community, such as the establishment of a neighbourhood police force and judicial service and the setting up of judicial centres. It is important that the judiciary is closer to the public for the settlement of disputes arising in daily life, such as neighbourhood quarrels, incidents involving petty theft or property damages, family disputes, failure to pay maintenance or failure to present children for visitations. The conventional judicial approach is not the most appropriate response as it does not ensure prompt access to justice in all cases. Moreover, mechanisms are to be developed to reduce the recourse to detention for juveniles in conflict with the law. According to international standards on juvenile justice, deprivation of liberty is to be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period.

What is being done?

Judicial centres are being established in the heart of targeted deprived districts in Dakar (Rufisque, Diamaguène-Sicap and HLM) with the aim of facilitating access to justice for all. The judicial centres provide the institutional framework for mediation and reconciliation.

The Judicial Centre are designed to:

• increase access to justice in poor neighbourhoods of Dakar;

• promote restorative justice as an alternative response to children’s conflict with the law;

• advance preventative efforts to reduce urban crime and children’s conflict with the law.

Under the overall supervision of the State Prosecutor, the Judicial Centres are directed by a mediator/ conciliator, who is appointed in accordance with the procedures established by legislation, and is assisted by a moderator/coordinator. These persons liaise with government departments responsible for social affairs, minors at risk, juveniles in conflict with the law, drug control and so forth, as well as with the municipal authorities and non-governmental organisations working in these areas. The mediator/ conciliator reports on concrete cases to the authority in charge of criminal proceedings and ensures that the various partners, who signed the agreement to establish the judicial centre, are informed about his or her activities.

At each judicial centre, a steering committee has been established. This body brings together the permanent members of the judicial centre (e.g., mediator/ conciliator, moderator/ coordinator), local officials (municipal hall, judicial and police officers) and representatives of residents’ associations and non-governmental organisations working in liaison with the centre. The steering committee examines and monitors local problems related to insecurity and violence in the underprivileged districts within the centre’s jurisdiction and draws up a plan of priority prevention activities to be undertaken locally.

Training has been provided for personnel working at or in liaison with the judicial centres in order to prepare them for their new functions. Training courses include modules on urban crime prevention policy and initiatives, victim assistance (advisory and support services) and penal mediation and conciliation techniques.

A public information campaign has been organised in which information leaflets have been distributed in public places to provide information on the judicial centres, the role of the mediator/ conciliator and the function of the neighbourhood police service.

The Senegalese State and the Dakar City Council are supporting this initiative in both institutional and financial terms. A framework agreement of constitution for the judicial centre was drawn up in order to determine the costs payable by each party involved and the arrangements to be made for the funding of the operations.

Why it is a good practice?

Achievements

• Access to Justice: Penal mediation and conciliation make up an alternative approach, in penal cases, to judicial proceedings. These forms of restorative justice are more likely to inculcate in the offender a sense of responsibility, to fulfil the expectations of the victim and thus to defuse tensions in the community.

• Increased Resources: The involvement of local communities in the conciliatory and compensatory practices, gives access to local human, material and financial resources that may not be otherwise available.

• Rehabilitation and Reintegration: Conflict resolution at community level leads to the successful social rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. This approach is in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards on juvenile justice matters.

• Reduction in custodial responses to children in conflict with the law: The alternative conflict resolution mechanisms also greatly reduce the use of pre-trial detention and custodial sanctions.

Necessary Conditions

• Cooperation of local population: For sustainable outcomes to take place, strong foundations for local institutions are required and those can be built only with the cooperation of local people. Local people must feel that the elements of justice belong to them.

• Housing of the judicial centres: Premises must be identified and refurbished and equipment must be procured and installed.

• A legal basis is required, and therefore legislation may need to be reviewed and amended.

Source Document:

Project document UNODC - FS/SEN/02/R36 “Crime Prevention in the Dakar region”

***

3. Local Councils as Courts of First Instance for Children in Conflict with the Law

Collaborating Organisations:

- Defence for Children International- Uganda

- Legal Aid Clinic

- Save the Children

- District Local Governments

Country: Uganda

Background Information

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides for the creation of Local Councils as part of the decentralisation of power. Local Councils are the lowest units with administrative, legislative, and judicial powers on behalf of central governments.^[2]

Local Council Courts have the authority to handle petty offences to the criminal code. The Children’s Act also gives the local councils the responsibility to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children.

However, a situation analysis conducted in 2000 by DCI and partners revealed that Local Council courts were not handling petty offences as stipulated by law, as Local Council committees tended to prioritise cases other than those involving children in conflict with the law.

As a result there had been a high influx of children’s cases of petty crime into the formal legal system.

What is done?

DCI Uganda has supported the Local Councils to implement measures that respect children’s rights. To strengthen their capacity to handle children’s cases, Local Councils were sensitised to their roles for protection of children in conflict with the law.

Specific Capacity building and support for the Local Council Committees has been:

• Training on roles and jurisdiction in handling child-related cases

• Training on data collection and management

• Training on diversion measures and their importance

• Training on mediation and restorative justice

• Strengthening capacity to follow up cases and promote rehabilitation of child offenders

• Logistical support to the Local Councils

Together with the national level Juvenile Justice Committee, DCI supports capacity building activities in:

• Children’s rights, growth and development

• Basic counselling skills and child-friendly communication skills

• Data collection and management

• Rehabilitation and re-integration of children

• Leadership skills and accountability, training as trainers, monitoring & evaluation

Further training on mediation and restorative justice was done for selected Local Councils in Kampala district. Save the Children also conducts capacity-building activities with the Local Councils to support their ability to serve as courts of first instance.

Fit persons have been selected and trained from the local councils to follow up children in conflict with the law and ensure they are reintegrated and rehabilitated.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

• Increase in Diverted Cases: Where Local Council capacities have been strengthened, they effectively handle child-related cases and only refer more intricate cases to Police and Probation Social Welfare Offices. As a result, many child-related cases have been diverted from the formal justice system.

• Use and Public Acceptance of Non-custodial Sanctions: The Local Councils have been able to use alternative punishments like compensation, apology and restitution. Local Councils have also spearheaded sensitisation campaigns designed to teach surrounding communities about the value of non-custodial sanctions.

• Prevention of Mistreatment: Given the inadequacy of detention and remand facilities, the use of Local Council courts to handle childrelated cases prevents children from being mistreated and learning negative behaviours while in detention centres.

• Keeps children in school: Handling of children’s cases by Local Council courts saves school-going children from missing classes while in detention or on remand.

Necessary Conditions

• Community sensitisation: DCI conducts broad-based sensitisation to promote the rights of children. They run a Live-Call-in Radio programme on the National Radio Station. The programme provides children with a platform to discuss issues concerning them. It is also used to sensitise the public on children’s rights and responsibilities and provides information on relevant legislation. The target audience includes Local Councils, parents, local leaders, and other stakeholders.

• Participation of children since they need to be actively involved in matters affecting their lives.

• Political will and commitment from the local government leaders to prioritise child related issues.

Source Documents:

Report on a Strategy Development and Training Seminar on the administration of Juvenile Justice in Uganda, DCI Uganda, October 2000; Juvenile Justice in Uganda: A Situation Analysis UNICEF/Save the Children UK, September 2000; . An Evaluation of the Juvenile Justice Programme in 4 pilot districts of Kampala, Gulu, Hoima and Masaka, Save the Children UK, 2003; Evaluation Report on the Programme of Strengthening the Capacity of Local Council Committees to handle child related cases in Kampala District. Legal Aid Clinic, December 2003; Report on the Evaluation of Restorative Justice Program in Kampala District, Legal Aid Clinic, April 2004; Children’s Act; NGO Complementary Report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Uganda, Uganda Child Rights NGO Network, December 2002.

***

4. Village Level Children’s Mediation Units with oversight from the Ministry of Justice

Collaborating Organisations:

- Lao PDR Ministry of Justice

- Save the Children UK

Country: Lao PDR

Background Information

In Lao PDR, villages have long had Village Mediation Units to resolve adult civil and some criminal disputes. Their role was defined legally by a Directive of the Ministry of Justice in 1997. As part of the Children’s Justice Project4, Save the Children UK and the Lao Ministry of Justice conducted research in 2002 to investigate how the Village Mediation Units could be adapted to resolve issues concerning children’s conflict with the law. The research explored the feasibility of establishing Children’s Mediation Units which would be linked to the established structures of the Village Mediation Units.

What was done?

As part of a larger Children’s Justice Project to promote diversion and build institutional capacity, Save the Children UK and the Ministry of Justice support Children’s Mediation Units to operate at the village level. They mediate in children’s cases primarily brought by victims, the local police and parents. The mediators often have experience mediating cases involving adults. Some children’s mediators have been trained in conjunction with the Children’s Justice Project, and are encouraged to pass their specialised, child-rights based knowledge on to others.

Mediation will not take place if children do not admit the offence. If the offence is too serious (murder, rape, extreme violence) it will be referred to the police. If no settlement can be reached it is up to the person referring the child to decide what to do.

A Central Management Team of Ministry of Justice officials oversees the project on behalf of the Minister. At provincial level there is a Provincial Monitoring Committee and a Provincial Operations & Training Team; at district level there is a District Implementation and Monitoring Committee.

Apart from the Central Management Team, these bodies are made up of a cross–section of senior members of the criminal justice system, e.g. the judiciary, police, prosecutors’ office, the mass organisations of the Lao Women’s Union and the Lao Youth Union and other relevant ministries. To ensure sustainability, other relevant government ministries are also involved in the activities of the Central Management Team.

Other key programme components include:

• Diversion from Court & Custody: The ward/village, the police and the prosecutors’ office are encouraged to divert children from court by using restorative justice methods, e.g. warnings, re-education, community work and victim-offender mediation.

• Data Collection on Children: All 8 provinces collect data on diversion used by Children’s Mediation Units (CMU), police and prosecutors, as well as data on those children proceeding to court and the sentences given. The data indicate the type of diversion used but not the offences committed.

• Training and Dissemination of Good Practices: Training for criminal justice personnel, CMU mediators and those assisting in the prevention of offending behaviours includes knowledge and understanding of the implications of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, international instruments, Lao law and good practice principles. A key component has been producing and translating training and good practice materials in the local language, Lao.

• Listening to Children: Children’s views are gradually being more sought and listened to than in the past by children’s mediators, police, prosecutors and courts, but this is only at an initial stage.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

• Data on children diverted from the police and court, and those sent to court were collated by a central management team of Ministry of Justice officials for the first time in 2004. The data cover the 8 provinces included in the Children’s Justice Project.

• Of the total number of children coming to the attention of the children’s mediators, police, prosecutors’ office and courts in the 8 provinces, 96.4% and 95% were diverted in 2002 and 2003 respectively. (UNICEF estimates only 2% are serious offenders.) Diversion was accomplished by way of mediation agreements and warnings, fines, re-education and mediation through the police and prosecutors’ office.

• Between 2002 and 2003 children’s cases resolved at the village level increased from 462 to 1157; while police diversion increased from 1198 to 1545.

• Monitoring is happening more regularly at all levels with the result that both practice and data collection has improved. Regular evaluations have ensured an emphasis on quality work.

• Children are also being asked more questions and listened to more by those involved in Children’s Mediation Units and in the justice process.

• The reintegration process led by the police referred to locally as ‘Reeducation” is becoming a more child-focused process and increasingly involves members of the District Implementation and Monitoring Committee and the child’s family. It usually encourages a change in behaviour and ways to do it, and a warning about the consequences of further offending.

Necessary Conditions

• Monitoring & Evaluation: M & E has been primarily about implementation and recording to ensure that the children’s justice principles laid down are closely adhered to, necessary adjustments made and shortcomings put right quickly. There is, as yet, no regular feedback from children and no monitoring of re-offending. Initiatives in monitoring at the provincial and district levels require regular financial disbursements to the provinces.

• Follow up with children: Who have participated in mediations at the community mediation units.

Source Document:

Final Evaluation of the Ministry of Justice SCUK Supported Children’s Justice Project in Lao PDR Funded by the British Government from April 2002-April 2004, compiled by John Parry-Williams

***

5. Community Crime Prevention Committees

Collaborating Organisations:

UNICEF and partners

Country: Malawi

Background Information

Malawi currently does not have a specialised system for children in conflict with the law. There are no governmental legal aid services and there is a dearth of social workers. However, communities in Malawi have a history of caring collectively for children. Community based programmes, such as the Community Crime Prevention Committees, are a return to traditional ways of handling children’s issues.

Traditionally in Malawi whenever a child committed a crime, the traditional system (chiefs, Traditional Authorities and the community elders, the child and his/her family and, finally the victim) would counsel the family and the child and make decisions on what to do. Most of the time the children were requested to do some work for the benefit of the whole community, for example, herding cattle or cooking. Such a sanction was not considered abuse or exploitation of the child, but simply the only means the community had with which to address the conflict and to support the rehabilitation of the child.

What is done?

The community crime prevention committees are usually formed by distinguished members of the community: people who – on account of their position or their integrity – are regarded by the community as role models. The committee is usually composed of the Headmaster of the local school, some teachers, the traditional chiefs, elders and the secretaries of any other committees that have a role within the community life. Examples of such committees include the water and sanitation committee and the rights of the child committee. Parents and youths are also included in committee activities.

Whenever a child from the community comes in conflict with the law, the Community Crime Prevention Committee tries to solve the matter within the community itself without resorting to police or prison officials. The committees aim to prevent and divert children in conflict with the law from the court system. Sometimes parents and teachers go to the crime prevention committee to discuss issues related to “unruly” children: children who do not want to go to school, children who damage school property etc. The committees then act as counsellors.

To support the work of the committees, UNICEF also supports sensitisation which:

• Is designed so that parents, teachers and especially Traditional Leaders are aware of diversion possibilities.

• Raises awareness on crime prevention, diversion, gives an overview of the trial process and how to work with the paralegals.

• Is conducted where juvenile justice issues are most acute due to social health and economic reasons such as an increase in children orphaned by HIV/AIDS, lack of parental guidance, poverty, unemployment, peer pressure, limited child development programs, and a low age of criminal responsibility.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

Most petty crimes are now addressed within the community without police and judiciary involvement. There has been a noticeable decrease in court caseloads, children’s conflict with the law and recidivism. Last available data show that 90% of children in custody – at prisons and reformatory schools - come from areas outside the districts where crime prevention committees and sensitisation activities have been implemented.

Necessary Conditions

• Support from the government: While a separate system for children in conflict with the law is not a pre-requisite for this practice, it is necessary that the law allows for diversion at the community level.

Community networks should be supported where feasible.

• Awareness of children’s rights: UNICEF and partners also create opportunities for members of the Community Crime Prevention Committees to build upon their awareness of child rights. This ensures that sanctions mandated by the committees respect the rights of children and emphasise rehabilitation rather than punishment.

• Coordination for scaling up: The main challenges in Malawi have been in achieving long-term sustainability and scaling-up of efforts at district and community level. UNICEF Malawi is trying to address these issues with other counterparts in order to continue to make a difference for children in conflict with the law.

Source Document:

Correspondence with UNICEF staff in Malawi

***

6. Police Level Diversion : “HALT” Alternative Sanction Programme

Collaborating Organisations:

- The Dutch Government

- HALT The Netherlands

- DCI The Netherlands does not directly implement the programme, but provides information and lobbies for HALT procedures.

Country: The Netherlands

Background Information

The Dutch criminal code and the code of criminal procedure contain special provisions which establish that sanctions for children in conflict with the law must be designed for rehabilitation.

In 1995, a new amendment to juvenile criminal law was passed in the Netherlands. While the amendment reinforced the legal basis for alternative sanctions, it also tightened provisions relating to juvenile criminal law. For example, the maximum period of imprisonment for children in conflict with the law was raised from one to two years. Legal restrictions, which shielded children from the application of adult criminal law to their cases, were eased.

Since 1995, the possibility of calling on the services of HALT bureaus, which were set up in 1981, is embodied in the criminal code. Further details on the operation of the HALT bureaus have been laid down in legal regulation and in the unitary guidelines of the state prosecution service. The Dutch juvenile justice system lays down different forms of alternative sanctions at different levels. For instance, the police can refer to a HALT project and the public prosecutor and the judge have the possibility to use ‘task penalties’ that consist of learning- and working schemes.

DCI The Netherlands lobbies for and gives institutional support to alternatives to the deprivation of the liberty of children. This is done by sending out press releases, as well as organising expert seminars and meetings with politicians. One of the initiatives DCI supports is the HALT procedure.

What was done?

HALT, short for ‘the alternative’, is an alternative sanction whereby the police can propose that the child offender be offered work or damage compensation for a maximum of 20 hours. In cases of vandalism, damage to property, or petty theft, the police can refer the juvenile to a HALT bureau.

The child in conflict with the law is given the choice of having the charges dropped in exchange for his or her participation in a HALT project. A written offer is made to the child with the reminder that he or she is not forced to participate in the scheme. If the child is below 16, the parents must give their consent. If the child agrees to the offer, the police draw up a protocol and send it to a HALT bureau.

HALT bureaus have been set up by the local authorities in cooperation with the state prosecution service. The HALT bureau makes the juvenile an offer to participate in a particular project for which his or her consent is again required. The possible measures offered are work, damage compensation or a combination of the two. A HALT project may not last longer than 20 hours, although in practice it is rare for them to exceed 10 hours.

After the measures have been carried out, the police conduct a review with the HALT team and decide whether the charges should be dropped. If the outcome of the HALT measure is positive, the police inform both the juvenile and the state prosecutor’s office in writing. By doing so, { Continued on page 17 }

further criminal proceedings are dropped unless the injured party has made a successful complaint to the courthouse. If the results of the HALT project are negative, a file for the instigation of preliminary proceedings is opened and passed on to the state prosecutor. Certain state prosecution service officials are mandated to deal with the police in HALT matters.

The HALT procedure has as a second important task, the prevention of children’s conflict with the law. This is done by information sessions in schools, focusing on children and adolescents between 10 and 14. HALT is also involved in efforts to improve the safety of schools and/or communities. HALT often works together with the police, the fire brigade, health care, and probation services, and informs on matters of local policy.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

By promoting the HALT procedures, DCI Netherlands contributes to efforts to strengthen alternative programmes for child offenders. HALT is considered a successful project. Of the approximately 50,000 children that are arrested by the police, about 20,000 go to one of the 62 HALT bureaus. In particular, the HALT measures contribute to:

• empowering children in conflict with the law

• promoting the participation of the young people in the resolution of their cases

• keeping children out of the judicial system

• developing preventive approaches to children’s conflict with the law

• promoting the cooperation between different sectors (including social workers, the judiciary and law enforcement personnel)

Necessary Conditions

• A society open to alternative measures, including restorative justice and mediation,

• Co-ordination between the different institutions involved,

• Training of police and social workers, which includes the provision of the necessary financial and human resources,

• The guarantee of rights of the child and the basic rules for a fair trial.

Source Document:

Annemieke Wolthuis, Moving Forward – Restorative Aspects in the Dutch Juvenile Justice System, DCI – The Netherlands, 2001

***

7. Use of a Drop-In Centre for Child Protection, Crime Prevention & Diversion

Collaborating Organisations:

- Nasli Navras (a Tajik NGO)

- Save the Children UK

Country: Tajikistan

Background Information

Tajikistan signed the CRC in 1993. The National Commission on Child Protection (NCCP) was founded in 2001 and is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and attended by deputy ministers from relevant ministries. In 2001 the NCCP established an Expert Group to make recommendations for the harmonisation of child justice legislation and with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Director of Nasli Navras, SC UK’s partner NGO, is a member of the Experts Group.

In Tajikistan, the Commission on Minors has a mandate to address the cases of children brought forward by either police or parents, as well as children in conflict with the law who are under the age of criminal responsibility. The Commission often sends children who are under 14 years (some as young as 7 and even 3 years of age) into detention centres, in contravention to their regulations. There are also cases where children are detained for long periods, e.g. a 13 year old who was detained for 6 years. The Commission on Minors is not constrained by ‘due process’, it does not offer legal assistance to children, judgements cannot be appealed, and matters are not investigated by the prosecutor’s office. Its staff seldom have any social work training and are frequently transferred.

The children brought to the Commission on Minors are in need of care and protection and many are working children or children living in the street. It is these groups of children that Nasli Navras’ Drop-In Centre has assisted as well as those released from detention. Until recently, the Centre was primarily involved with children who may also have been working but went home at night. Now they are assisting children living in the street. The life-style of these children is very different from the former as they live a hand-to–mouth existence in gangs, and are in frequent contact with the police. The younger children are often in danger of violence, especially gang rapes by older children as punishment, usually for failing to collect sufficient amounts of money. The younger children are in need of shelter at night for protection.

What is Done?

The Drop-In Centre has non-formal education classes emphasising literacy, various vocational groups, such as handicraft, sewing and embroidery (sold to local shopkeepers), computer literacy, foreign languages (English and Russian) gardening, and cultural activities, including traditional dance and musical instruments. There is a health clinic and a doctor, who is paid by the State and visits regularly, a dental clinic, and a pharmacy where medicines are supplied by Pharmacists without Borders. Through negotiation with a computer company the Drop-In Centre is planning on buying 10 computers this year. There is also a library. There are plans to restore a swimming pool and build a sauna (to be open to the public at certain times to raise funds), to provide a place for children to wash their clothes and to set up a car-wash scheme so children over the age of 15 can make money. Nasli Navras wishes to open a branch of the Drop-In Centre with a social worker and provide for regular visits by a doctor and lawyer.

The Drop-In Centre also does prevention work in five nearby pilot schools near to the Centre. There are Children’s Clubs in the five schools each composed of about 30-40 children. They take a role in the governance of the school and a number have been trained as peer counsellors, one their tasks being to help integrate drop-out children back in school. The Drop-In Centre is run by a Coordination Council, which includes representatives from NGOs, the five pilot schools, the district police and Commission of Minors, ward representatives, parents and children’s organisations. The Coordination Council and Drop-In Centre undertake training of these groups and seek volunteers from them.

Nasli Navras is seeking to recruit trained social workers to enhance its ability to work with children who are ‘at serious risk’ or have come into conflict with the law. The social worker would give guidance, both informally and through relevant courses, on how staff can build up these children’s self-esteem and confidence, their educational, vocational, recreational and social skills and address their offensive behaviour.

Having a social worker would facilitate the diversion of cases from the police, the Commission of Minors, and the courts.

Nasli Navras also wishes to extend the role of the Drop-In Centre by offering Drop-In Centre supervision as a way to divert children from being sent to police cells, pre-trial detention and institutions by the police and the Commission on Minors, and later for first offenders appearing before the court.

How is it a good practice?

Achievements

• Nasli Navras’ child protection work and its support from within the community may account for the reduction in the number of children coming to the attention of the police in Frunze (the largest district of the capital). In 2002, there were 350 cases that came to their attention and in 2003 there were 195. While this reduction was happening in Frunze, these figures are said to be rising in the other three Dushanbe districts.

• Last year the Commission on Minors sent six children and the police sent about 35 children to the Nasli Navras Drop-In Centre instead of sending them to the temporary Isolation Unit. Also last year, 90 children were released from detention in a general amnesty and of the 84 Nasli Navras received, none of the children re-offended while with them.

• There are 300 children on the Drop-In Centre register. Of these about 60 come daily. 210 are street and working children (70%); 12 are children released from detention; the rest are from poor families. In the years 2001-03, children were assisted in the following ways: 372 completed various courses, 24 children obtained jobs, 40 obtained their driving licence, or other necessary official documents. Recently, a few street children were reintegrated with their parents but most refused to take them but did offer their children gifts. It is hoped that by keeping up regular contact with parents the number accepted back will increase.

• The staff at the five participating pilot schools see their prevention work as leading to more self-esteem and confidence among the children. There has also been some successful resolution of problems between teachers and pupils.

Necessary Conditions

• Good understanding and liaison between Nasli Navras and the Commission on Minors and all the departments in the criminal justice system as to the Drop-In Centre’s objectives, role and limitations in terms of child protection and conflict with the law.

• Sustainability of the Drop-In Centre for assisting the protection and justice system in its work.

• The establishment of a centre for social work training so that competent social workers can assist ‘at risk’ children and work with their families.

Source Documents:

SCUK Tajikistan Report, Nikhil Roy, March, 2002, Children who are in Conflict with the Law: Report of the Expert Group, 2003, Report on Suggested Strategy for SCUK in Tajikistan for Children’s Justice, John Parry-Williams, March, 2004

Marcel Trahan had a strong personality. He was a lucid witness of major social changes with respect to youth and family. Furthermore, his duties and the manner in which he understood them brought him to play a role at the forefront of these changes, more particularly during the 40’s and the 50’s. He took an active part in the debates which took place at the time and was instrumental in insuring that the judicial administration and the implementation of the laws relating to delinquent youth and youth in danger took this evolution into account.

Marcel Trahan believed in re-education and he believed the judge had a pivotal role to play in it. After his appointment, he embodied his vision of the judge for children charged with a mission. Because of his curiosity, his rigorous mind and his humanism, he was not only a remarkable man of action but also had a passion for research and for reflection.

His childhood and the beginning of his career

Marcel Trahan, the sixth child of a family of seven, was born in Nicolet on 27 March 1914. His parents, Arthur Trahan and Joséphine Dufresne, were both well schooled, hence, all the children pursued studies. His father was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec from 1911 to 1917 and a member of the Parliament of Canada from 1917 until 1923 when he was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec.

Both his parents had considered embracing religious life and they transmitted to their children not only their faith but also their values: honesty, righteousness, respect, goodness and brotherly love. These values were reinforced during his studies of the Greco-Latin humanities at the Séminaire de Nicolet where he learned to cherish liberty and fraternity.

Like his father, Marcel Trahan chose a legal career. At Law School, he was a distinguished member of the Debating Society (this helped him develop his eloquence and become an impassioned orator and eventually a sought-after speaker), of the theatre company and of the hockey team.

After becoming a member of the Bar in 1939, he practiced law for a few years. He was already interested in matters related to the family. He joined l’Institut Familial where he drafted a Declaration on the rights of the child based on what had been done by the League of Nations (the work of the League of Nations was the precursor of what became the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). Judge Robillard (who was the Chief Justice of the Juvenile Court of Montreal) attended one of his conferences at the Institut Familial and suggested that the government appoint him legal counsel of the Court.

His involvement

Upon his arrival at the Court in 1943, Marcel Trahan devoted all his energies to re-organising it. He sat on various study groups and think-tanks created by the Government of Quebec. He wrote a number of reports suggesting measures to improve the functioning of the Court: complaints should no longer be received directly by the judge; the probation officers should be spread out in various parts of the City; the security guards at the Detention Center should be appropriately trained. Already (and this went on throughout his life), Marcel Trahan looked at what was going on elsewhere and, when appropriate, used what he learned to suggest changes. He found ideas and suggestions for his first report in the Proceedings of the fifth International Catholic Social Welfare Congress held in Brussels in 1935.

He quickly became responsible for the administration of the Office of the Court and of the Detention Center. In 1947, he was appointed Clerk of the Juvenile Court of Montreal.

Over the years, he organised a number of events for juvenile delinquents e.g. picnics and distribution of gifts as well as activities for young people and their families in order to prevent juvenile delinquency.

The international scene

Dedicated to improving the legal system (for juveniles) in which he was working, Marcel Trahan subscribed to a number of publications, many of which were from Europe. This allowed him to build a network outside Quebec. In 1958, he attended, for the first time, a congress of the IAYFJM. He had just been appointed a substitute judge of the Social Welfare Court (which replaced the Juvenile Court). At the end of the congress, he was appointed a counsellor of the Association and he became one of its vice-presidents in 1966, after the congress of Paris where he presided over one of the working commissions.

Marcel Trahan: coroner

In 1961, Marcel Trahan left the Social Welfare Court. His active involvement, his strong personality and the changes he had brought about had disturbed a number of people. The Government appointed him Coroner for the district of Montreal. He exercised these duties with great charisma until 1965, presiding over many inquiries which drew the attention of the media. There too, he was a precursor and an innovator. He often made recommendations to put in place measures to prevent situations which could endanger human life. Very seldom did he end an inquiry without making useful remarks in the public interest. Many of his recommendations were implemented. He also reflected on the role of the coroner and gave advice in order to improve the various laws impacting on that function.

His return to the Social Welfare Court

On September 15, 1965 (his 20^th wedding anniversary), Marcel Trahan learned that he had been appointed a judge of the Social Welfare Court. He remained in office until 1984.

A visionary, a precursor and even an avant-gardist, Marcel Trahan had a non-traditional conception of the role of the judge for children: for him, it was a mission as well as a vocation! The judge for children should be concerned with the human dimension of the Law and of the function itself. He always believed that the judge is a “professor of social energy”: he did not like the idea of the judge as a technician. For him the spirit of the Law was as important as the letter of the Law. His intuition and, even more so, his capacity to listen, allowed him to identify the problem of the young persons appearing before him. He knew how to speak to them. He knew how to explain things to them and to motivate them towards a positive change. He saw what was good in everyone, whether they be delinquent or not. He then built on the positive aspects.

Marcel Trahan had a very personal style and was deeply involved in everything he undertook. At the time, the provisions of the Law were such that he was able to combine the role of the educator, of the social worker and that of the judge. According to him the work of the educator and of the social worker should be supported by the judge in order that the results be maximized. Hence, the judicial intervention received all its meaning by combining the social and the professional involvement of the judge.

Marcel Trahan innovated by using measures which, at the time, were unusual, but have since become the norm e.g. “community work” which he preferred to call “symbolic reparation”. He was also known for certain unconventional methods. He used to recount how, one day, he proposed to a young runaway man that he wrist wrestle with him in order to find a solution to the matter.

Marcel Trahan also actively took part in the consultation process surrounding the adoption of the Youth Protection Act as well as the Young Offenders Act. He was an effective speaker and pleaded relentlessly in order that the dignity of the young offender be respected. For instance, at a conference on the Young Offenders Act, he drew the participants' attention to the fact that a young offender should be described as the “author” of a manslaughter and not as being “guilty” of manslaughter. This is but one example of the humanist manner in which he dealt with people and with situations. It also illustrates how he always put in practice what he preached since he used to say that “man is as desperately in need of bread as he is of dignity”.

Marcel Trahan wanted to create bridges between Canadian Juvenile Court Judges and judges from other countries, particularly Europe. This is why he continued being actively involved in the IAYFJM. He suggested that the Association held one of its congresses outside of Europe. Once more practicing what he preached, he organised the 1978 Congress in Montreal.

He was an active member of la Société Quebecoise de Criminologie of which he was president from 1975 to 1979. He was also a member of the Conseil Supérieur de l'Education du Quebec until 1983.

He always believed in the maxim “mens sana in corpore sano” and was, for many seasons, the coach of the hockey teams for which his sons played.

Retirement

Marcel Trahan retired in 1984, at the age of 70, since the Courts of Justice Act provides that a judge cannot remain in office after that age.

He went on being involved with Boscoville, Cité des Prairies and the Quebec Foundation for Young Offenders.

He was very proud of his French-Canadian roots but was even prouder of his Acadian origins. He founded the Gathering of the Trahans of America. To mark the 350^th anniversary of the arrival of Guillaume Trahan at Port-Royal, in Acadia, he organised, in August 1986, a huge gathering in Louiseville (Quebec), attended by nearly 800 descendents of Guillaume. Once more, with his very special gift for motivating and unifying people, he instilled in all those who participated (coming from all parts of North-America, especially Louisiana and even from France) an extraordinary sense of belonging and of pride. For twelve years, he published “La Trahannière” where could be found the results of his genealogical research, articles which he asked various members of the Trahan family to write recounting their personal history and newspaper clippings which he collected because of the unique network he created with Trahans all over Canada and the United States and which he maintained by writing, by telephoning or by attending family reunions where, as everywhere else, he became known for his good humour and he did not go unnoticed.

Retirement allowed him to devote even more time than before to reading, amongst other things, poetry which he enjoyed particularly. He often recited, from memory, poems of Canadian authors but also poems in honour of Acadia and Acadians. Those who attended the Congress of IAYFJM in Geneva in 1970 remember his strong voice reciting a poem by Robert Choquette aboard the ship on Lake Léman, en route to the Château de Chillon. His last such eloquent episode took place at the launching of his biography where he recited many stanzas of “Hécatombe”, a poem written by Adolphe Poisson about the deportation of Acadians.

The years took their toll. Little by little his strength declined. In August 2004, his dear wife, Émélie Bourbonnière, passed away. He had met her in 1943 at a meeting of the Institut Familial. She was a social worker and a woman of action who shared the same values. Throughout the years she supported him, encouraged him and always stood next to him. She was very active in various volunteer associations: the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Montreal Council of Women, the YWCA, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, the Canadian Education Week, etc. In her, he lost a friend, a life companion and a partner.

Marcel and Émélie Trahan had three children, Anne-Marie, judge at the Superior Court of Quebec, Étienne deceased in 1996 and Dominique, (lawyer) the director of the Legal Aid Office specializing in youth matters.

Prepared by Anne-Marie Trahan

with the assistance of Hugo Koulenovitch

A biography of Marcel Trahan was published in the spring of 2005 by Renée Joyal, in cooperation with Jean Trépanier.

* * * *

There ends the biography. On 18 February 2006, Marcel Trahan left this world: he is now reunited with his dear Émélie. The biography I have tried to summarize above speaks about the public person. I would like to say a few words about the private person: the father and the mentor he was for me.

My father’s mother passed away when he was nine years old. His father placed him at the Jardin de l’enfance in Montréal. He was far from his family. He did not receive many visitors nor could he go out on weekends. Luckily, the nun who was the director was a friend of his father and took good care of him. This episode of his life left a profound mark on him and caused him to be a very present and attentive father even though he was very busy with his work and his many other activities.

Now that I am a judge and deal with family matters, I realize, even more than before, how lucky I was to have had a father who was as present as he was. As I often tell parents who appear before me, the child-father interaction is what allows children to become self-confident, to open up to the world and to discover it both physically and intellectually. It was my father who taught me how to walk. As I saw him going through books and newspapers, I became interested in reading and in what went on in the world. As I went with him to the picnics and events he organised for young people and to the various Institutions he visited, I learned how to share him and to be proud of the one whom the young people called “my judge”. In seeing how he behaved and gave the best of himself, I came to realize that because I had received a lot I should give a lot and share.

In 1975, one of the great social debates in Quebec was about battered children. My father was president of la Société de criminologie and I, of the francophone University Women’s Club of Montréal. We organised a joint activity on this topic. He invited the then Minister of Justice, Jérôme Choquette, to attend. This was a turning point: a few months later the Minister tabled a Bill on battered children: the door was ajar. We know what ensued. This unusual experience showed me the power of involvement.

Since I saw him preside over hearings with good nature and empathy, it was natural that I behave the same way. How often do I hear myself say to persons who appear before me things he used to tell me when I was young in order to bring me back to the right direction or to encourage me to study harder. It was also in seeing him behave that I realized that Justice is “Service” and not just “Power”.

In closing, I would like to leave you with some of the thoughts where he found his inspiration:

“The role of the judge is to unite in the same concept the love of the Law^[3] and the love of Justice. In order to do it well it is necessary to aim for the top and to bring the others with us to the summit...”

(Arthur Trahan, s.c.j.)

“The child, on the difficult path of humanity, will always be the most noble reason to labour and to hope”.

(Comte D'Archault)

“The world is nothing next to what is unique in a human face, in a human destiny”.

(Nicolas Berdiaeff)

“What counts is not the universal and anonymous neighbour, it is the immutable and indefinable act by which one conscience opens up to another”.

(Vladimir Jankelevitch)

**********

Anne-Marie Trahan

Justice is best achieved through the implementation of the various international instruments concerning the rights of the child. The theme puts the focus on children’s rights and considers what progress has been made putting theory into practice. It highlights the very important role of the judiciary not only as guarantors of justice but also in advancing the rights of the child.

The theme will focus on the extent to which the rights of children are protected and/or promoted by international instruments.

The IAYFJM draws members from more than 80 countries and from every continent. These instruments are the only legal instruments they all have in common. The Congress will provide a unique forum for members to exchange on how the CRC and other international human rights instruments are relevant to their practice. Discussions will stimulate individual reflection and provide an interesting impetus for the application of these instruments. The Congress is an opportunity for the IAYFJM to make a major contribution to the globalisation of perspectives on children’s rights.

Speakers will be invited to reflect critically on the way the rights of children are viewed, implemented and monitored in their respective countries and how national practice tries to meet, or fails to meet, the requirements of international standards. The consequences of non-implementation and even violations will be highlighted.

The implementation of rights is likely to be made differently depending on the legal tradition of each country, the social and economic resources it has, or does not have, culture and traditions, and so forth. Speakers will be invited to reflect on the underlying substantive policy issues, particularly on the need to provide economic support to developing nations. They will consider the legal aspects of rights and explore the values and the conception of children and justice which underpin the rights as outlined in the instruments.

Linguistic sessions and workshops will be divided according to types of rights and/or the types of interventions or proceedings to which these rights apply. They will start with brief presentations by people from different countries / continents, that might be viewed as representative of main trends, with a view to stimulating the reflection and discussion that should take place.

To take into account necessary distinctions between children in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection, delegates will be invited to look at the various rights and reflect on how they apply (similarly or differently) to the various categories of cases.

Similarly, delegates will be invited to consider the extent to which the holistic approach needed in family and youth justice is reflected in practice. How well does the judiciary and all those court-connected professionals, whose work supports the courts, succeed in putting the pieces together again?

Rights tend to undergo some evolution over time, as values and conceptions change. Delegates will have an opportunity to consider the relevance of the instruments and whether any or all need to be updated.

Simultaneous translation will be available in each of our three official languages - English, French and Spanish - for all plenary sessions.

Included among the hundreds of delegates from around the world will be senior representatives of the judiciary and all the professions whose work supports the courts in dealing with children, families and youth justice.

This will be a major international conference embracing both an international and a multi-disciplinary approach to children worldwide and which will endeavour to deliver enduring outcomes throughout the globe.

The aim of the Congress will be to promote fresh initiatives internationally for the protection of children’s rights and the progress of youth justice.

The primary objective of the Congress will be to draw up a set of recommendations which will serve as an inspiration to policy makers, professionals and judges throughout the world in the formulation, development and application of youth and family justice.

Issues touching on the administration of justice as it affects the main influences on children and youth: family, community, society and youth justice will be considered within the overall context of a set of themes that reflect the rights enshrined within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international instruments.

The development of youth justice in a worldwide context will be a key ingredient in our discussions.

Speakers

Speakers will be drawn from around the world and will represent a range of nationalities and cultures.

Target Audience

Our target audience includes judges, magistrates, psychiatrists, educators, legal professionals, social scientists, police, academics and representatives from government departments, human rights organisations, community groups and welfare agencies.

Organising Committee

The Congress Organising Committee is chaired by the Honourable Mr Justice Gillen – the senior Family Judge for Northern Ireland and comprises representatives from the main agencies supporting the Congress:

Northern Ireland Court Service

Northern Ireland Office

The Public Prosecution Service

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Probation Service of Northern Ireland

Social Services Inspectorate

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Programme

Following a Welcome Reception for delegates on Sunday 27 August 2006, the Congress programme will cover 5 days and will strongly reflect the Congress theme.

MONDAY The Child in the Family -

A Child’s Right to Family Life

(i) The meaning of “family life” in a diverse early 21st Century.

(ii) What is the meaning of “abuse”?

(iii) Children as parents.

(iv) Recent developments in the law of international abduction and access.

(v) Parental responsibilities within the family.

TUESDAY A Child in the Community - A Child’s Right to Survival and Development

(i) How are we to hear the voice of the child?

(ii) Rights of child refugees.

(iii) A child’s right to marry.

(iv) Discrimination against children worldwide.

(v) The menace of the Internet.

WEDNESDAY Morning - An opportunity to visit children’s courts and various institutions for children.

Afternoon - Social programme.

THURSDAY Children in Conflict with the Law

(i) Child soldiers - children in war zones.

(ii) The right to protection against trafficking and child prostitution.

(iii) Restorative justice - a fair alternative?

(iv) The right to a fair trial.

(v) Children in custody.

FRIDAY

Drafting recommendations and resolutions.

Closing Address

Call for Papers

The deadline for the submission of papers has now passed.

The General Assembly

The General Assembly will be held on Thursday August 31 at 1730 hours.

Veillard Cybulski Award

The Veillard Cybulski Award will be presented on Friday, September 01 at 1130

Congress Website:

Please visit the Congress website.

www.youthandfamily2006.com

Delegates will be able to register, select workshops, book accommodation, book pre- or post-Congress tours etc.

For further information contact:

Gerry McLaughlin

Head of World Congress Secretariat

Northern Ireland Court Service

t. +44 28 9041 2270 / +44 28 9041 2267

f. +44 28 9023 8506

email: wcongress@courtsni.gov.uk

Philippa Spiller

Professional Congress Organiser

The Ovation Group

t. +44 28 9042 4215

f. +44 28 9042 4216

email: Philippa.spiller@ovation-ni.com

^[1] The initiative has other facets, including research, capacity building of the pillars of justice and communities and to change local policies based on the project’s experience. SC UK understands the pillars of justice as Community, Law enforcement, prosecution, the Courts and Correction

^[2] The Local Councils are also involved with activities such as making by-laws in the communities, general welfare and development, conflict resolution like land disputes, protecting the Constitution, and promoting democratic leadership and governance

^[3] Montesquieu says that in order to respect the Law citizens must love it (because they know it and partook in its elaboration).

PRISON SENTENCES ARE NOT SUCCEEDING IN TURNING THE MAJORITY OF OFFENDERS AWAY FROM CRIME

His childhood and the beginning of his career

His involvement

The international scene

Marcel Trahan: coroner

His return to the Social Welfare Court

Retirement