The Justice (NI) Bill has eventually received Royal Assent but it looks now as if the lead-in time will be much longer than anticipated. Because of the need for enabling legislation the new Bill, and consequently our changing role as Lay Magistrates, will not come into effect before the end of 2003 or, more likely, early 2004.

When it eventually comes into effect, the new Bill will introduce many changes, not least in the way we deal with young offenders. You will recall that the Criminal Justice Review, which gave birth to the new Bill, placed a lot of emphasis on the need to develop diversionary programmes and placed youth conferencing at the heart of a new approach to juvenile justice. The Review accepted that the key to tackling youth crime is to focus on prevention and diversion. In our response to the Review, we pointed out that this will require the development of national policies to tackle the underlying problems of poverty and social deprivation which lie at the heart of much offending.

There are those who would argue that the Criminal Justice Review Group got it wrong and that it is time to crack down hard on anti-social behaviour, car crime and phone thieves. A report in the Observer on September 8 is likely to reinforce the punitive public mood. According to that report (which looked at the situation in England and Wales), children as young as nine are flocking to join violent street gangs and taking part in crimes such as drug dealing, theft and even murder. Figures suggest there are now as many as 30,000 gang members across England and Wales and the numbers are rising rapidly. The number of gang members aged under 16 has doubled in the past year and nearly half of all gang murders committed with firearms now involve victims under the age of 18.

Steve Shropshire, an expert on gangs and youth culture and co-author of the report that highlights the problem, said: ‘Young people are being drawn into the gangs and crews in ever increasing numbers and the average age of new members is falling dramatically. The gang culture is now inextricably linked with gun violence.’

Increasingly, he reports, gang activity is centred around schools. A typical secondary school in a gang area will have up to 20 hardcore members among the pupils, 30 or 40 associate members and up to 100 or more who are marginally involved. The members listen to ‘gangsta rap’ and idolise the heroes of films like Scarface, Goodfellas and Menace II Society, adopting their values and some of their language.

It appears to me that this report, far from demanding a punitive response, highlights the need for tackling the causes.

New Labour came into office promising to be not only tough on crime but tough on the cause of crime. Unfortunately, ‘tough on the causes of crime’ appears to have been lost along the way as successive Home Secretaries succumbed to media pressure and adopted the American philosophy of ‘zero tolerance’ ‘three strikes and you’re out’.

‘Zero Tolerance’ is credited with bringing about one of the most heartening shifts in social behaviour in the modern world. A dramatic drop in murders and other violent crime saw US cities begin to reclaim their public spaces. Nowhere was the transformation more obvious than in New York City. No one received more credit than the city’s mayor Rudolph Giuliani. His gospel of zero tolerance meant more police officers, more visible policing, more prison sentences, larger prisons and a ruthless approach to cleaning up the environment.

In January of this year Mr Blunkett invited Mr Zero Tolerance himself - Bill Bratton^{^[1]}, - to London to provide “inspiration” and talk about his success in turning around a poorly performing police force. Mr Blunket wanted to put the spotlight on the changes he planned to introduce in the police reform bill, including a new interim anti-social behaviour order that would enable the police and others to take immediate action before going through the entire court process. Mr Bratton attributed the improvement in New York crime rates to strong political leadership that provided extra officers and clear crime prevention goals, including tackling victimless “quality of life crimes” - which meant the police were no longer just passing on crime reports.

The world eagerly embraced the ‘zero tolerance’ approach and no one embraced it more eagerly than New Labour. David Blunkett told the above conference that taking a hard line against anti-social behaviour on housing estates and on the streets of the most difficult areas, was the key to reducing fear of crime. The changes, to be introduced in the police reform bill, were to include a new interim anti-social behaviour order that would enable the police and others to take immediate action before going through the entire court process. An order would be made at the first court appearance, pending a full hearing, to enable the community to be protected from a persistent offender without delay. A breach of the order would be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment.

At the end of January the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf called for violent mobile phone thieves and gang leaders to be jailed for a minimum of 18 months and up to five years. On Feb 4 David Blunkett was calling for police “strikes” to smash those street gangs responsible for carrying out the wave of carjackings and mobile phone thefts and promising sentences in excess of five years for carjackers and phone thieves.

The ‘tough on crime’ approach means that England and Wales now locks up more people per head of population than any other country in Europe, except Portugal – more even than Saudi Arabia, China or Myanmar. 24 new prisons have been built in the past 10 years providing 12,000 extra places. With the prison population rising at the rate of 400 a week it is clear that prisons cannot be built fast enough to meet the growing demand. The prison population has increased by some 8,000 prisoners in the past two years alone and is currently at record levels - almost 10,000 over capacity.

After the murder of James Bulger the jail population jumped from 42,000 to 48,000 within eight months. The prison system is now bracing itself for a further surge in the prison population in the wake of the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. It is expected that judges and magistrates will pass longer sentences on those convicted as a reflection of the more punitive public mood.

The exponential growth in the prison population has been causing concern for some time. The director-general of the prison service warned last September that the prison population had risen by more than 1,200 since David Blunkett became home secretary and was threatening to undermine improvements in conditions for inmates. In March this year Britain’s most senior judge and the home secretary joined forces in an unprecedented call to the courts and magistrates to stop sending to prison non-violent offenders who do not pose a risk to the public. Lord Woolf added: “We trust all courts will heed the message which the appeal court is giving today. That message is imprisonment only when necessary and for no longer than necessary.”

In May prison governors were urging that offenders convicted of crimes that carry a sentence of six months or less should no longer be jailed.

In June the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, was urging ministers and judges to take action to curb the soaring prison population. He told a London crime conference that jail conditions were “no longer tolerable”. When he reported on the Strangeways prison riots in 1991, the prison population was 44,000 and falling. In June this year it was 71,000 and projected to top 83,000 by 2008. “If the population of the prisons continues to rise in [this] way there is a real risk of a repetition of the sort of events that took place over 10 years ago and which my report was designed to make beyond possibility of repetition,” he warned.

On September 9 the Government’s Youth Justice Board issued a plea to the courts not to jail so many teenage offenders.

Mr Blunkett is finding that stopping the snowball is more difficult than starting it rolling in the first place. However belatedly, the Government has at last come to the conclusion (although for the wrong reasons) that too many people, particularly young people, are being sent to prison. Their concerns have focused on the dangers of overcrowding as outlined by Lord Woolf. They should have focused on the fact that prison doesn’t work and on the damage prison does, especially to young people.

Let us consider for a moment where they have gone wrong. We will start with their espousal of the ‘zero tolerance’ approach.

A lonely few, including myself, have cautioned repeatedly that there were many explanations for the falling crime rate in America and that ‘zero tolerance’ was only part of the answer. We were voices crying in the wilderness. Now, researchers in the journal Homicide Studies suggested a new theory that owes nothing to more bobbies on the beat, to zero tolerance policies or to self-promoting politicians. Murders have fallen, say the authors, because emergency medical services have improved spectacularly in recent decades. In 1960, a shooting victim would have bled to death in the street before anyone could get to him. But in 2002, with the introduction of the 911 emergency call number (America’s equivalent of 999), the revolution in paramedic provision, and the improvement in hospital trauma units, the emergency services get to victims more quickly and effectively than in the past. The changes have slashed the homicide rate.

It is the survival of victims, not the work of the police, that is reducing the murder rate. Improved emergency services are not the only factor affecting violent crime rates. But there is a huge lesson in this research both for policy-makers and for politicians. It always suits politicians to talk tough about crime. Yet if the researchers are right, both the citizens and the politicians are simply lucky. The study is also a reminder that extra police and extra police powers are very rarely the best answer to either crime or disorder.

The second point is that sending people to prison is not having the desired effect. Indeed it looks as if it is having a negative effect with the crime rate rising along with the prison population. There is abundant evidence that sending people to prison will increase the likelihood of their re-offending on discharge. (See my article - page 29)

No one reading the reports of rioting, suicide and racist murder which have made Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution the most notorious in the country could fail to accept the damaging effect prison has on young people. Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution has been labelled ‘a finishing school for career criminals’. This label could apply equally to most other young offender institutions including our own institutions in Northern Ireland.

Even a cursory look at the prison population underlines the need for early intervention. Children coming from a care background are disproportionately represented. 75% of prisoners have been excluded from school. 75% have not attended school beyond the age of 13. The majority of prisoners are illiterate making it well nigh impossible for them ever to find employment and making re-offending almost inevitable.

One of the primary targets of Mr Blunkett’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ approach was anti-social behaviour. Recent research would suggest that tackling poverty and poor health would be much more effective than ‘cracking down hard’.

According to a Home Office-backed study, which reported on June 25, anti-social conduct may be linked to diet. Improving the vitamins, minerals and fatty acids in the diets of young offenders appeared to reduce their anti-social behaviour dramatically.

Results of trials in one maximum security institution for 18- to 21-year-old men suggested that inmates who took special supplements committed more than a quarter fewer disciplinary offences while serving their sentences than those who were unknowingly simply taking dummy pills. Significant infringements of discipline, including violence, fell by 37%, according to authors of the study, which was organised with the help of the Home Office and prison service. “None of us claims that lack of proper nutrition is the sole cause of anti-social behaviour. But the evidence does show that it is an hitherto unknown major contributor.” Bernard Gesch, who led the study, said: “The supplements just provided the vitamins, minerals and fatty acids found in a good diet which the inmates should be getting anyway. Yet the improvement in behaviour was huge.”

The outcome of this research should not come as too much of a surprise. Nutrients are crucial ingredients in the biochemical processes that produce brain transmitters like seratonin and dopamine, which affect mood. It would appear logical to assume that targeting children with dietary supplements might prevent them getting onto the slippery slope in the first place.

There is overwhelming research to support the view that the youth crime and violence that plague society have roots in a host of inter-related social problems which tend to be concentrated in deteriorating inner cities, such as poverty, unemployment, poor health, poor housing, overcrowding, lack of opportunities. If we can eliminate the causes we will lower the numbers of young people getting involved in criminal activities in the first place. This will require the development of national policies to tackle the underlying problems of poverty and social deprivation.

In previous articles I have argued that a youth justice system will only be successful if it is part of a broad, comprehensive, community-wide effort to eliminate factors that place young people at risk, enhance factors that protect them and use the full range of resources and programmes, at State, regional and community level, to meet their varying needs. I was heartened therefore to read what Home Office and Youth Minister John Denham, had to say on September 6.

Mr Denham admitted that the government is worried that endemic lack of cooperation by key agencies is leading to children at risk failing to be detected early enough. He said local plans will be required next year showing how local councils, education officers, health service and police will cooperate to keep track of potential criminals. Mr Denham explained that the children being targeted in the scheme “were not those already in the care system or in young offender institutions”. He said: “It has become clear that there are a lot of opportunities for young people to drop through the system. It is quite possible for example for a child to be a real concern at school. The police may know him because he is doing criminal damage. The social services may have concern about the family. Yet all three agencies may be operating without any idea that other agencies are also concerned.”

Mr Denham said that in most places there is no system for identifying these young people with whom we should be concerned. Early identification will allow early intervention, he said. “A lot of professionals argue it is possible to pick up the signs at ages five, six or seven. Obviously the earlier you can spot problems, the greater the chance of changing behaviour. If someone is settled into offending at 16, the challenge of doing something about it is that much greater.”

The call for a more coordinated approach stems from a review conducted as part of the 2002 spending review by the Treasury. The review led to a 30% increase in the Children’s Fund to £600m in 2003-04, aimed at 5- to 13-year-olds. Within a year each local authority will have an identification, referral and tracking system, so that different professional groups can share information about individual young children at risk. All local councils will also be required to produce a preventive plan showing how they intend to bring together the agencies in collaboration. The plan will include proposals for parenting support, reducing truancy, and children centres.

Clearly the Criminal Justice Review Group got it right when they placed a lot of emphasis on the need to develop diversionary programmes and placed youth conferencing at the heart of a new approach to juvenile justice. We should give this approach our wholehearted support.

Willie McCarney, Editor

Colleagues, as your Chairman, I am pleased to welcome you to the 26^th AGM of our Association and present its Annual Report.

This is the last such occasion we will be meeting as lay panellists. By this time next year the new office of lay magistrate will be in place as one of the features of the Justice (NI) Bill which will shortly receive Royal Assent. To date, approximately two thirds of you have expressed an interest in transferring to this new role which will embrace all the current duties of the lay panellist and certain distinct aspects of a JP’s work in the criminal justice system. Hopefully, many of you, still undecided, will opt to join us in this future challenge.

In recent years we have been pre-occupied with important new pieces of legislation such as the Children (NI) Order, Human Rights Act and now the Justice (NI) Bill. During the consultative period on the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review Group we made a written submission and we were also invited to meet personnel associated with the new proposals. At that meeting on the 11^th December we had the opportunity to reinforce our views and seek clarification on a number of issues.

Undoubtedly, the new Bill, when fully implemented, will have significant implications for lay involvement in terms of function, training and range of duties. With the inclusion of 17 year olds in the criminal justice system there will be a greater workload necessitating a recruitment drive for suitable people prepared to undertake this expanded role. It has been estimated that at least double the present complement of lay panellists (150 approx.) will be required. In terms of training alone this will pose management problems to ensure that the training is effective and efficient.

As lay panellists we have felt more comfortable and confident about the relevance and quality of training thanks to our having a direct input at the planning level. We need that good practice to be continued into any fresh programmes for induction and refresher training.

Since last year’s AGM the Training sub-Committee has had a busy time, meeting on 7 occasions to plan induction and refresher programmes. The induction training took place at Belfast Castle on 13^th of June (Youth Justice), 20^th of June (Family Proceedings) and 12^th September (Human Rights & Emergency Protection Orders). In hindsight, we felt that the EPOs should have gone with Family Proceedings. This training was well received by our new colleagues who made a lively contribution to discussions. Perhaps their positive participation owed something to their JP background.

Following the consensus of opinion at last year’s AGM, we experimented with a two-centre formula for the autumn refresher training. It was a qualified success with the Everglades venue being under-subscribed and the Fitzwilliam venue overflowing. Thanks to some members switching options, we managed to make the first session a little more viable.

I endorse the comments of our Hon. Secretary regarding the commitment of Executive members, 5 of whom were new to the committee : Miss McCann, Mrs McBride, Mrs Quinn, Mrs Johns and Mrs Collinson. I would particularly like to mention Mr Rea’s assiduous application to office and thank our outgoing Treasurer, Mr Breen, who has had to withdraw due to new professional responsibilities. After 4 years in office he leaves our financial position in fine fettle.

Apart from Executive and sub-Training Group commitments, some of us attended relevant seminars organised by external agencies : Mrs Dorman, “Exploring Significant Harm” (Dunadry), Mrs O’Neill, “Children & Domestic Violence” (London) and 2 which I attended in Belfast, “Restorative Justice, International Approaches” and “ Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland”.

Dr McCarney gave an excellent paper at the “Restorative Justice” conference. His involvement underlined his world-wide recognition on judicial matters. At local level he has given immeasurable support in our interests over many years. This autumn he will advance from Vice-President to President of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates at the 16^th World Congress in Melbourne, Australia. We congratulate him on attaining such high office and wish him every success.

In support of our responsibilities, Dr Kerry O’Halloran has been authorised to update the lay panel manual. The new version, taking account of the latest legislation, and including local case studies, should prove a valuable source of reference.

In the 7 divisions in which we sit we are increasingly concerned with Private Law in Family Proceedings hearings where issues of contact, in various types, demand our attention. Based on the evidence before us, it is not always easy to get the balancing act right regarding what is best in the interest of the child. Whilst contact arrangements are often fraught with difficulties, it is pleasing to note that Belfast has added 2 new Family Contact Centres since we heard about the work of the Knock Contact Centre at last year’s AGM. In addition, the Mid-Ulster Family Contact Centre is about to be officially opened to provide a much-needed support facility in the west of the Province.

Before I conclude my report I would like to pay tribute to my Vice-Chair, Mr McQuillan. Gerry has given over 20 years to lay panel service and served on the Training sub-Committee in its present form since its inception. Throughout this long period he has given unstintingly of his time and contributed greatly to the shape and focus of training needs. On the eve of taking the Chair he has decided to retire for personal reasons. On your behalf I would like to place on record our appreciation of his exemplary service and wish him a very enjoyable retirement.

Our appreciation should also be noted of the support which we receive from our professional colleagues, our Resident Magistrates, many of whom attend our training programmes.

Against a backdrop of ever-increasing youth crime, dysfunctional families, children at risk, children without boundaries or sense of worth, media attention and community confidence in the justice system ebbing, our future role will be a challenging one. Yet, with the support of the professional practitioner by our side, we can feel more confident in our responsibilities regarding issues of child protection, youth and family law.

In conclusion, may I express appreciation of the added value which Court Service staff bring to their professional duties on our behalf. I would like to mention, in particular, Mrs McMahon who has now gone to Judicial Studies Branch and welcome her successor, Miss Flood who has been responsible for today’s arrangements.

Thank you, colleagues, for your support. It has been a great honour and a privilege to serve this Association as Chair for the last two years.

NORMAN HUMES

27^th April 2002.

Suicide Ever 90 days

Between April 2000 and November 2001 there were 554 cases of self-harm by children in prison and four suicides. Since 1997 there have been 93 suicides of under-21s in prison, 28 of whom were awaiting trial. A young prisoner commits suicide every 90 days.

On Monday September 16, the inquest begins into the death of 16-year-old Kevin Jacobs, found hanging from a sheet at West London’s notorious Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution last September. During the three months Jacobs spent at Feltham he had become the victim of bullies and had already tried to hang himself two weeks before his death.

Lawyers acting for Jacobs, who was in care at the time of his arrest, will argue that prison should not be used to house disturbed and damaged children and challenge the standard of supervision and support of ‘at risk’ inmates at Feltham.

The BBC has launched a blistering attack on the Youth Justice System in a hard-hitting drama about life in youth custody entitled Out of Control. The first part of the series was shown on BBC1 on Sunday, September 15 at 9.25 pm.

BBC Head of Films David Thomson said: ‘Like Cathy Come Home in the Sixties, this film will open up the debate.’ Director Dominic Savage, who spent months visiting youth prisons, said: ‘We spend £20,000 a year on each young prisoner. Surely that could be better spent in other directions. When I spoke to these boys I felt an overwhelming sense of tragedy.’

12-year-olds to be locked up for petty crime

TheHome Office plans to lock up suspects as young as 12 for persistent petty crimes such as shoplifting will be extended nationwide. In the past children awaiting trial could only be imprisoned on remand if accused of serious crimes. Remand prisoners are supposed to be presumed innocent, and more than half end up with acquittals or community sentences.

Call for repeal of Section 130

The Children’s Society and The Observer are calling for the repeal of Section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which gives magistrates power to lock up children as young as 12 for minor repeat offences.

Mental Health Problems

Of 4,000 children interviewed by the Children’s Society while on remand in prison, 340 had mental health problems, 318 had attempted suicide or self-harm and 252 were victims of bullying.

‘The Government is already abusing human rights by locking up unconvicted children for crimes they have not committed,’ said Sharon Moore of the Children’s Society. ‘Now it is enforcing a new law which will only serve to lock up younger unconvicted children charged with petty offences, such as stealing sweets. That is indefensible.’

Best British Feature Film

Dominic Savage’s third feature film for the BBC, Out of Control, charts the journey of three teenage boys - Danny, Dean and Sam - from their south London council estates to imprisonment, for robbery and joyriding, in a Young Offender Institution.

Featuring a cast of unknown actors who improvised their dialogue, the film strives for authenticity and sits within the British social-realist tradition, taking us into a world rarely shown on screen. During the prison scenes, which were shot inside Lancaster Farms Young Offender Institution, half the cast were real prisoners and wardens and the only recognisable face is former EastEnder Tamzin Outhwaite, who plays Dean’s mother. The film has been praised by critics and won the Michael Powell Award for Best British Feature Film at Edinburgh International Film Festival last month.

Out of Control is the third film in Savage’s trilogy about troubled youth: it follows Nice Girls, which is about a schoolgirl’s pregnancy, and When I Was 12, a story of teenage runaways. In Out of Control Savage pays as much attention to the emotional vulnerability of the offenders as to their crimes.

‘The kids acting in it definitely had a good grasp of what’s happening on the streets,’ says Savage. ‘They are all part of those worlds; they all live on estates. They’re all quite sussed.’

Danny, Dean and Sam’s arrival at the prison was the actors’ first visit to an institution, so their reactions on film are genuine.

‘The Prison Service has seen the film,’ says Savage. ‘I won’t say they like it, though they know it’s realistic.’

What do young offenders think?

In the second of the two articles from the Observer Dave Calhoun showed the film to a group of teenage boys, all from the same area of south London and each with his own experience of prison. Then he asked them if Out of Control got it right.

Colin, 18, was in Feltham Young Offender Institution in London for a year for street robbery. I think this film is OK. It shows prison and life outside just like they are. It’s a good warning to young people too.

The scenes in the prison reminded me of when I was in jail, especially all the shouting out of the windows at night and the young boy being made to sing ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ by the bully in the next cell. I can especially remember one little boy being bullied in Feltham, and two guys hanged themselves while I was in there. That was shocking. There was also one young person who was murdered in his cell by his cellmate - you probably heard about it - while I was in there. No one could believe it. No one could believe that you could go to prison, far away from home and end up dead.

Daniel, 19, spent two weeks in Feltham on remand for robbery.

The cells in the prison looked a bit too smart to me. They looked like the newly refurbished wing in Feltham, but some of the cells I saw in Feltham were really grimy, with dirt all over the walls. … (the) film shows what’s really happening on the streets, what’s going on inside prison and how people get treated inside there and how they deal with it. It’s good also that it shows the stress going to prison has on your family. It shows some people shouldn’t be there.

William, 16, spent four months at Huntercombe, Oxfordshire, and five months at Hollesley Bay, Suffolk, for robbery.

When I left prison, I felt I had something good to prove. I wanted to get on with my music more - singing, dancing and MCing - and I’ve been doing that, playing at raves locally. It made me more confident and not scared of anyone. I didn’t want to go back.

Richard, 17, spent three-and-a-half months at Feltham and Huntercombe for an undisclosed crime.

In Out of Control, one of the wardens is always hassling one boy and bullying him. It shows that some screws can take an instant dislike to you and cause you real problems. I used to get picked on by the wardens. They would push you into talking back to them and then put you on ‘basics’, which meant you would be locked up more than the others.

Sean, 16, is friends with Richard, Daniel and Colin. He has visited both friends and family at Young Offender Institutions.

I’ve never been in prison, and I want to keep it that way. But I used to visit my brother in jail … I had to ask the screws for permission to hug my brother whenever I visited him in jail. They didn’t allow me to touch him like that because they were so worried about drugs getting in. … the film’s got a message: ‘If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime.’ I can relate to that.

All names have been changed.

The Observer’s Children Behind Bars campaign is at

www.observer.co.uk/crimedebate

Cherie Blair stood up and declared this week^{^[2]} that the huge increase in prison numbers and the prevalence of short-term sentences was crippling the prison system.

Her Prison Reform Trust speech followed a Downing Street seminar two months ago at which she and her husband had listened to Martin Narey, the director general of the prison service, attack the courts’ “continuing love affair with custody” and warned them: “We cannot simply keep building ahead of this thirst for custody.”

Mr Narey suggested to the Blairs that removing those who get sentences of six months or less would reduce the prison population by 6,500 at a stroke.

They have not been the only senior political figures recently trying to persuade the courts to send fewer people to prison. The lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, the lord chancellor, Lord Irvine, and the home secretary, David Blunkett have repeatedly tried to “talk down the prison population”.

Indeed, Mr Blunkett is the first home secretary since Douglas Hurd in the late 1980s to declare that prison does not work and that alternatives to custody have a much better chance of reducing crime. This month Mr Blunkett told an international crime conference in London: “We have had an increase from 40,000 to 71,000 over the last seven years in the number of prison places and a fat lot of use it has been in reducing crime and disorder.”

You would not have heard either Michael (“prison works”) Howard or Jack (“prison works for some”) Straw making such a speech. Indeed, you would have to go back to Mr Hurd whose 1989 criminal justice white paper famously stated that “prison was an expensive way of making bad people worse” to have found a precedent. Mr Hurd was determined to bring down a then record prison population of 45,000 to 40,000. He succeeded but it took several years and the development of “punishment in the community”.

David Blunkett is now finding out what Mr Hurd painfully learned: that it is easy for home secretaries to sound tough on crime and “talk up” the prison population but it is far harder to “talk it down”. That is especially true if from time to time you want to give a much tougher message on violent crime such as this year’s “crackdown” on street crime.

The remorseless rise in prison numbers from that Douglas Hurd-inspired low of 40,000 in January 1993 to the record 71,000 today has been accompanied by a succession of home secretaries - from Kenneth Clarke to Michael Howard to Jack Straw - who have persistently “talked tough” on crime.

The turning point coincided with the tragic murder of James Bulger which propelled crime in Britain to centre stage of the political debate which it has never left. Each home secretary introduced at least one and sometimes two new criminal justice acts each containing a wholesale package of reforms, most of them urging the courts to use longer sentences of one sort or another.

Mr Blunkett has not yet had a chance to introduce his first major criminal justice bill. His attempt last autumn was knocked off course by the need to introduce anti-terrorism measures following September 11. He has promised a battery of new measures designed to reduce the prison population and develop alternative rigorous community penalties. They have tough sounding names, custody plus, custody minus, community custodial orders (weekend prison), but if they work they should, as Mr Narey suggested to the Blairs, remove the prisoners serving sentences of six months or less.

Instead they will undergo “tough” community penalties under the supervision of a much expanded probation service. The details of those measures will be published next Wednesday^{^[3]} and the bill will be introduced in the autumn. But while the 12 months has passed the prison population has accelerated. It stood at 66,800 when Mr Blunkett became home secretary and has now risen to 71,480.

Home secretaries cannot instruct magistrates and judges on sentences but they can shape the political atmosphere and, sometimes, the media coverage of crime that fuels the public thirst for tougher sentences.

The detailed prison figures show that the biggest increases have taken place in the number of prisoners on remand. There are 12,400 unconvicted people inside awaiting trial, a rise of 16% in the last 12 months. That is one in six of all prisoners and a majority of them do not go on to receive a prison sentence.

The number of women in prison is also rising sharply. This weekend there are 4,428 women in prison. Ten years ago the number was 1,577. Much of the increase is due to drug-related offences.

Building new prisons has not solved the overcrowding crisis. In the last 10 years, 19 new prisons have been built - 14 of them are already overcrowded. This weekend there are 14,000 prisoners who are doubled up two to a cell designed for only one.

In 1994 the Home Office produced research showing that the “incapacitation effect” of locking up criminals meant that a rise of 25% in the prison population was needed to cut the overall crime rate by only 1%. In the past eight years that research has been put to the test. Crime has fallen by around 33% over that period but the contribution that prison has made probably accounts for only 3% to 4%. The rest came from a well-targeted crime reduction campaign involving the police and the public that produced the biggest falls in burglary and car crime.

Prison may satisfy the public - and the tabloids’ - lust for retribution but it does precious little to actually cut crime. As Tony Blair argued when he was shadow home secretary, it is not prison but “increasing the chances of detection and conviction which will have the greatest effect on criminal behaviour.” It may be time to stop being “tough on crime” and start being “smart about crime” instead.

This article first appeared in the Guardian on Saturday 13 July, 2002. I am grateful to the editor for permission to reproduce it here. Willie McCarney

The Criminal Justice Act 1991 made provision for the complete abolition of prison remands for children, and in so doing it appeared to signal real progress to those who had consistently raised concerns about the practice of remanding children in prisons for the best part of the previous twenty years. Although the provisions of the 1991 Act have never been implemented, few people could have anticipated what was to follow. A radical and reactionary shift in public mood and political priorities served to dampen their optimism. In the ten years that have succeeded the 1991 Act, the practice of remanding children in prisons has not only endured but has been substantially extended. The most recent legislation, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 opens the floodgates: a further massive increase in the numbers of children remanded to locked institutions is certain.

It is not only penal reformers who are concerned by such developments. Indeed, many of the prison officers and other prison personnel who I interviewed, themselves raised serious concerns which were expressed under five interconnected themes:

The first theme specifically relates to untried children in prison and a typical comment included:

‘They’re not guilty of anything necessarily, it isn’t an appropriate place for them, not at that age’ (Prison Officer)...

The second theme emphasises the limitations of prison custody when measured against its own stated objectives to look after its young charges, to deter them (and others) from committing offences and to offer constructive rehabilitative interventions. Here some Prison personnel suggested that penal remands are at best ineffective, and at worse damaging:

‘We cannot guarantee their safety if we are honest. We fulfil a function for society I suppose, in holding them until the courts decide what they want to do, but in honesty, we do a very limited job’ (Senior Prison Officer)

‘Prison is the last resort. With some there is no alternative. With others I look at them and think there is no way they should be in here, they need more one-to-one counselling and support. In secure accommodation you might have five staff to eight kids. Here you have four staff to sixty five kids. As far as prisons go this place is not too bad, but prisons are not really any place for most of the kids we see on remand’ (Prison Officer)

‘They are mixing with people who have been found guilty and they tend to learn and adopt inappropriate role models, but more than this, it is the trauma of coming into this environment and being locked behind a door. Bullying, of course, is also a major problem. There is no way these kids should be here’ (Prison Nurse).

The third theme overlaps with the second, in emphasising the iatrogenic nature of penal remands whereby the ‘treatment’ compounds the problems, thus placing not only the child at greater risk, but ultimately the general public too.

Typical comments included:

‘I would say that looking around the prison as a snapshot on any day there is probably quite a lot of kids in here who could be dealt with better outside in the community. Are we the right people to look after these lads without any specialist training? I doubt it, because I think there is a real need for specialist training. We are expected to be parents, child psychologists, and nurses, all without training. I don’t know what the alternative is, it’s all down to cost and we are more cost effective than secure units, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the right place for them to be. Yes, they have committed crimes, but in all my experience I can tell you that prison is not a deterrent. We are just locking them up and keeping them off the streets for a few months, but they go straight back out to exactly the same situations that they have left. We had the perfect example today, a sixteen year old lad left here this morning with nowhere to live and no money. He’ll soon be back in here. I don’t think it does them any good to be in here, if anything, it changes them for the worse’ (Senior Prison Officer)

‘I have had prisoners who I do not think should be in prison, but you have others, and the only way to stop them committing crime is to put them in custody, but I do not think that it does any good in the long run. I have had kids who you think just shouldn’t be here, those who have done one-off crimes or others with mental health problems. For juveniles it just makes them worse people in the long run’ (Prison Officer)...

The fourth theme explicitly acknowledges

that some children pose significant risks not only to themselves, but also to others. Although interviewees felt that it might be necessary to restrict the child’s liberty in such circumstances, they also acknowledged that prison generally remained an inappropriate means of doing this. The two Prison Officers quoted below captured this theme rather well:

‘It’s a grey area. I can see the argument for both sides. Some of these lads need to be off the street, they are into heavy things, and need to be removed for public safety. But I also see the side that says it isn’t doing them any good in here. We need to look at all these kids individually, but there’s a massive amount of work to be done. There are many kids and I just think, there is no way they should be in here. But there are others who should be right off the street’ (Prison Officer)

‘I don’t like the idea of locking kids up, and you are far more effective in working in the community. I also acknowledge though, that there are some kids who are dangerous and who need to be contained to reduce the risk both to themselves and to others. Some prisons can do that quite effectively. Others don’t. If kids do not feel safe you increase all the problems. The regime that we are trying to develop here is an improvement, but it’s far from ideal’ (Governor Grade Prison Officer).

The fifth theme introduced the difficult question of alternatives to penal remands and the perceived need to provide more imaginative, child-centred and effective responses. Typical comments included:

‘I am not sure that we think hard enough about non-custodial options. We pander to the media, pander to the public, and don’t take full account of non-custodial options. There is not a will to look at non-custodial options. I think we need to be really radical and start the whole process again. There has to be other options for these lads. There is some likelihood they may not get sentenced to custody at all, so why are we putting them through the whole trauma and drama of passing through the prison gates?’ (Prison Chaplain)...

Similarly, throughout the course of the interviews the child remand prisoners themselves also identified each of these themes. They too raise powerful and probing questions of justice. They too understand the ineffective nature of most custodial interventions. They, perhaps more than anyone, comprehend the corrosive and damaging impact of custodial regimes. However, despite their problems and irrespective of their pain, these children are generally not blind to the wider questions of criminal justice and community safety. Indeed, they too recognise that the public have a right to expect protection and in satisfying that right, it is sometimes necessary to restrict the liberty of those whose actions threaten it. They too believe that alternatives must be sought for this purpose, because they too realise that prison is no place for children:

‘I reckon they should put us in a children’s home or something. I don’t reckon they should put us in proper jails for adults. That is what this place is you know. We need more support, more people who can talk to us and help us and that. I’ve had a bad enough life and so have most of the kids in here. Some of us have done bad things but I don’t think it’s right that we are locked up in here. Bad things are done in here as well. What’s the point in just doing bad things to us ‘cos we’ve done bad things. Some kids can’t handle it and can’t cope. The one’s that cope just get worse like. What good is that?” (Boy aged 16yrs)

‘Last night this kid, I don’t know why, I think he was getting bullied but I don’t know. One of the Officer’s opened this kid’s door and he just shouted “get the nurse” and we were all put behind our doors. No-one knew what was going on, but we all knew if you see what I mean. We heard them all rushing around and I reckon we all knew. I knew. I thought about it all night, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. This morning when we came out for breakfast the screws said that he had tried to kill himself and he was in hospital on a life support machine. At dinner they said he was dead. He was sixteen, the same age as me. Everyone was very quiet’ (Boy aged 16yrs).

Barry Goldson is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work Studies, The University of Liverpool (b.goldson@liv.ac.uk).

Vulnerable Inside: Children in secure and penal settings is available at £14.95 from The Children’s Society, Publishing Department, Edward Rudolf House, Margery Street, London WC1X OJL. Tel: 020 7841 4415. You can also order on line at www.childrenssociety.org.uk

Editor

It has been suggested to me that I should tell you more about my work with the International Association. The reason I have not been dwelling too much on it is that I simply do not want to bore you! But let me give you a brief overview of what I do. How did I become involved in the first place?

I joined the Lay Panel in April 1976. I became Honorary Secretary of the NI Juvenile Courts Association in 1982, taking over from the late Frank Rowan. I also took over from Frank as the Northern Ireland Representative to the British Juvenile and Family Court Society. I served as Honorary Secretary of our own Association for eight years. I was elected as Vice Chairman of our Association, in April 1990. That same month I was elected Chair of the BJFCS for the period 1990 to 1993 and so I continued to represent Northern Ireland in London. I was elected Chair of the NIYFCA for the period 1992 to 1994. When I stepped down as Chair of the BJFCS in 1993 I could not find anyone interested in representing us on the BJFCS Executive so I continued that role until I managed to talk Eleanor ONeill into taking over in 1998.

My interest in international affairs is long standing. During my term as Secretary of the NIJCA I organized visits to England, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland to look at their court systems. In my own time, and at my own expense, I visited courts in Boston, Cincinnati, Huston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Reno, San Francisco and Washington. I also visited a range of institutions for dealing with children and young people – both on the care side and on the justice side. My most vivid memory is of sitting in Juvenile Hall (Los Angeles) being questioned by 20 serious offenders (murder, rape etc - all under 18) as to how they would have been dealt with in Northern Ireland while four guards with rifles stood behind me to make sure I got out in one piece. I didn’t have any sense of fear of the young people but I found the tension very high between guards and prisoners. Much of the tension had to do with overcrowding with almost 2000 young people packed into a building designed for 800. I left feeling it was a perfect example of how not to treat young offenders.

While Chair of the BJFCS I organized visits to Scotland, the Isle of Man and Reno (Nevada). I worked with the Dean in Reno to organize a course for the visiting British Magistrates.

My direct involvement with the International Association began with my attendance at the World Congress in Rio de Janeiro in 1986. Over the next four years I attended several international meetings and then my second World Congress in Turin in 1990. In 1991, at a conference in London, I was invited to take on the role of Editor-in-Chief of the newsletter and, as Editor-in-Chief, was entitled to a seat on the Executive but without voting rights. At the World Congress in Bremen in 1994 I was elected a full member of the Executive and was asked if I would continue in my role as Editor-in-Chief of what was now a highly respected magazine – the Chronicle. At the World Congress in Buenos Aires in 1998 I was elected Vice President and at an Executive Committee meeting in The Hague in April 2002 I was named as President-elect. The election will take place at our General Assembly in Melbourne, Australia, on October 28 2002.

The IAYFJM is an NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) with consultative status at the United Nations and with the Council of Europe. It was founded in 1928 and registered in Brussels, Belgium. It represents world-wide efforts to deal with the protection of youth and family and with the criminal behaviour and maladjustment of youth. Its membership is comprised of national associations and committed individuals from all parts of the globe, who exercise functions as youth and family court judges or functions within professional services directly linked to youth and family justice or welfare.

The objects of the Association are: to establish links between judges, magistrates and specialists all over the world who are attached to a judicial authority of whatever nature which is concerned with the protection of youth or with the family; to promote the awareness and application of children’s rights; to develop a better understanding and application of the international instruments relating to children and young persons, to encourage research and so on.

Prior to my election as Vice-President my overseas trips were to two Executive Committee meetings plus one or two conferences per year. After my election my travel schedule became quite heavy with trips averaging out at almost one per month. This hectic pace is likely to continue over the next four years. Some of these trips are sponsored by the Council of Europe, some by UNICEF, some by NGOs and some are sponsored by the Northern Ireland Court Service.

Without the support of the Northern Ireland Court Service I would not have been able to get involved with the International Association. I greatly appreciate their support and their commitment. The only way I can pay them back is to try to be a good ambassador for Northern Ireland. It may come as something of a surprise to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, since I am always critical of them at home, but I miss no opportunity to sing their praises while abroad for the range of programmes which are offered for young offenders and for our prevention and diversion schemes. I speak of the Probation Board and of our NGOs – particularly Extern, NIACRO and Save the Children - and highlight their excellent programmes. I sing the praises of our police service, particularly the Juvenile Liaison Bureau, and tell how a mere 8% of young people who ‘come to the attention of the police’ end up in court.

One of my biggest disappointments in recent years was with regard to a project which I tired to set up between our police service and the police service in the Philippines. I was shocked at the number of children who are locked up in Manila for no good reason and suggested to some of the judges that they introduce a scheme like our Juvenile Liaison scheme. I was asked if I would speak to the Chief Justice of the Philippines as the judges thought I would need to convince him of the value of my proposal if any progress was to be made. In terms of power the Chief Justice ranks as No 2 in the country – second only to the President! He agreed to see me for ten minutes.

The President of the Family Court accompanied me. I spoke to the Chief Justice for over an hour and he was totally sold on the idea. Over tea I agreed to speak to our Chief Constable when I got home and see if he would be prepared to send a couple of senior officers to Manila to run a training course. Sir Ronnie was very enthusiastic and agreed, with the proviso that we could get funding. The British Consul in Manila agreed to fund Bobby Honeyford, one other senior officer and myself going to Manila to do a training needs analysis. Once we knew exactly what was required two officers would be appointed to run the programme.

We were still searching for a funder to fund the training programme itself when the report of the Omagh bombing was released and the balloon went up for us.

All of Sir Ronnie’s attention was diverted to the report and our project got put on the back burner. Sir Ronnie resigned before anything had been agreed in writing and we were back to square one. I wrote to the Acting Chief Constable to see if we could progress our plans. He was completely dismissive of the plan suggesting that I approach some of the police forces in England.

I have now spoken to our new Chief Constable and raised the issue with him. I have to arrange a formal meeting to discuss the proposal in detail. One major difficulty at the moment is the manpower shortage in the PSNI with Mr Orde telling me that he has had to recall 60 officers from work in Kosovo. Nonetheless he has agreed to look at the proposal.

I have spoken to the Chief Executive, Asia Region, of UNOCAL (a multinational oil company) who expressed an interest in funding the project. A group of police officers from the Philippines was in Northern Ireland recently and Chief Inspector Nigel Grimshaw (Bobby Honeyford’s deputy) discussed my proposal with them. They expressed a keen interest. So it is possible that we may still get something up and running. Unfortunately the biggest question mark now hangs over manpower and not funding.

I have visited many interesting countries. I have been in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Myanmar, Nepal, Paraguay, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, many States in the US and many European countries. But it is not always as exciting as it might seem.

Firstly I have to work almost round the clock to try to keep on top of things. I frequently work 18 hours per day seven days per week preparing the Chronicle (which goes out in three languages – English, French and Spanish), preparing the Lay Panel Magazine, preparing papers for seminars and workshops, attending meetings at home and overseas, trying to fulfil my commitments re court sittings. Answering emails alone can take several hours per day.

Secondly it is possible to feel almost a sense of hopelessness at the enormity of the tasks which need to be done and the limited resources available to tackle them.

Two years ago I visited Kosovo on three occasions as a Council of Europe “Expert” to assist in the training of newly appointed judges. The country had been laid to waste by the Serbs and, with no natural resources, it was difficult to see how the people were going to get back on their feet. However, it was the depth of hatred which was most disturbing. I was talking to the judges about Human Rights issues. They were prepared to listen – except when it came to Serbs. There was so much hatred even amongst the judges that it was difficult to imagine Serbs getting a fair trial. It made me think of tales of the “Wild West” (in the United States) – “All prisoners will get a fair trial before being hanged!”.

On the positive side I took the opportunity while in Kosovo to meet with some of the (then) RUC officers on duty there. I had a lengthy meeting with Superintendent John Middlemiss who at that time was the Commander in Pristina and spoke to some of the officers on the ground. You may recall that I reported on my visit in our magazine dated September 2000.

Sometimes when I go abroad my schedule is so packed that there is no time for sightseeing or shopping.

I visited South Africa in 2000 presenting papers in Pretoria and Johannesburg, having meetings with magistrates and visiting courts and institutions in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Umtata, East London, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. I had no time off in ten days so was not able to do any sightseeing. I had the morning free on the day of my departure so decided to visit Table Mountain to get some photographs looking down at Cape Town. I took a taxi to the cable car terminus. When I got there I was informed that the cable cars were not running because of high winds on the top!

Another problem is that trips always seem to come too close together. It would be nice to be able to arrange one trip every couple of months and to take time to see something of the country. But quite often the trips come so close together that I am rushing from one conference to the next.

On April 12 this year I flew to Melbourne to check on the final preparations for our Congress there in October. I flew direct (without any stopovers) because I was pressed for time. Any of you who have tried this will know that this is crazy since you arrive in Australia totally shattered! I had a series of meetings in Melbourne during that week and left again on April 20 to fly directly home again. I got home on Monday April 21 and on Thursday 25 flew to Holland for a meeting of the Executive Committee (where I briefed my colleagues on preparations for our Congress). I got home from Holland on Monday April 29 and left for New York the following Saturday to attend the Special Session of the UN on Children. After one week attending UN sessions I returned home, not only tired, but depressed because of the way the US had scuppered most of the good work which had been done in preparation for the UN Special Session.

On July 3 this year I flew to Bangkok where I had arranged a series of meetings – including one with the Chief Executive of UNOCAL which I mentioned above. On July 6 I moved on to Yangon for the second of a series of three seminars which we are running to raise awareness of human rights issues. The Conference finished on Friday July 12 at 6.00 pm and at 8.00 pm I was on a flight heading for Boston for another conference. I arrived in Boston on the Saturday evening and the conference began on Sunday. That conference finished on the following Thursday evening and on the Friday morning I was flying to New York where I had to pick up some material from the UN. On Saturday I was flying home.

Another reason I don’t say much about the conferences is that much of the work we do at our seminars has already been covered in your training programmes here at home.

For example during my three seminars in Kosovo I spoke to the judges about the ECHR (the same paper presented to three different groups of judges at three different venues).

In South Africa I talked to the Law Commission in Pretoria about the court system in Northern Ireland (the Law Commission was drafting a new Juvenile Justice Bill). I spoke to 90 magistrates in Johannesburg about the UN Instruments relating to juvenile justice.

In Yangon last year I spoke about the UN Instruments and this year I spoke about alternatives to custody. I have reproduced part of the paper here (starting page 26).

As a general rule, there is nothing new in my presentations that you at home would not have already covered.

Perhaps I am painting a picture of all doom and gloom. My involvement with the International Association is not all blood, sweat and tears. If it were I probably wouldn’t have stuck it out so long! We visit some interesting places and have some good laughs. So let me mention some of the things which stand out for me.

Top of the list comes a Seminar coupled with an Executive Committee meeting in Shanghai in 1992. I spent a couple of days in Hong Kong on the way out there. While in Hong Kong I visited the late Paul McRandal and joined him on the Bench in his court while he explained the local system to me. His wife recalled that visit when I spoke to her at the funeral and said that Paul had been very pleased that I had taken the trouble to call.

At Hong Kong airport I bumped into my colleague, Lucien Beaulieu, a Superior Court judge from Canada (Lucien is currently President of our Association). Our take-off was delayed for some time but, eventually, we got away. At Shanghai airport we were met by the Chinese police who insisted that we “come with them”. We had no idea what was going on but, in any event, I refused and said I had to collect my baggage and get to the hotel. They were polite but firm – we must come. Eventually we got a policeman who spoke a little better English and he explained that they were taking us directly to a banquet which had been arranged for our Association. I was even more adamant then that we had to go to the hotel first. The banquet was to be formal and Lucien and I were dressed in jeans and sweaters after our long flight. The police were getting impatient and said we must come ‘now’, our baggage would be collected and delivered to the hotel on our behalf! We decided it was better not to resist further and so arrived at the banquet to join our colleagues. It was embarrassing as we were escorted into this formal gathering in our travel gear but all we could do was laugh. Had we gone to the banquet dressed like this in normal circumstances it would have been a serious breach of protocol. But all the dignitaries were seated and waiting and protocol ruled that they could not start without us. So we had to come immediately, properly dressed or not.

Some of the other highlights of that particular trip were being driven up the wrong side of a motorway. The rush-hour traffic had ground to a halt so our police escort removed a barrier and brought us through to the other side. They then led us against the oncoming traffic with blue lights flashing and police officers in the lead vehicle leaning out the window and waving to the traffic to get out of our way.

After the conference in Shanghai we were taken to Beijing, at Government expense, and brought to see the Great Wall and the Forbidden Palace. We had dinner in the Great Hall of the People – a rare privilege since such treats are normally reserved for top Party officials.

The top table with the Chief Justice, senior judges and top Party officials was very formal but the rest of us relaxed and chatted freely. Then suddenly all those at the top table stood up and we were all told to stand. They left and we all had to follow. Clearly, while we chatted they were mindful of a tight schedule and had been getting on with their dinner. When they finished everyone finished and we had to file out leaving our sweet and coffee on the tables untouched!

I must say that I liked China very much. The people were very friendly once you got to know them and very courteous.

While in Beijing I notified my hosts that I wished to visit the University to try to establish links with Northern Ireland. I was allocated a police car and police driver for the day. I mentioned to my driver that I wanted to get a Chinese flag for an elderly cousin who collected flags. He didn’t know where I might obtain one so he removed the flag from the police car and gave it to me!

One of our meetings was held in Palermo where we were looking at organised crime. Our hosts were concerned that the Mafia might take the opportunity to kidnap or even kill one of the international judges so security was tight. I found it amusing that the ‘undercover’ police officers could be spotted so easily. As I presented my paper my mind kept wandering into counting the ‘undercover’ officers standing around the room with their backs tight against the wall, a gun bulging in one pocket and a mobile phone protruding from the other.

My third seminar in Kosovo was held in Pejë, a town with a population of some 40 to 50,000 about two hours drive west of Pristina, close to the Albanian Alps and about 40 kilometers from the border with Montenegro. The traffic was slow and we stopped along the way to stretch our legs. You may have noticed that, on long bus journeys, men take a keen interest in the architecture at the rear of old buildings if they get an opportunity to stop. On this occasion our minders almost went ballistic informing us that the Serbs, anticipating such interest, frequently planted land mines at the rear of old buildings. It made for an uncomfortable journey!

In Russia I visited the Chief Judge in St Petersburg to discuss the need for training judges and for setting up specialist courts for children and young people. In Moscow I met with a number of NGOs to discuss the setting up of such programmes. I then visited Chaykovsky, a town almost 1000 miles west of Moscow, to look at a project which required some outside funding. There I met some of the friendliest people I have met anywhere. I was treated like a family member and, even though I was not able to raise funds on their behalf, we still keep up regular contact.

One of the difficulties about raising funds for such projects is that funds are limited while the range of projects seeking support is limitless. This means that many excellent projects, like the one in Chaykovsky, fail to attract funding.

Very often, those who are prepared to offer funding are not those one would normally turn to for support. Many of the multinational oil companies, for example, are keen to be associated with projects which focus on human rights in order to counteract allegations of human rights abuses by those same companies.

Our project in Myanmar (a series of three seminars over three years) is being funded by UNOCAL. There have been allegations of human rights abuses made against UNOCAL and, in one instance, court action taken against them in the US has been running for over four years. So we thought long and hard before deciding to accept their offer. However, the allegations are just that. No evidence has been presented in court four years after the initial charges were laid! We had the added difficulty that allegations had been made against Myanmar itself by the Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding breeches of a whole range of human rights including the use of child labour, the use of child soldiers and so on. Myanmar is the subject of a range of sanctions imposed by the UN and by the ILO (International Labour Organisation). One of our organisers is the Chief Executive of the Centre for Humanitarian Development in Myanmar. He encouraged our involvement in Myanmar and he agreed with accepting the offer of support from UNOCAL. He had regular contact with opposition leader Nobel Laureate Suu Kye who, at that time, was still under house arrest and she supported our work. So, after carefully weighing up all of the evidence before us we decided that ‘Constructive Engagement’ is a much more positive approach than the imposition of sanctions. You may be aware that Suu Kye was released from house arrest in April of this year. I had the opportunity to have dinner with her in July and we had a long discussion. She was able to tell me personally that she supports the work we are doing even though she still is not convinced that the Generals are committed to change. I think that Suu Kye is a remarkable lady and it was a privilege to meet with her.

One of my most exciting moments was standing at Iguazu Falls in Argentina, where we were holding our pre-Congress meeting in 1997, with my binoculars trained on a large bird flying towards me from the Brazilian side (I am a keen birdwatcher). Suddenly I realised that it was a Toucan, which I had never seen in the wild before. Iguazu Falls is one of my favourite spots. I have been there on three occasions and would happily return at the first opportunity. Other places where I successfully spotted birds on my ‘most wanted’ list were Nepal and Myanmar.

One thing I find arising from my travels is that I take a keen personal interest in problems in the areas I have visited, whether that is the floods and landslides resulting in the deaths of over 500 people in Chitwan Province, Nepal, where I attended a conference last year or the financial problems in Argentina which currently makes it well nigh impossible for Council members from Argentina to attend our Congress in Melbourne.

Now that you have got me started I could go on all night but I must bring this to a close before I bore you all to death. I hope I have given you some idea about my activities – the ups and downs, the work load which seems to increase exponentially as you progress up the hierarchy, the laughs as well as the frustrations. I frequently think about stepping down because the tasks we face are so enormous and we seem to make so little impact but then I think of the terrible situation in which children in so many parts of the world find themselves. Very often we are the only voices speaking on their behalf. We cannot abandon them.

When we are talking about children, the first thing to note is that the distinction between offenders and non-offenders is to some extent artificial. Research findings indicate very high rates of admitted law violation among the young. In a recent survey in England, one in four teenage schoolchildren admit they have committed a crime in the past 12 months.

A Child Offender is not a Criminal

A child who commits a criminal offence is not a criminal. Our response to the offending must ensure that he/she does not become one.

Prevention is the best strategy

The most effective approach to youth offending is to concentrate on prevention, to stop children getting involved in criminal activity in the first instance. Where they do offend, our aim must be to prevent them slipping into a life of crime.

Prevention is not our topic for today but I would like to mention briefly the kind of strategies which are most likely to be effective.

The roots of youth crime lie in social problems

The youth crime and violence that plague society have roots in a host of inter-related social problems which tend to be concentrated in deteriorating inner cities, such as poverty, unemployment, poor health, poor housing, overcrowding, lack of opportunities. If we can eliminate the causes then we will lower the numbers of young people getting involved in criminal activities in the first place. This will require the development of national policies to tackle the underlying problems of poverty and social deprivation.

Eliminate Risk Factors

A youth justice system will only be successful if it is part of a broad, comprehensive, community-wide effort to eliminate factors that place young people at risk, enhance factors that protect them and use the full range of resources and programmes, at State, regional and community level, to meet their varying needs.

An effective system will focus on the elimination of opportunities for criminal behaviour, raise public awareness and get home the message that fighting youth crime is a matter for the entire community and not something which is left to the police and the courts.

As already noted, prevention is a topic for another seminar and not one I will deal with today. Today we will focus on those young people who do offend and consider how the majority of young offenders might be diverted from the court process. For those who actually appear in court our aim will be to divert them from custody. For a small minority of serious and persistent offenders who pose a threat to themselves or to the community custody may be our only option. In this case our aim will be to divert them from a life of crime.

Diversion

Some young people will inevitably fall through the net, no matter how good our strategies for prevention and become involved in youth crime. Our aim must be to prevent further offending and to make the young person a productive member of society instead of a drain on the resources of the community and of the State.

Punishment or Treatment

As a general rule, most people agree with the aim. However, there has been much disagreement about how best to achieve it. The disagreement tends to be over whether the young person should receive punishment or treatment, whether the approach should be punitive or permissive.

Over the past 100 years or so the pendulum of public opinion has swung from punitive to permissive and back again. In recent years the swing has been towards the punitive ‘tough on crime’ approach.

Many countries are adopting the American philosophy of ‘zero tolerance’ ‘three strikes and you’re out’ in response to offending behaviour. Prison is believed to be the most effective measure and offenders are being locked up for longer and longer sentences. Even young children are receiving long sentences of incarceration where serious offences have occurred. What has brought about this current trend towards punitive responses to offending behaviour?

Youth crime gives cause for concern

In most western countries, youth crime, alcohol and drug abuse, youth violence, gangs, early sexual involvement and other problem behaviours in youth have been giving cause for concern in recent years. The increasing levels of aggression and defiant behaviour even in very young children suggest that higher percentages of young people are likely to become violent offenders in the future. This all leads to the media putting pressure on governments to adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ approach.

Profile of a Teenage Offender

The most common profile of a teenage offender in England is a white male aged 14-16, living in London or the northeast, who was excluded from school and has committed more than five crimes in the past year.

The survey I referred to in the previous paragraph revealed much higher levels of crime among teenagers who had been excluded from school, with 64% of this group admitting they had been involved in crime.

This group of excluded teenagers was engaged in much more serious crime. Some 60% said they had been involved in handling stolen goods; 55% said they had carried a weapon other than a gun, and 25% admitted they had stolen mobile phones.

Punishment has little impact

on Re-Offending

The survey also showed that more children who were caught were being punished. I want to note here that punishment has little impact on the rate of re-offending. The exception is where children are given custodial dispositions. In this case it has a negative impact in that children who have been in prison are more likely to commit further offences on their release.

England has adopted A ‘tough on crime’ approach and now locks up more people per head of population than most other countries. It locks up more than any country in Europe except Portugal. It locks up more than China or Saudi Arabia both of whom have a reputation for taking a hard line against offenders^{^[4]}. 24 new prisons have been built in England in the past 10 years providing 12,000 extra places. With the prison population rising at the rate of 400 a week the system is grossly overcrowded, even with these extra prisons. Indeed this very month (July 2002) the prison population is expected to reach a record 73,000 - almost 10,000 over capacity. This represents a rise of 8,000 prisoners in just two years.

The rising prison population reflects British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s promise to cut the rate of offending. The ‘tough on crime’ approach helped him to win the last election. But is it winning the fight against rising crime?

Let us look at those crimes which cause the public most concern: violent assaults, rape, robbery, burglary, car theft and theft of items from cars.

Crimes causing public concern as recorded by the police

1980 2000

Wounding with intent /

Attempted murder 4,545 15,737

Rape 1,255 7,929

Robbery 15,006 95,154

Burglaries 618,390 836,028

Vehicles stolen 324,354 338,626

Thefts from cars 294,948 629,652

These statistics hide the fact that there was a steady decline in the rate of offending from 1980 up to the mid 1990s when the trend began to move upwards again. The biggest increase has been in the past couple of years at a time when the prison population was also increasing at the fastest rate.

Clearly sending people to prison is not having the desired effect. Indeed it looks as if it is having a negative effect with the crime rate rising along with the prison population. There is abundant evidence that sending people to prison will increase the likelihood of their re-offending on discharge.

The use of prison does not make sense economically either. Keeping an offender in prison in the UK costs up to £36,000 a year (that’s US$53,178 or 345,658 Kyats^{^[5]}). This is roughly twice as much as hostel accommodation in England, and ten times as much as constructive community programmes both of which have much more positive outcomes than prison with regard to preventing re-offending.

Family support is crucial in preventing re-offending. When we lock people up we separate them from their family and weaken the bond which holds the family together because of the difficulties of keeping in touch. In the UK, because of overcrowding, more than 26,000 prisoners are 50 miles away from their home, 6,000 are up to 150 miles away, and 5,000 over 150 miles away. This clearly has major human rights implications also.

In summary then, it is becoming clear that the heavy-handed justice approach is, at best, having no more impact than the welfare model which was so derided for its failure to cut crime. Indeed, there is clear evidence that incarceration is not just costly in financial terms. It has negative long-term effects, particularly on young people, eventually resulting in higher rates of adult incarceration.

If neither approach appears to work what is the answer? Let us look for a moment at the two alternatives and consider what the shortcomings are.

The Punitive-Permissive continuum provides a narrow perspective and limited options. The choice is either to punish or not to punish. The only variable is the severity of the punishment.

The permissive approach is comprised of low control and high support, a scarcity of limit setting and an abundance of nurturing. Opposite permissive is the punitive (or retributive) approach, high control and low support. The third approach, with an absence of both limit setting and nurturing, is neglectful. The fourth possibility is restorative. This approach has high control and high support. It confronts and disapproves of wrongdoing while supporting and valuing the intrinsic worth of the wrongdoer.

Control in this context means control of wrongdoing and not control of the individual.

Let me explain the use of the four key words “TO, WITH, NOT and FOR”. If we are neglectful towards troubled youth we do NOT do anything in response to their inappropriate behaviour. If we are permissive, we do everything FOR them and ask little in return. If we are punitive we respond by doing things TO them. If we respond in a restorative manner we do things WITH them and involve them directly in the process. A critical element of the restorative approach is that, whenever possible, WITH also includes victims, family, friends and community – those who have been affected by the offender’s behaviour.

Three Unique Dimensions

Restorative Justice has three unique dimensions: the central and elevated role of the victim, the general focus on repair and the emphasis on a process that seeks mutual involvement and support for three co-participants and is explicitly attuned to the role of each in producing justice outcomes.

For the victim, Restorative Justice offers the hope of restitution or other forms of reparation, information about the case, the opportunity to be heard, and input in the case, as well as expanded opportunities for involvement and influence.

For the community, there is the promise of reduced fear and safer neighbourhoods, a more accessible justice process, and accountability, as well as the obligation for involvement in sanctioning crime, restoring victims’ sense of well‑being, reintegrating offenders, and crime prevention and control.

For the offender, Restorative Justice requires accountability in the form of obligations to repair the harm to individual victims and victimised communities and the opportunity to develop new competencies and social skills and the capacity to avoid future crime.

‘Balance Of Interests’

The conventional criminal justice system focuses on the ‘public interest’ as the principal consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to prosecute an offender. Restorative Justice seeks to address and balance the rights and responsibilities of victims, offenders, communities and the government.

Restorative Justice Processes

Restorative Justice processes are built on the philosophy of the ‘Four R’s’: Responsibility, Restoration, Re-integration and Respect.

Responsibility:

One of the primary aims of most Restorative Justice approaches is to engage with offenders to try to bring home the consequences of their actions and an appreciation of the impact they have had on the victim(s) of their offences.

Restoration:

A second aim is to encourage and facilitate the provision of appropriate forms of reparation by offenders, towards either their direct victims (provided they are agreeable) or the wider community.

Re-Integration:

A third aim is to seek reconciliation between victim and offender where this can be achieved and, even in cases where this is not possible, to strive to re-integrate both victims and offenders within the community as a whole following the commission of an offence.

Respect:

One single principle underpins the entire process: respect. It is easier to respect the victim than the offender. But respect is essential if there is to be any hope of breaking the spiral of offending behaviour. Respect holds the best hope of dissolving alienation.

Respect implies a belief that the individual has within him/herself the capacity to grow and to change. It implies an understanding that, out of defensiveness and inner fear, individuals can and do behave in ways which are incredibly cruel, horribly destructive, immature, regressive, anti-social, hurtful. Respect implies that, for all his or her failings, the individual is still part of the community. It implies an acceptance that the offender exists as a valued person with an identity.

If a person finds him/herself positively understood he/she will develop a set of growth-promoting or therapeutic attitudes towards self which is the first step in the change process. This is not letting the offender off the hook! Most find the thought of taking responsibility for self a frightening prospect and would rather leave it to the court. It is easier to shirk responsibility than to shoulder it. The restorative process will support the offender in facing up to his/her responsibilities. Respect is the key which will unlock the door and allow the rehabilitation process to begin.

If the youth justice is to be effective it must meet three objectives:

Ø hold the young offender accountable;

Ø enable the young offender to become a capable, productive, and responsible citizen;

Ø ensure the safety of the community.

These objectives are best met when a community’s key leaders, including representatives from health and social services, education, the youth service, training and employment, as well as police and probation, are jointly engaged in the planning, development, and operation of the youth justice system. These various agencies, which normally go their separate ways, must learn to work together, to develop a common strategy aimed at making it increasingly more difficult for young people to fall through the net.

Adjudicated offenders should undergo a comprehensive risk and needs assessments to determine a treatment plan based both on need and on offender risk to the community. This requires a balancing of criteria that focus on the seriousness of the act, the potential risk for re-offending, the risk to public safety, and the offender’s rehabilitation needs. Specialised programmes need to be provided to adequately address the unique needs of each young offender and the challenges posed by particular groups such as sex offenders, drug offenders, female offenders, and young people with disabilities.

Effective, fair, and appropriate graduated sanctions, particularly community-based programmes and services, help stop the young person in his/her tracks and prevent the behaviour becoming persistent and serious.

Community‑based facilities should be small and open, located near the offenders’ home, and involve participants in programme planning, operation, and evaluation. Intervention programmes should foster family participation in treatment and facilitate the establishment of law‑abiding patterns of behaviour.

More restrictive sanctions may be appropriate for some violent offenders, sex offenders, young people involved in drug trafficking, or offenders who reoffend despite earlier interventions. These sanctions might be residential or non-residential, might involve intensive supervision or be intensive programmes dealing with alcohol and drug abuse, anger management and the like.

Custodial disposals should not be used as a sanction. Custodial dispositions should be used only for those young people who must be detained because of serious and persistent offending, or because they pose a serious risk to themselves or to others. These factors can be assessed through the application of objective criteria.

We must always remember that, whatever the offence, we are dealing with children. We must treat them as children. We must guarantee them all of the rights as laid down under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the various other international instruments.

Employers are creatures of habit. Saying “yes” to hiring women, gays, ethnic minorities and disabled people has been hard enough for some traditionalists. But when it comes to ex-offenders, they go firmly to the back of the queue.

When a convicted petty thief applies for a job with, say, a rail maintenance company, an employer is likely to ask if passengers will be safe once the nuts and bolts are checked. If an ex-offender spends each night in a hostel surrounded by drugs and old mates from prison, an already nervous manager will send any application heading towards the bin.

Without a bona fide address they don’t stand a chance, which is why the Bridge Project based at Doncaster prison is providing the finance needed to help ex-offenders find stable accommodation.

Since January 2001, a partnership between the project and Doncaster Action Team for Jobs, run by Reed in Partnership, has contributed to helping 131 ex-offenders into work. The link between homelessness, hopelessness, and utter despair in the job market is epitomised by Alan. An engineer by training, he is in Doncaster prison for doing, by his own admission, “£100,000 worth of crime a year”. He describes how he pleaded with the courts not to dump him on the streets after his release.

“I said: ‘At least keep me in prison, or find me somewhere to live’. And their reply? They said: ‘Don’t be stupid’.”

The chances of getting a job without having somewhere to live are “zero”, says Alan. “You need to have some sort of base, and for that you need finance.” In the past this conundrum has forced him to look for work abroad, or to travel “virtually all over the country” looking for a job with accommodation.

On one occasion, following a spell inside, Alan says he was dumped on the streets of Doncaster. Now, with the support of the Reed team based in the prison, and the prospect of the rent bond - a payment, typically £250, made to a landlord in lieu of a rent deposit - Alan is looking forward to his release.

“I am aiming for a step on the ladder in engineering,” he says.

The “no money, no home, no job” syndrome is a well-established one. Many of those leaving prison are left to sink or swim financially. And many landlords are not prepared to take the risk of taking in tenants without a healthy deposit, nor to wait several weeks for housing benefit to come through.

Shelter, the charity for the homeless, is well aware of the cycle, while prison staff at Doncaster talk of prisoners released with only a black plastic bag containing their belongings for company.

One prisoner released from Doncaster three weeks early returned to the prison gates, pleading to be let back in.

According to Home Office research, stable housing can make all the difference.

Amongst prisoners about to be released, 31% of those with an address had work to go to, compared to only 9% of those without an address. Other statistics reveal that fewer than one in five prisoners due to be released receive any help in finding accommodation. It is only now that these two elements are being brought together.

Brian Anderson, director of resettlement at Doncaster prison, sees the rent bond as a key element in the rehabilitation strategy.

And although he admits that no detailed research has been undertaken to gauge its long-term effects, he says that the evidence for its success is more than anecdotal. Through finding accommodation “we are reducing the likelihood of re-offending,” he says. And this in turn must make ex-offenders more employable.

Re-educating employers is also important, says Boyd Davis, senior consultant for Reed. “One of our key tasks is to overcome the stereotyping of ex-offenders as people that will rob your stock,” he says. “A lot of employees will not consider employing anyone with a criminal record.”

Getting employers to give someone a chance is often half the battle says Mr Davis. “We will market that person to the employer. For a labouring job, if there is a beefy six-foot-six ex-offender and someone who is five-foot-seven, then the ex-offender is the best person for the job.”

Once they have got their foot in the door, “employers often find they are the best employees they have got”.

However, Mr Anderson admits that even with the Bridge Project, getting prisoners “job ready” is a difficult and protracted task.

“Eighty per cent are not going to go straight into jobs,” he says. “Some belong to second and third generations of unemployed families.”

Sue Bartley, a former drugs worker at the prison, is manager of Progress to Work, a small three-person organisation which helps ex-offenders who have had a drug problem to find employment. Services are limited to those “who have detoxed and are ready to move on”.

Since April, Progress to Work has helped about seven ex-offenders into jobs, including Steven Whittaker (see below). “They lack confidence in their own abilities. A big part of our job is to improve that,” she says.

Local employment agencies are well aware of the stigma attached to anyone with a prison record. Dawn Hotchen, manager of Radical Resource, says she is prepared to give ex-offenders a chance. But only “as long as they have the skills, and have proved to me that they really want to work”. So far she says she has placed four ex-offenders from the Doncaster Action Team into jobs.

Ms Hotchen doesn’t believe that they are any more likely to let their employers down than anyone else. And if they do, “it’s a case of one bad person. You can have 10 of those among people without a criminal record”.

Ms Hotchen admits that anyone without a fixed address is at “a big disadvantage”. And for that reason, she says the Bridge Project can be vital. Anyone who has shown they live in a house or flat “has shown that they are reliable”.

Jennifer Brough, a Doncaster landlady, has been taking in ex-offenders for 12 years. She also welcomes the Bridge Project. She is prepared to do her bit by helping ex-offenders with support but “they have got to want to do it for themselves”.

On the business side, she sees it as good sense. The rent bond can earn valuable interest in the bank and it seems other landlords are attracted by the idea.

“My daughter has bought two houses primarily for this,” she says.

Matthew’s a graphic example to others

Mentioning prison at a job interview is unlikely to do your career prospects much good. But for Matthew Artis, 29, what he has achieved in prison could unlock the door to a brighter future.

Ever since he contacted Reed’s Action Team for Jobs, he has been hard at work. “Eight till four, five days a week, just like a job,” he says.

And having discovered a hidden talent for computers and web design, he is looking to develop it beyond the prison walls. “I must have shown something. I got quite a lot out of it learning all about personal computers,” he adds.

He is also grateful that after he was released in May, he was able, with Reed’s help, to find accommodation straight away.

“So many have nothing, they are back in prison within six months. But this is ideal, and it is all newly decorated.”

Mr Artis is confident that all his hard work will pay off. “I am looking for funding to take a BTEC in graphic design at Doncaster College,” he says. And now that he is free to surf the web, something that is forbidden in prison, his career prospects are even brighter.

“I am confident that the quality of my work will be recognised by outside companies. Plus, it is something I really do enjoy. I am very hopeful about the future.”

Rail job puts Steven on right track

Since his release from Doncaster prison on July 5, Steven Whittaker, 22, has been anxious to make up for lost time. He has just started a £500-a-week maintenance job on the railways.

No model citizen in the past, Mr Whittaker is in danger of becoming a model employee. He is ambitious, and is aiming to become controller of site safety. “You have got to have something to aim for,” he says.

Mr Whittaker is in no doubt that were it not for the £200 rent bond paid by the Bridge Project, which helped him to find decent accommodation, he would almost certainly have slipped back into his bad old ways. “If you go into a hostel, you are going to find it full of people on drugs,” he says.

Mr Whittaker admits that this is the longest period he has been out of prison in years. But already life has changed in so many ways. “Now, when I see my former mates, I don’t like having to say to them I am busy.” But busy he is, and now he is looking to a future unencumbered by a difficult past.

“It is different this time,” he says.

How the rent bond works

The Bridge Project pays the bond, typically £250, to the landlord. The landlord retains the bond in lieu of a rent deposit. The tenant (ex-offender) is expected to pay the bond back. The rate is negotiable. Someone who hasn’t found work within five weeks might be expected to pay back £1 a week. Anyone in work would usually pay back more. Once the tenant leaves, they can keep whatever they have paid back. That part of the bond left over after any damages or breakages has been paid for is returned to the Bridge Project.

This article first appeared in the Guardian on Saturday 31 August, 2002. I am grateful to the editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Willie McCarney

^{^[1]} William J. Bratton, is the outspoken former New York police commissioner whose high profile contributed to his dismissal by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in 1996 after 27 months on the job. Mayor Giuliani appeared to think Mr Bratton was stealing the limelight! Mr. Bratton is currently openly campaigning for the post of Police Commissioner in Los Angeles, boasting that he can do for the city and its Police Department what he says he did as commissioner in Boston and New York — restore morale, reduce crime and convert what many see as an armed occupation force into an ally of the community. Editor

^{^[4]} More also than Myanmar (better known to you as Burma) where I was presenting my paper.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT FOR 2001/ 2002

LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN / CHILDREN IN CARE

Diversion

Three Unique Dimensions