Few of us can be unaware of angry fathers on the streets demanding more contact with their children. Over the past couple of years activists have caught the attention of the media with a range of stunts including occupying the Lord Chancellor’s Department; presenting an inflatable heart to the President of Family Division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss; protesters on the roof of Plymouth county court wearing Tony Blair masks; Spider-Man climbing a crane near Tower Bridge and causing six-days of chaos as police closed roads; activists scaling bridges and gantries in London, Bristol and Newcastle; Batman, Robin, Superman and Spider-Man on the roof of Worcester crown court; Guy Harrison hurling a condom filled with purple flour at Tony Blair in the Commons; two fathers on a ledge at Cardiff county court; twelve activists dressed as vicars, nuns and monks scaling York Minster; Spiderman on the top of the London Eye and, more recently, Batman on the Buckingham Palace balcony previously better remembered as the place where Prince Charles shared a kiss with Princess Diana on their wedding day.

I got caught up in a protest myself at an international conference in Bath in September 2001 where Fathers4Justice were making the most of the attendance of the media and getting their message across to judges from many parts of the world.

We are likely to see more protests at first hand as Fathers4Justice have announced their intention to bring their campaign to Northern Ireland. Let us leave aside any discussion on the tactics used and look instead at what these fathers are asking for.

Fathers4Justice are demanding that the courts enforce the right of children to a “meaningful, loving relationship with their fathers after divorce”.

It is, at face value, a reasonable demand. However, on reflection, it is fairly clear to those of us who sit in the Family Proceedings Court, that these fathers are asking the courts to perform miracles. How does the court transform a custody dispute into a loving relationship?

Bob Geldof, currently the most prominent supporter of Fathers4Justice, believes that the answer is a “presumption that the children, where possible, will live with the father 50% of the time”.

In a world of equal rights this again sounds reasonable. As Geldof himself puts it: “Equal careers should be balanced with equal caring.” The idea that children should not only have access to both parents but should live half the time with each parent is gaining ground in Denmark, the US and Australia.

Campaigners in the UK feel that a similar presumption would tilt the balance away from what they see as a legal bias towards mothers. It would also address the other concern of divorced fathers, which is that the non-resident parent financially supports the parent who has care of the children.

Fathers4Justice claim that granting their demands would be in the best interests of their children. However, they appear to overlook one very salient point. Children are people not chattels to be shared between the warring factions. Lord Falconer puts it more succinctly - children are not to be divided up like CD collections.

New research from a longitudinal study by Carol Smart of the Care, Values and the Future of Welfare (Cava) research programme at the University of Leeds asked children what it actually feels like to be shared.

Smart observes: “Even where children had good relationships with both their parents, and where they felt that shared residence was ‘a good thing’, there were costs for them. They looked forward to a time when they could stop living like nomads.”

Research by Liz Trinder at the University of East Anglia confirms this view. She found that, even in the most harmonious post-divorce families, the children tended to refer to one place as “home” and speak of visiting the other parent.

Both researchers found that children are happiest where it is clear that their needs, rather than the needs of their parents, take priority. “If they realised that each parent wanted 50% of them because they could not tolerate the idea that the other parent had more, they did not feel loved so much as like a possession to be fought over,” explains Smart.

The Cava research found that problems tended to increase as children got older and wanted to make their own social arrangements.

Leonie, aged 16, had been alternating between her parents. “I was supposed to be stopping at mum’s on Friday night,” she says. “But the way I saw it, Friday night was the one night that neither person owned, because they own our days. She’ll say ‘Friday night’s my day,’ which pretty much says, ‘I own Friday.’ I just think that now I’m 16 I should have more of a say.”

Both pieces of research re-enforce the fact that it is the relationship between the parents which is a key to the children’s happiness, and this is the problem with the current demands. There is no court order which can rake over the dead embers of a relationship and bring them back to life.

According to Trinder’s research, using the law to settle custody disputes usually makes matters worse for all concerned. Smart feels that the law can have a useful role in clarifying matters in family disputes, but she is clear that “cutting children in half” is not the answer.

Fathers4Justice insists that it is not just seeking satisfaction for its premier activists. On its website, the organisation introduces itself as “a new civil rights movement campaigning for a child’s right to see both parents and grandparents”. Again this appears to be a perfectly rational idea - if only the warring adults would call a truce.

However, it appears to me that “grandparents” should be replaced by “grandfathers”. Fathers4Justice is really about mobilising a “dad’s army” to fight the authorities which support “recalcitrant mothers”.

Remarkably little evidence is produced to account for this declaration of war.

Firstly, it must be pointed out that there is always a presumption by the courts that contact with both parents will be in the best interests of the child(ren).

In 1998 only 3% of father’s applications were refused. By 2001 this had dropped to 1.3%. In real terms this amounted to 713 cases, a figure which barely covers the number of men who murdered their wives and schedule one offenders. In 2002 this figure had dropped to 518. I do not have the current figure but understand that it continues to drop.

Secondly, we are all too well aware that some mothers behave vengefully and deny their children’s best interests. However, there is nothing to support the view that such behaviour is either prevalent, or officially approved.

On the contrary, a new government green paper, “Parental separation: children’s needs and parents’ responsibilities”, notes that most “non resident-parents” have weekly or more frequent meetings with their children. It finds that in around 90% of cases, child contact arrangements have been agreed informally by separated parents, of whom, more than 80% profess themselves happy with the arrangement. This does not, in short, conform with the Fathers4Justice blighted vision of “a nation of children without parents and parents without children”.

In reality, where there is dissatisfaction with the arrangement this is often because the resident parent - usually the mother - thinks there has been too little, not too much, contact with the father.

Gwen Vaughan, the chief executive of Gingerbread notes that there are far more fathers who have no contact with their children whatsoever than there are men who say they want but are denied contact. The vast majority of men who are not having contact with their children are men who have dropped out of their children’s lives of their own volition.

Batman’s (Jason Hatch’s) personal protest is to have more contact with the two children, aged 4 and 6, he had with his estranged wife Victoria Tunnicliff. (He changed his name to Hatch by deed poll following the separation). In an interview following the Buckingham palace escapade he said: “I would do anything, even die, to get to see my children”.

Batman has two other children - by two other women. As he stood on the balcony at Buckingham Palace sipping orange juice handed to him by a police officer the mother of his seven-month-old daughter walked out of the house which they shared saying she had had enough. She said that Fathers4Justice had taken over his life and that he hardly ever sees his daughter.

There is no mention of the child he had with his third partner or whether he has or wants contact.

We are all too well aware that parents, for all that they claim to have their children’s interests at heart, use the courts to prosecute a feud with an ex-partner.

We are also aware that some mothers do indeed frustrate contact but, when this happens, the court has shown a willingness to deal with it. The High Court in England recently replaced a Residence Order in favour of the mother with one in favour of the father because the court held that the mother was “implacably hostile”, adamantly opposed to any contact by the father.

But disputes are not the norm. There is an increasing consciousness that children need and benefit from contact with both parents.

A favourite statistic used by Fathers4Justice suggests that four out of ten children lose contact with their fathers within two years of divorce. The most recent evidence from Judy Dunn (King’s College, London) and Jonathan Bradshaw (University of York) suggests that the figure is now down to half that. And, according to their research, lack of commitment is the major factor where contact has broken down.

As the spotlight shines on the superheroes we should not forget that hostility towards contact, where it does exist, is not always unreasonable - for example, if the father is dangerous. When contact is denied by the court it is usually for very good reason, and, most frequently, in cases of domestic violence.

Domestic violence was alleged by the mothers in 23% of disputes. But, even in these cases, half the fathers were granted contact orders, sometimes when they should not have been!

There are many different forms of violence, and physical attack is only one of them. Perhaps most of us think of a black eye or broken arm, but sex can be used as a way of dominating a partner; so can ridicule, control of family finance, or shouting and screaming.

The Government defines domestic violence as “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”.

Psychological abuse can at times be even more damaging than physical abuse. It can be something which whittles away at the partner’s self-esteem until s/he may even begin to believe that s/he is ‘stupid’, ‘useless’ or ‘deserves it’. Attempts at retaliation may bring further violence: tears of frustration and helplessness are ridiculed and mocked. This may make it even more difficult to break away and do something about the situation. Loss of self-esteem, and being made to believe you are ‘worthless’ make it difficult to think about getting help. Blackmail may also be used as a weapon where one partner threatens to kill himself - or herself - if the other leaves, or to harm the children.

Domestic violence is a two-way street not to be tolerated whichever way it goes. No one should live his/her day-to-day life in fear of another. One in four women and one in six men will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. Domestic violence currently claims 150 lives per year, and affects millions more.

More than a quarter of all reported violent crime is by men against women at home, making domestic violence the second most common violent crime.

Research by the Home Office finds that women are more likely to be badly injured and to suffer repeated attacks than men. Domestic violence has the highest rate of repeat victimisation of any crime - 35% of households have a second incident within five weeks of the first.

Almost a third of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, and existing violence often escalates during it.

A study carried out by NAPO in 2002 of 300 family court cases revealed that in 16 per cent of the cases allegations were made against the woman for violently abusing her husband. However, 61 per cent of the fathers involved in the court system had allegations of domestic violence made against them. The authors believed that the true rate could be higher because of under-reporting, which is a problem in cases of domestic violence.

A joint study by police and Crown Prosecution Service inspectors (published in February 2004) found that police are recording less than half of all crimes of domestic violence reported to them, and only 11% of these lead to a conviction. Despite a big leap forward in police attitudes and much work by the CPS to raise awareness of domestic abuse, this had not filtered down to the grass roots.

The Solicitor General, Harriet Harman, who commissioned the report, said: “Often policies were not matched on the ground by effective responses and solid investigative practice. Priority given to domestic violence locally was variable and depended heavily upon local initiatives and commitments. The police and CPS now have the right policies, but not everyone is putting them into practice. The government will back up the police and prosecutors in stepping up their efforts to tackle domestic violence.”

The report found that frontline officers and lawyers who dealt with domestic violence were often highly dedicated. But more in-depth training was required, as well as systems to examine why arrests were not made in some cases.

Police in England and Wales receive a domestic violence call every minute, thousands of children witness incidents every day, and two women are killed by a partner or former partner every week.

Yet the inspectors discovered that of 463 incidents to which police were called there should have been 260 crime reports, but there were only 118. Only 21% of these resulted in charges, and there was a conviction in just 11%.

Frustratingly, in 44% of cases received by the CPS, the victim wanted to withdraw the complaint. Some explanations have been given above but often there is a fear of reprisals or a reluctance to “break up” the family.

An American academic, Linda G. Mills, wrote a book last year called “Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Response to Intimate Abuse”. Half of all partners of violent men never leave, she reasoned. Those that do go will return to the man beating them on average five times before leaving for good. Few want their children’s father locked up. What most of them want, according to Mills, is the man they love to stop beating them up.

Contrary to the views of Fathers4Justice, the NAPO survey (mentioned above) found that, even in cases of domestic violence, the vast majority did end with the father gaining access to children. While 58 per cent of fathers had some access when court cases began, this had risen to 94 per cent when legal proceedings ended.

Child safety campaigners have documented numerous cases of abusive fathers being granted visiting rights to their children and going on to injure or even kill members of their family. At least 19 children were killed over an eight-year period by fathers who had been given visiting rights.

Contact will always be a highly contentious and very difficult issue for the courts to deal with, even without the complications of domestic violence. Too often, children become both weapons and prizes. It is perhaps expecting too much of people that they should behave in a wholly rational fashion at a time when they are in the throes of what is often a very traumatic separation. Parents are asked to agree arrangements about their children, including contact, at a time when they are emotionally very, very fraught indeed.

Lord Justice Wall described the report “Making Contact Work”, as the first attempt to look comprehensively at ways of remedying a system which is acknowledged to be failing parents and children. He went on to say:

“The law tries to apply a structure and a rationality which is not always capable of realisation because post-separation parenting is a fiendishly difficult activity, particularly if the parent who’s left behind or the parent who has the children is then faced with a whole series of decisions - housing, money, finance generally, support. In that context, with all those anxieties and worries, to try rationally to make contact arrangements with the person you probably think has just betrayed you or who has been violent to you is enormously difficult.”

Most parents, Wall believes, are simply unaware of how harmful the effects of constant battles over contact or alienating a child from the other parent can be. “Most people who are adamantly opposed to their former partner or spouse having contact do so in the express belief that it’s in the interests of the children. I think most parents live in the here and now and find it very difficult to see 10 years ahead when a teenager or adolescent will round on them for ruining their relationship with the other parent. People don’t see that in the immediate fog of the separation.”

Finding ways to ensure that both mother and father can continue to play a full part in their children’s lives after divorce is one of the biggest challenges facing the family justice system. Yet parents get surprisingly little help in coping with the upheaval divorce brings, and the services that do exist are not widely known about.

Linda G. Mills wants couples to be brought into therapy instead of court. If they are helped to understand the dynamics of intimate violence, she believes they might be able to stop it. A pilot project in Canada looks promising. But policy in Britain is to exclude from couple counselling any couple where the man has been violent. It is a curious situation that, once a woman has been beaten, she is denied the support that might save her relationship and her life.

The constitutional affairs minister, Lord Filkin, is committed to reducing the friction between parents in relation to children. If the purpose of family law is as much to change behaviour as to enforce rules then the Department of Constitutional Affairs might look at the new Scottish legislation which places a duty on both parents to keep in contact with their children.

If family law is to retain its focus on children’s needs it would perhaps be better to address the parents in the language of duties rather than the language of rights.

Willie McCarney, Editor

It is my pleasure to be with you this evening to address the final AGM of the Northern Ireland Youth and Family Courts Association, and to contribute in some small way to this evening of appreciation to mark the demise of the role of Lay Panel Member.

In particular, it is an honour for me to be able to recognise the important contribution that Lay Panellists have made to the justice system over the years as we are about to embark on a new venture with the inception of the Lay Magistracy.

The judiciary greatly appreciates the work of the 124 Lay Panel Members (a figure which has declined since the early 1970s when there was approximately 200).

Nor is that work confined exclusively to the courts; many of you have put in valuable hours of committee work over the years through The Northern Ireland Youth and Family Court Association, and groups such as the Lay Panel Advisory Committee and the Lay Panel Association Training Committee.

Indeed, Northern Ireland has recently been honoured by the appointment of one of your members (Dr Willie McCarney) as President of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, a well deserved recognition of the additional work he undertakes so conscientiously.

The role of the Lay Panellist is one that is sometimes undervalued and which requires much more recognition than it often receives.

The Criminal Justice Review was clear as to the contribution that can be made to the justice system by lay involvement and I have no hesitation in endorsing that view. Lay involvement in the justice system in Northern Ireland is well established and lay involvement in the juvenile justice system in particular has been a feature for almost 100 years.

The support network provided by The Association is a more recent innovation, having been initiated in 1976, and it has proved invaluable to the organisation and training of Panellists.

The success of the Lay Panel system is due in no small part to the commitment of the Panellists themselves — it is a mark of your commitment and integrity that you have all given up so much of your own time on an entirely voluntary basis.

You (the Lay Panel Members) have made an important contribution to court life in both Family and Youth Court Sittings within Magistrates Courts, and also by remaining abreast of current issues through attendance at training events and keeping up to date with local issues by attending Divisional Meetings.

This unfailing commitment through often difficult and changing times over the years is no more evident than at present as the role of lay involvement in the justice system goes through many changes brought about by the implementation of the Criminal Justice Review (CJR).

The Review report made several recommendations to increase the involvement of Lay People in the Justice System.

One of the Review’s recommendations was the creation of a new judicial office of Lay Magistrate in each of the seven county court divisions within Northern Ireland, which will be created by relieving JPs of their criminal justice functions and amalgamating these with the functions currently performed by the Lay Panel.

The CJR and the establishment of the Lay Magistracy in Northern Ireland will significantly change the role of the current Lay Panellist. Numbers will rise to around 300+, and along with the regular duties of sitting in Family and Youth Courts, the newly appointed Lay Magistrates will preside in special courts where a person is brought before a court for a first remand.

These changes will in turn present many challenges and indeed opportunities for the existing Lay Panel Members.

These are challenges I am sure that you (the current Lay Panel Members) will no doubt rise to should you wish to take the opportunity to transfer and become a Lay Magistrate (following any necessary training).

This is something that I would encourage you to do and I am aware that around 70 of you have indicated that you wish to transfer over. Your knowledge and experience will be invaluable to the continued smooth operation of the courts and will be of inestimable worth in training and encouraging newly appointed lay members.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity express my deep appreciation to you all for your dedication and commitment in your role as members of the Lay Panel.

Before I leave to allow you to proceed with the business of the AGM I have one further pleasurable task – this evening Norman Humes stands down as Chairman of the Association, and Chairman of the Training Committee. I understand that due to popular demand, he took the unusual step of agreeing staying on for a second term in both those roles. I am advised by those that have worked closely with you over recent years, that your co-operation, enthusiasm and camaraderie have ensured that you will be considerably missed in those roles. I hope Mr Humes that you will allow me to present you with this small token of everyone’s appreciation.

I consider it a great honour to be Vice-President of this Association, and I hope that, under the new legislation, the Association will go from strength to strength.

It is a sobering thought that I am the only surviving member of the group of five who got the Association under way 28 years ago. My good friends and colleagues Commander Charles Mullan RM, Norman McSween, Frank Rowan and Rosemary Webb have long since gone to their reward.

Thankfully Frank Edgar, who was at that time Assistant Secretary of Commissions for Northern Ireland and who, together with Commander Mullan, drafted our Rules And Constitution is enjoying a well-earned retirement.

Anne McCollum, who took up the post of Editor of our (then) Newsletter in 1978 is now Lady Anne McCollum and is hopefully also taking things a bit easier following the retirement of her husband, Lord Justice McCollum a few weeks ago.

Dr McCarney has agreed to include a few extracts from that first Newsletter of 1978 in the next edition of our Magazine. I hope you will find them interesting.

I am delighted that our efforts have proved so worthwhile and I wish you all continued success in the future as you form a new Association.

When I was appointed to the Lay Panel 50 years ago this year there was officially no training. We were given a small handbook and we used our common sense when adjudicating on the cases brought before us. But, just as today, the welfare of the young person brought before us was of paramount importance.

I know that under the new Order you are getting new opportunities to put all your expertise and training into practice in a most worthwhile manner.

I could not let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to your outgoing Chairman, Norman Humes. He and I have been firm friends for many years. We belong to the same Panel. Norman undertook the position of Association Chairman four years ago. He was elected for the usual two year period.

When the Chairman-elect unexpectedly retired for health reasons just before the AGM Norman was called on to stand for another two years. Consequently he has served as Association Chairman for the past four years.

Norman has given more than 28 years of service to the Association. I thank him for it and wish him well in the future.

It is a tradition in this Association that the role of Chair alternates between male and female and, to the extent possible, between urban and rural areas.

This is how it has been right from the beginning with Norman McSween being elected as Chair at our first AGM with myself as Vice-Chair. I took over from Norman in 1980.

I am pleased to see that the tradition continues in that Lorainne Young is taking over the Chair vacated by Norman Humes.

I congratulate Lorainne on her election and have every confidence that she will fulfil her new role with distinction. I wish her well.

I am very pleased to see Dr McCarney with us today. He is currently President of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, and we congratulate him.

Like Norman, he has given more than 28 years of service to this Association. Indeed they were both appointed to the Lay Panel on 22^nd March 1976. Dr Willie McCarney has held every office in our Association and has also been Chair of the British Juvenile and Family Court Society (now Children Law UK).

Willie has edited our magazine since 1982 and continues to do so despite his very busy schedule. What would the magazine be without his contributions?

In the April 2003 issue Dr McCarney ended an Article with a quotation by Judge Fedou when he addressed the Oxford Congress in 1974. The words are as relevant today as they were then.

“Let us never forget that we exist, not for ourselves, but for the young, for their fulfilment as individuals in the heart of the family and in Society.

This evening’s Annual General Meeting has been described as the final one, which may have led to some confusion among members. It reminded me of the sort of interpretation resulting from a recent newspaper headline: “E.U. Straps Children Into Cars Until They Are 5 Feet Tall”. This is the final one in the sense that it marks the end of an era for the Lay Panellist before transferring to the extended role of Lay Magistrate. To mark the end of that era, Judicial Studies Board has kindly agreed to host a Dinner and to allow a different format to the normal proceedings. During the short interim between Lay Panellist and Lay Magistrate, in the interests of continuity, it is important to preserve some form of structure - hence the election of officers etc.- whatever new title this Association may eventually decide for itself.

I am pleased to see our Vice-President, Mrs Marguerite Faulkner, MBE, present this evening, as she represents the Lay Panel link, not only with its origin in the early 50’s of the last century, but also with the formation of the forerunner of our present Association (in 1977), formerly known as the Northern Ireland Juvenile Courts Association. With 4 colleagues, she was instrumental in forming the new Body, served as its second Chair, and pressed for Divisional groupings as well as for some form of training for the growing number of Lay Panellists. It must give her enormous satisfaction to see how the Association has developed from that embryonic stage to justify that little group’s aspirations. We thank her for that foresight and for the sustained, enthusiastic interest which she has maintained in our progress and welfare .

Our efficient Secretary, Brian Rea, MBE, has already referred to the work of the Executive. I don’t propose to add much to his remarks except my appreciation of the conscientious endeavours of members at the meetings and one emergency meeting. Two new members joined us, Sally Hanna and Clark McLaughlin, with worthwhile contributions to our discussions. We also had visits from Judicial Studies Board personnel to discuss progress with the Lay Magistrate Project and tease out inconsistencies in codes of administrative practice. Whilst our Association protects its independence, our symbiotic relationship with the Board occasionally requires some clarification on matters of mutual interest. As a result, a sub-committee met with Joanne Flood who is presently drafting a Service Level Agreement which should enhance future administration.

The Lay Panel Training Sub-Committee met on 6 occasions. Its membership was enlarged to ensure that all Divisions were represented. Five new members joined the panel : Deirdre Kennedy (Armagh/ South Down), Kevin Butler (Ards), Jim Currie (Antrim), Jim McClean (Craigavon) and David Moore (Fermanagh/Tyrone ). Apart from making the group more representative, we valued the fresh input of thoughts and experience which they brought to meetings. I congratulate Jim Currie on his appointment as Chair of the Guardian ad Litem Agency. The committee has agreed a draft Constitution to cover aims and objectives, membership, meetings and budget. This will provide a much-needed framework for the new committee when it becomes the Lay Magistrate Training Committee.

When we realised that the normal autumn refresher training was possible after all, given the hiatus in establishing Lay Magistrate status, it was decided to hold 2 sessions pertinent to future work ref. Youth Conferencing, conducted by Alice Chapman. From the evaluation feed-back, it was a great success – “the best so far” among the complimentary remarks. Taken along with the excellent training following last year’s AGM, provided by George Conner, R.M. and Tony Kavanagh, new standards were set for quality and relevance.

Whenever we became aware of useful seminars, workshops or conferences, we tried , with limited success, to widen the net of potential delegates. The pressure of time to consult and meet the deadline for applications tended to frustrate those intentions. Nevertheless we managed to find competent delegates who brought back excellent reports on relevant themes : Welfare and Justice (Rosemary Craig); Voice of the Child in Domestic Violence Cases (Eleanor O’Neill ) and New Initiatives in Youth Justice (Janet Leckey/ Bill Keown )

Several of us attended a recent lecture given by Judge David Carruthers, Chief District Court Judge in New Zealand, and a strong advocate of Family Group Conferencing as a means of dealing with Youth Crime and diverting most offenders away from courts. As this initiative will become a vital strategy in our future Youth Crime considerations, I hope that we take stock of the 8/9 flaws highlighted by Judge Carruthers from evaluation of the NZ model which needed attention, and, like Judge Carruthers, also come to regard Conferencing as the “jewel in the crown” of our judicial system.

Six years have passed since the Belfast Agreement which signalled a wide-ranging review of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. The possibility of greater lay involvement in the adjudication process was to form part of subsequent consultations. Our Association responded to those consultations and, more recently, to the Eligibility (N.I.) Order. Gradually we are moving closer to that enhanced role for lay involvement on the bench, extending our current brief to embrace the judicial functions of the Justice of the Peace. The inevitable delay in transfer could have seriously affected the possibility of retaining lay personnel, already thoroughly trained in youth and family court proceedings. Thanks to the continuous updating of progress of the Lay Magistrate Project by Patricia McKee, Joanne Flood, Brian Sinnamon and Brian Sherrard, we have been kept abreast of developments.

You have all received a copy of Brian Sinnamon’s excellent synopsis of a recent meeting with Executive representatives when there was an opportunity to articulate concerns about the Project. While his summary of issues is very comprehensive, he and Patricia have kindly agreed to make a further brief presentation later on the agenda.

I still have reservations about one aspect of proposals: remuneration for lay involvement. By offering payment, the traditional voluntary spirit of participation on behalf of the community is affected. However, I can appreciate that, in order to attract sufficient new members, representative of all strands of society, without any personal financial hardship incurred, some solution was necessary to meeting this aim.

Hopefully, most, if not all, of those new members will want to join our Association and enjoy the benefits of belonging to a group with common goals, with structures to voice their concerns and opinions, respond to consultative issues, and, generally, protect their interests and conditions of service – and all for a nominal membership fee, including our magazine !

Before I conclude, I want to place on record my appreciation of certain people’s important contributions (and if I leave anyone out, as my favourite broadcaster, the late Alistair Cooke once said, “Count yourself in.” ): Harry McKibbin, R.M. for his legal guidance on the Training Committee, Eleanor O’Neill who represents us so effectively on the Executive of Children Law UK, Joanne Flood for her highly efficient management of all aspects of our training needs, Louise Mehaffey who has organised so meticulously this special occasion, Cathy Murphy who has recorded so accurately the minutes of Training meetings, Lorraine Young who chaired 2 meetings so ably for me when I was abroad and Dr Willie McCarney, who, despite his busy schedule as President of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, still finds time to be the Editor of our highly-informative Magazine and be a “sounding board” for consultative issues requiring indepth study and response.

After 4 years , this is my valedictory report as Chairman. I consider it a great privilege to have served the Association in this capacity.

It has afforded me an invaluable extra dimension to my 28 years experience as a Lay Panellist and, until statutory retirement looms in a short time, I hope to extend that experience as a Lay Magistrate.

May I wish the incoming Chair, her officers and all of you who opt for that new role, a satisfactory, valuable contribution to the judicial challenges ahead.

Norman Humes

24^th April 2004.

When Sir Thomas Skyrme, our distinguished guest speaker at the inaugural meeting of the N. I. Juvenile Courts Association congratulated us on having formed a “Union”, it may have struck some members as a rather odd phrase with which to describe such an august body as that of Lay Magistrates.

It may also seem rather unnewsworthy in this our very first news sheet to harp back to what was said at a meeting held over a year ago.

It would not, however, be inappropriate in this first edition of our news sheet to ask ourselves why it was decided to form a N.I. Association and to refresh our memories on the aims and objects of our association.

Which brings us to Sir Thomas Skyrme’s ‘Union’ reference.

One could readily, albeit mistakenly, think of Unions as militant bodies primarily concerned with new pay claims etc., something with which we luckily need not concern ourselves.

But, as the Prime Minister reminded us fairly recently, such is the power of the Unions that irresponsible action on their part could bring the country to a standstill.

It is hardly necessary to stress that it is not the objective of the NIJCA to achieve such power. On the other hand our association is not merely an amalgam of Lay Magistrates without any clear aims and objectives.

Hence, the lesson to be learned from the Trade Union Movement, which grew from modest beginnings to being a most powerful force is that if our Association, still in its infancy, is to, not just survive, but grow in strength, purpose and usefulness, then it needs dedicated, committed members.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the N. I. J. C. A. are as follows.

To promote and encourage liaison between lay members through N. I. and the County and Borough Associations.

By discussion and exchange of information and views to make the procedure, treatment and penalties uniform and consistent throughout the Province.

To assist and advise in the preparation of training programmes for members.

To discuss and advise on projected legislation and changes in the Juvenile Court procedures.

To make known the work, objects and scope of Juvenile Courts.

To join and/or become affiliated to other similar Associations in England, Wales and Scotland and/or International Associations.

To promote and encourage liaison between all groups i.e. police, probation service, social workers, etc. involved in the Juvenile Courts.

Unfortunately it is difficult to implement fully the first mentioned aim as not all Lay Magistrates in Northern Ireland are members of the Association

As a gesture of goodwill and to encourage non-members to join we are sending every Lay Magistrate a copy of our first news sheet. It is hoped that there will be sufficient enthusiasm to enable us to produce a quarterly news sheet but please note that our future publications will be sent only to members of the NIJCA

I am delighted to write this message, brief as it is going to be, to you. Delighted because despairing of ever seeing a ‘NEWS LETTER’, we had the wit to invite Anne McCollum to become our Editor (she’ll soon find out that she’s the reporting staff as well!), and because in Mrs. Anne McCollum we have someone who being enthusiastic herself will (we hope) generate a response from her readers.

We still await the outcome of the ‘Black Consultative Document’

We still await the details of the restructuring of the Court/Petty Sessions Areas.

Training Seminars have started at Queen’s University, and here I would like to thank Mrs. Pat Patten of the Extra-Mural Department. She has been a real friend to the members of this Association and she has given unstintingly of her time and expertise to help us in every way she can. Mr. Frank Edgar of the Lord Chancellor’s Department too has taken a keen and very active interest in our training seminars. It is quite a sacrifice to give up one’s Saturdays and we are grateful to both of them and to all the other people who participate.

I hope that now this Paper is off the ground you will all help to keep it flying by writing to the Editor with comments, queries, suggestions, anything to do with the Association, knowledge you have gained as a Lay Member. In fact just WRITE.

With my best wishes for Christmas, and may you all have a happy and prosperous 1979.

Norman McSween,

Chairman.

“Northern Ireland could lead the field in the care of our children in need and the treatment of the young offender!”

These encouraging words are quoted from a preliminary report by the Chairman of NIJCA on his visit to the 10th Congress of the International Association of Youth Magistrates in Montreal.

Mr. McSween was accompanied by Mr. Frank Rowan, Hon. Sec. of the NIJCA. and both agree that while there wasn’t much time for sight-seeing during the six intensive days of the Congress, the trip was well worth while.

To quote Mr McSween

“Without being smug I came away from the Congress feeling that with our 1968 Act as the skeleton we can graft on pieces of new and improved legislation, more options, short term sentences in Training Schools, Community Service Orders, Hostels for Care and Protection Cases being made a mandatory factor for Health and Social Services Boards, Special Schools or Classes for Truants, Special Classes - trade and commerce orientated - for final year pupils, and an urgent review of all existing facilities to see if they are being used to the best advantage.”

At a minimal cost, and by using some imagination, a lot of commonsense, and a great deal of goodwill from all sides - no matter how entrenched they are at present - Northern Ireland could lead the field in the care of our children in need and the treatment of the youth offender. But not if we dismantle what we have and try to start from untried premises”.

Delegates to the Congress were divided up into various sections and workshops, Working sessions were intersperse with visits to Institutions.

Mr. McSween opted for the section dealing with Preventive and Remedial Measures.

This is a summary of his summary!

The Juvenile Court

Delegates agreed that the Juvenile Court plays a central role in both Care and Criminal cases and should continue to do so.

In Care cases the point was made very strongly that the Court should monitor the treatment recommended by the Court and that treatment should be reviewed by the Court at regular intervals.

The protection of the rights of the child and of the parents must remain as a right in law and only the Court can safeguard this right adequately.

It was felt that the training of Magistrates should take high degree of priority in any Juvenile Court system.

On the subject of Training Schools Mr. McSween found that N.I. is well to the forefront in their remedial and educationally orientated outlook.

RUC Liaison Scheme

Having been thoroughly briefed by the Community Relations Branch of the RUC before leaving for the Congress Mr. McSween seized the opportunity of speaking on their Liaison Scheme and Cautioning Scheme.

Delegates were very impressed by the fact that a Police Force working in a situation like ours had the courage and foresight to set up such an imaginative Youth Scheme as the RUC Juvenile Liaison Scheme.

Similar schemes in other countries are mainly on a pilot basis and a surprising number of delegates stated that their Police Forces were looked upon by the general public as purely repressive.

Copies of the Juvenile Liaison Scheme Leaflet were requested by both the Executive Director of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges of America, and an Expert Consultant on Juvenile Justice in the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch of the United Nations for their members.

While Mr. McSween was gratified by the interest shown in the Northern Ireland Juvenile Court System, our Training Schools, and the RUC, he professes that he was ‘appalled’ by the lack of knowledge of even the fundamental facts of our situation, and suggests that there should be more ambassadors of good news from here.

Mr. McSween points out that this is a preliminary report promising a detailed report when he has received the final Congress papers.

May we make it clear that this is only a very brief synopsis of an excellent informative document.

When a report on domestic violence was published last week (in February 2004), Harriet Harman sounded much like every vexed feminist has sounded for the past 20 years. In the study of nearly 500 reported cases of domestic violence, only 11 per cent had ended in successful prosecution; 21 per cent had gone to court. Half hadn’t even been recorded by the police.

‘We need to make sure men know they will be prosecuted and sent to prison,’ the Solicitor General urged. Police policy is now to prosecute, she assured us, but it’s a question of getting the message through to officers on the ground. Sending offenders to prison would have ‘a real effect’ on the prevalence of domestic violence, she said.

This prediction has been an article of feminist faith for as long as I can remember. We have insisted that the only way to stop men beating their partners is to bring the full vengeful force of the law down on their heads, and we have been reciting statistics for decades. By now few people can be unaware that one in four women will become a victim; that two women are killed by their partner or ex every week, or that more than a quarter of all reported violent crime is by men against women at home, making domestic violence the second most common violent crime.

The solution to a crime this serious would have to be found within the criminal justice system. It seemed perfectly obvious. In this instance, if in no other, prison would work.

But what if it turned out not to? It’s an unthinkable proposition - but as Harman said herself, a policy of prosecution does now apply; the expression ‘just a domestic’ hasn’t summed up senior police attitudes for years. The piteous 11 per cent conviction rate has to be explained somehow. Harman chooses to blame the legal system for failing to put its policy into practice across the board.

But in this study, the problem with almost half the cases which reached the CPS was that the victim withdrew her complaint. We could say it was because she mistrusted the system. We could put it down to fear, or ignorance, or any number of feminist rationalisations available to account for this unexpected turn of events, where the women turn out to be more problematic than the police.

But there would have to come a point where we accepted the victims’ feelings. If women keep saying they do not want a punitive policy, to insist that one works becomes meaningless.

I spent some time last year in a domestic violence CID unit in London’s Paddington Green station. It was staffed by highly motivated, specially trained detectives. They were clever and ambitious, they wanted convictions - and most of the time, to their intense frustration, they could not get them. It drove them mad. The reason they couldn’t put violent men in prison was that the victims didn’t want them to.

The modern solution is what police call ‘victimless prosecutions’. Increasingly, they will try to gather enough evidence to secure a conviction without her testimony. The logic is neat: if the weak link is the victim, then get rid of her. Victimless prosecutions are supposed to be in the women’s interests.

Unfortunately, some of the women I met through Paddington Green didn’t agree. In fact, they were quite annoyed. The police couldn’t always comprehend these women’s maddening reluctance to put their partners in prison - and so the women began to be perceived as part of the problem; an ungrateful, obstructive nuisance. Some of the officers seemed angrier with the victims than they were with the men who beat them up.

It is easy to see how their sympathy could dissolve into irritation. But it is hard to see this as a feminist victory, or as progress. The presumption behind victimless prosecutions is that these women need their consciousness raising; that they are too frightened or diminished to know what’s good for them, so the court will decide. But a policy which assumes that the police are right, and battered women are wrong, is a perplexing triumph for feminism.

Tony Blair has described Harriet Harman’s forthcoming domestic violence bill as ‘a symbol of our determination to rebalance the whole criminal justice system around the needs of the victim’. Given more time, and more legislation, perhaps prosecutions will begin to work. But the wait cannot be limitless.

An American academic, Linda G. Mills, wrote a book last year called Insult to Injury; Rethinking Our Response to Intimate Abuse. Half of all partners of violent men never leave, she reasoned. Those that do go will return to the man beating them on average five times before leaving for good. Few want their children’s father locked up. What most of them want, according to Mills, is the man they love to stop beating them up.

Mills wants couples to be brought into therapy instead of court. If they are helped to understand the dynamics of intimate violence, she believes they might be able to stop it. A pilot project in Canada looks promising. But policy in Britain is to exclude from couple counselling any couple where the man has been violent. It is a curious situation that, once a woman has been beaten, she is denied the support that might save her relationship and her life.

So everything is left to the police. After demanding so much of them, you might say it was churlish - or at least impatient - to start wondering whether they really are the answer. Even raising the doubt risks reviving the despicable old suspicion that hitting your wife isn’t really a crime. And the police are worn out; indignant. The morning after an attack, a Paddington detective officer complained: ‘We’ll call the victim up, and suddenly we’re the trouble-makers. I say, "Next time you could be in a coffin." But no one can believe that their husband will kill them.’

Next time she could be in a coffin. If one day we have to change our minds about how to defeat domestic violence, we had better be willing, because we do not have all the time in the world.

This article appeared in the Observer on February 22, 2004. I am grateful to the Editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Editor

Key findings

The total cost of domestic violence to services (Criminal Justice System, Health, Social Services, Housing, Civil Legal) amounts to £3.1 billion, while the loss to the economy is £2.7 billion. This amounts to over £5.7 billion a year. The costs can be broken down as follows:

• Criminal Justice System: The cost of domestic violence to the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is around £1 billion a year. This is nearly one-quarter of the CJS budget for violent crime. The largest single component is that of the police. Other components include: prosecution, courts, probation, prison, and legal aid.

• Health Care: The cost to the NHS for physical injuries is around £1.2 billion a year. This includes GPs and hospitals. Physical injuries account for most of the NHS costs, but there is an important element of mental health care, estimated at an additional £176 million.

• Social Services: The annual cost is nearly £.25 billion. This is overwhelmingly for children rather than for adults, especially those caught up in the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse.

• Housing: Expenditure on emergency housing includes costs to Local Housing Authorities and Housing Associations for housing those homeless because of domestic violence; housing benefit for such emergency housing; and, importantly, refuges. This amounts to £.16 billion a year.

• Civil Legal: Civil legal services cost over £.3 billion, about half of which is borne by legal aid and half by the individual. This includes both specialist legal actions such as injunctions to restrain or expel a violent partner, as well as actions consequent on the disentangling of marriages and relationships such as divorce and child custody.

• Economic Output: Lost economic output accounts for around £2.7 billion a year. This is the cost of time off work due to injuries. It is estimated that around half of the costs of such sickness absences is borne by the employer and half by the individual in lost wages.

An additional element is the human and emotional cost. Domestic violence leads to pain and suffering that is not counted in the cost of services. This amounts to over £17 billion a year.

Including all costs, the total cost of domestic violence for the state, employers and victims is estimated at around £23 billion.

Introduction

Domestic violence has devastating consequences for both the individual victim and the wider society.

It drains the resources of public and voluntary services and of employers and causes untold pain and suffering to those who are abused. This report addresses one aspect of domestic violence, the cost, for a range of people and social institutions.

Aims of the research

While considerations of justice and fairness provide a sufficient basis for public intervention into domestic violence, a better understanding of the full cost of domestic violence provides the basis for action within an additional policy framework, that of finance. Adding a financial dimension increases the range of ways in which policy interventions can be articulated, measured and evaluated. In particular, it may assist in addressing spending priorities by mainstreaming concerns about domestic violence into more conventional policy frameworks. This is complementary to policy frameworks based on need and justice, not an alternative to them. The aim of this research is to estimate the cost of domestic violence for the state, employers and those individuals who are subject to it.

Method

The methodology is based on the Home Office framework for costing crime (Home Office Research Study 217, Brand and Price, 2000), and develops this so as to include the specific costs related to domestic violence.

Three key types of information are needed in order to cost domestic violence.

First, the extent and nature of domestic violence, including both the number of victims and the number of incidents needs to be discovered.

Second, there must be a measure of the extent and nature of the impact of domestic violence on victim’s lives and society as a whole, including the extent to which it leads to use of services, disrupts employment and causes pain and suffering.

The third element is the estimation of the cost of the provision of services, of lost economic output and the public’s willingness-to-pay to avoid the human costs of pain and suffering.

Information on the extent of domestic violence is taken from various sources, including the 2001 Home Office British Crime Survey self-completion module on Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking (BCS IPV) (Walby and Allen 2004). This includes not only physical domestic violence, but also rape, sexual assault and stalking by intimates. It includes domestic violence against both men and women. The self-completion module of the BCS provides greater confidentiality and thus greater disclosure of domestic violence than the main part of the BCS, which relies on face-to-face interviewing, and is therefore more reliable and produces the best British estimates.

The self-completion module estimates a prevalence of domestic violence that is five times higher than that in the main face-to-face part of the BCS.

Information on the costs (e.g. services) is derived from a variety of studies including the Home Office study on the cost of crime, which in turn builds on the programme of research in the Department for Transport, which provides estimates for health care, lost economic output and human costs. Information on the cost of services is derived from the BCS IPV, or identified from reports by services on their own expenditure, or from other recent research. Information on the actual level of service use is gathered from reports by service providers and the BCS IPV.

The estimates are for England and Wales and are centred on 2001.

Main findings

The research includes the cost of domestic violence to public services. In this report this includes the criminal justice system (including the police), the health care system (including mental health), social services, housing and refuges, and civil legal services. This includes a wider range of services than has been included in previous studies of the cost of crime, in recognition of the special features of domestic violence.

There is also the cost of lost economic output as a result of the disruption of employment. This is a cost that is borne by both employers and the victim themselves, as well as having further effects on the economy as a whole that are not estimated here.

It would be misleading and incomplete to restrict the economic cost of domestic violence to those associated with services and employment only. Like other crimes, domestic violence also generates significant ‘intangible’ costs associated with pain and suffering, and to omit these only in relation to domestic violence would falsely represent this type of crime as less costly than other violent crimes.

The importance of including costs in relation to the physical and emotional suffering of domestic violence victims is recognised by both the Home Office and Department for Transport for estimating costs in comparable circumstances of crime and injury. This report follows the practice of these other government ministries which estimates these costs on the basis of the publics ‘willingness-to-pay’ to avoid pain and suffering.

There are three main types of cost.

First, there is the use of services, often public services. In this report this includes the criminal justice system (including the police), the health care system (including mental health), social services, housing and refuges, and civil legal services. This includes a wider range of services than has been included in previous studies of the cost of crime, in recognition of the special features of domestic violence.

Second, there is lost economic output as a result of the disruption of employment. This is a cost that is borne by both employers and the victim themselves, as well as having further effects on the economy as a whole that are not estimated here. Third, there is the human cost of pain and suffering. This is included, following Home Office practice in estimating the cost of crime, so as not to diminish the importance of this aspect of domestic violence. It is estimated on the basis of the public’s ‘willingness-to-pay’ to avoid pain and suffering in comparable circumstances.

The cost of domestic violence is partly borne by the state and the wider society, partly by the individual who suffers the violence, and partly by employers. The state bears the cost of most of the services, that is, £2.9 billion for the criminal justice system, health care, social services, emergency housing, and, through legal aid, civil legal services.

The individual victims suffer immense human and emotional costs as well as considerable income losses from lost employment, substantial civil legal costs and some costs associated with moving home and health care, amounting to around £19 billion. Lost economic output amounts to £2.7 billion, about half of which, £1.3 billion, is borne by employers.

The estimates may be conservative because there is insufficient data to enable reliable estimates to be made of some likely costs. A review of data collection and official statistics about the extent of domestic violence and about the associated use of public services is recommended. There is very little systematically collected information about the use of public services as a result of domestic violence and there is no commitment to collect reliable information on the extent of domestic violence on other than an ad hoc basis.

The demonstration of the scale of the impact of domestic violence on society by estimating its cost may enable a wider range of both policy-makers and the general public to understand the extent of the problem and the potential gains to all that could result from the reduction and elimination of domestic violence. This is consistent with the move towards evidence-based policymaking, and the development of transparent, comparable measures of the costs and benefits that flow from policy action and inaction. It shows the cost of inaction.

Further Information

Copies of the full report can be obtained from:

DTI Publications Orderline

ADMAIL 528

LONDON SW1W 8YT

T• 0870 150 2500

F• 0870 150 2333

E• publications@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Copies of the full report are also available on the Women and Equality Unit website, along with further information about the Unit.

www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk

Victims of child abusers are uniting to take on a judicial system that they claim repeatedly fails to give them justice, by mounting a growing number of challenges against what they see as lenient sentences.

In the past 20 months, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has been asked to review the penalties imposed on about 55 paedophiles and child sex offenders. According to figures collated by Phoenix Survivors, a campaign group which helps families to apply for sentencing reviews, one in three has resulted in jail terms being increased by the appeal court.

In the latest case, the attorney general is studying the decision by Judge Michael Roach to give a conditional discharge to Michael Barrett, 20, after he admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl he met in an internet chat room.

Judge Roach said the girl was a “willing participant” and had instigated sexual activity. He urged Barrett to behave himself in future.

Lord Goldsmith has also been asked to review as unduly lenient the four-and-a-half-year sentence given last Friday to Marc Lewis, a former tennis coach, for three counts of having sex with a 15-year-old protege and aiding and abetting two other men to have sex with her.

According to Ray Wyre, who treats sex offenders, recent cases in which children appear to have been regarded as consenting adults have been sending the wrong message.

“For the fixated paedophile, things seem to be going their way more and more,” he said. “These are people who have a website dedicated to their argument that relationships between adults and children should be decriminalised.

When a judge says a 12-year-old was a willing participant in sex, it must be seen in this context.”

The family of one teenage boy who successfully appealed against the six-month jail term given to his abuser told the Guardian that the judge’s decision in their case had added to their suffering.

The victim suffered a four-hour assault by Michael Webb, a 47-year-old football referee with the Berks and Bucks FA, who befriended him and his family for several months before the attack.

Webb eventually invited the 14-year-old to stay the night at his home in order to see a football match the next day, but subjected him to a serious sexual assault in his bedroom before the teenager managed to escape the house. Police found the boy wearing boxer shorts, a fleece and trainers, because Webb had hidden his clothes.

“I keep thinking how the alarm bells should have rung about this man,” the mother said. “But he wormed his way into our affections. He had two children of his own. I thought he seemed quite caring.

“My son was very small at the time - he was about the size of an 11-year-old. Webb was an extremely big man; he was overpowering. All the way through his ordeal, my son kept thinking of how he would escape. He told me later that’s what kept him going.”

The mother said there was little in the way of support for her son, who wrote of his despair in a letter to a friend: “My life is finished. He took my childhood away. I’ve got nothing left. Who will want to know me now after what’s happened? I live through it 24 hours a day. I wake up with it. I can still smell him each day.”

When she asked for counselling for her son, the mother was told there was a four-month waiting list to see a psychiatrist. “I had to pick up the pieces of my son - and believe me, I’m talking about pieces - with no support.

“He was writing emails to his friends talking about how his life was worth nothing, he was drinking heavily and threatening to harm himself, he wouldn’t go to school. He felt no one was believing him.”

But the boy was determined to give evidence at the trial.

“I wanted to make sure that everyone knew what he had done to me,” he said. “I wanted to be in court to show him that he hadn’t beaten me.”

But Webb pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in prison without any evidence from his victim.

“I was disgusted,” the boy said. “I wanted to see him punished partly out of vengeance for what he had done to me, but also because I didn’t want him to be able to do that to anyone else. I wanted to see justice done, and this just wasn’t justice.”

After being asked to review the case, the attorney general described the jail term as “unduly lenient” and referred it to the court of appeal, where Webb’s sentence was recently increased to two years.

Shy Keenan, a victim of child abuse who founded Phoenix Survivors, said the Sexual Offences Act which came into force last May had done much to toughen up sentencing, but attitudes within the judiciary still had to change.

“Sex with a child under 16 is supposed to be illegal whether you consent to it or not. What is happening is that some judges appear to behave as if children are complicit and consenting. It is this attitude and these kinds of sentences we are challenging.”

This article appeared in the Guardian on September 14, 2004. I am grateful to the Editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Editor

Tony Blair admitted on August 31 that the government’s crackdown on loutish behaviour on Britain’s streets has yet to reach the “critical mass” stage that persuades culprits that it no longer pays to be a nuisance.

During a visit to Harlow in Essex, the Prime Minister heard residents say that Labour’s anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOS) were having some effect on the quality of their lives - but not yet enough.

Confirming plentiful evidence that bad behaviour “ruins neighbourhoods” is a major issue for many voters, the Prime Minister admitted that “there remains much to do. But police and councils are using those powers. The public are coming together and the louts are on notice.”

Mr Blair admitted: “You cannot change a person into something else - let’s be realistic - but what has to happen is that the penalty they are paying for being a nuisance becomes more of a hassle for them than to stop being like that. We have to get to a critical mass, so people say it is no longer worth doing it.”

ASBOS, which ban people from a specific anti-social act for at least two years with criminal penalties if breached, got off to a slow start in 1999. But official figures published yesterday suggest that their use is rapidly rising.

In the Potter Street district of Harlow, a new town which has had its share of problems, the authorities claim that anti-social behaviour has fallen dramatically since they obtained seven ASBOS, 20 acceptable behaviour contracts, two injunctions and two dispersal orders against neighbourhood troublemakers.

One voter who had been abused and punched by a neighbour told Mr Blair that an ASBO had worked.

“My life was hell for two years but now I have got it back again,” she said.

A shopkeeper said that a dispersal order against unruly youths “seems to be working” but criticised slow police response times.

While Mr Blair found some people who support ASBOS the statistics don’t appear to bear out their optimism. The statistics show a 166% rise in violent crime in the Harlow area since 1999. The Prime Minister was probably aware of these statistics when he commented that the crackdown on hooligans has still to reach ‘critical mass’.

Despite the evidence to the contrary Mr Blair sees antisocial behaviour orders as a successful element of the government’s law and order strategy. Pollsters confirm that the government’s efforts to tackle bad behaviour have been popular with voters, especially in poorer areas. This explains Mr Blair’s enthusiasm for ASBOs.

Home Office figures released on August 31 showed that 2,455 ASBOS have been issued since 1999, 1,323 in the year up to March - including 422 in Manchester, 59 in Liverpool and 122 in Leeds.

The use of ASBOs is patchy across Britain. Mr Blair and the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, are keen to persuade more local authorities to go to court and obtain ASBOS against disruptive adults and youngsters, and to do so more often.

In a speech on August 31 the Prime Minister announced that Home Office experts - dubbed “ASBO ambassadors” - will be dispatched to encourage reluctant local authorities to deploy the orders against so-called yobs. The Home Secretary hopes that the use of ASBOs will bring about a 15% drop in bad behaviour by 2008.

Manchester clearly leads the field in the issuing of ASBOs. 40% of the 422 Orders have been made against teenagers and 60% against adults, many of them young men in their 20s. Councillors are proud to announce that ASBOs have helped to bring order back to some of the city’s estates. However, they produce no evidence to show that the overall level of crime is down.

Tony Blair and David Blunkett like what they are doing. Bill Pitt, head of Manchester’s nuisance strategy team, has been seconded to the Home Office to become an anti-social behaviour “ambassador” to encourage other towns to follow Manchester’s lead.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary refuse to listen to the evidence that simply issuing ASBOS is not the answer to chronic levels of crime and disorder. Tony Blair is right when he says: “ASBOs have yet to beat the louts”. All of the evidence indicates that they wont! The Prime Minister also notes: “You cannot change a person into something else - let’s be realistic”. He is correct there also. An individual will only change when he or she wishes to do it themselves. And, let’s be realistic, the evidence suggests that the issuing of ASBOs is not the way to do it.

According to Craig Morrison (see next article) the most high-profile element of the ASBOS: allowing youngsters to have their name and photo emblazoned across the posters and local papers for minor offences, could well do more harm than good. They call it ‘name and shame’ but, believe me, the ASBO is more likely to be seen as ‘name and fame’ to the aspiring lout.

It was good to see the Prime Minister hit the ground running on his first week back from holiday as he set about tackling the problem of unruly behaviour among sections of the nation’s youth.

Throughout the country people see anti-social behaviour as a blight on their communities and Tony Blair is right to address people’s worries.

But I know that Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS) are not the answer. The most high-profile element of the ASBOS: allowing youngsters to have their name and photo emblazoned across the posters and local papers for minor offences, could well do more harm than good. They call it ‘name and shame’ but, believe me, the ASBO is more likely to be seen as ‘name and fame’ to the aspiring lout.

Why am I so sure? I speak from experience as an accomplished student of the school of juvenile delinquency. From there I graduated easily to the college of criminality and a number of custodial sentences. So I know what I’m talking about. I look at each new crime initiative with interest wondering if it would have worked for me. This one would not have deterred me at all.

Had the ASBO concept been around at the time I was offending, I would have undoubtedly wanted to earn one to show off to my friends, just as most children enjoy displaying their better-than-expected GCSE results.

My equally anti-social associates - green with envy- would have given me a pat on the back for my accomplishment before setting off for a bit of skulduggery themselves, in a bid to match or better my achievement.

I have no doubt that for many young people aspiring to a life of crime, the ASBO has become another rite of passage towards adult imprisonment along with police cautions, and time at a secure unit or a young offenders’ institutions.

Sadly, it may give children who have trouble fitting in a way of winning the admiration of their peers. The poor or scruffy or daft child has always been a target for bullies, but not if he or she can be naughtier, not if they can be ‘named and famed’.

I know the ASBO is a civil measure - that the criminal offence only happens after an ASBO is breached. We won’t be branding these young people as criminals, just anti-social. But I know from personal experience that once you are labelled you become resentful. And resentment can be quickly followed by defiance and misplaced pride.

As in other areas of life, you are only as good as your last accomplishment, so in order to get the accolades of your peers, you must continue to produce the goods. Once on that road, it’s easy to get lost, as I found to my bitter cost .

In my experience the only boys in my crowd who would have been deterred by an ASBO are those who would go home to a savage beating at the hands of a bullying parent.

I don’t have the answer, but I know the ASBO quick fix will not work. My own turning point came when someone pointed out that other kids from a background similar to mine - the sort currently on the ASBO hit list - might be looking to me as some sort of role model. Until then, I’d had a lifetime of being named and shamed and told publicly and privately just how bad I was.

By that time I was in my mid-twenties and serving a seven-year sentence at Wormwood Scrubs. Someone had the inspired idea to get me working at a special unit there with disruptive children - exactly the sort of young people who now receive ASBOS.

I was in a better position than any authority figure to tell them what really lay ahead for them, without labelling them ‘anti-social’ or anything else. And it made me feel I was doing something positive for the first time in my life. That unit has now, tragically, closed down because it was judged too expensive.

My chance came because I happened to be in one of the few places within the penal system where instead of dehumanising you, they treated and spoke to inmates as fellow men.

Finally, someone had made an effort to treat me like a fellow human being. I started acting like one.

This article appeared in the Observer on September 05, 2004. I am grateful to the Editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Editor

This week’s epic prison figures (March 10, 2004) symbolise what the government is getting so wrong. It’s not just the populist cowardice in letting prison numbers soar despite knowing it does more harm than good. No, this is another sign of Labour’s utter ineptitude in getting across its best messages.

By refusing to promote an honest “What Works” law-and-order debate, it keeps running ever faster up the down escalators. It is why no one knows one of Labour’s best statistics: crime has fallen by 25%. Is it surprising that polls still find people think it’s rising when all they hear from ministers is for tough new measures? David Blunkett’s taste for new eye-catching punishments is the reason why everyone thinks he must be losing the crime war.

Prison numbers reached 75,191 this week - 20% up since Labour came to power - and still rising. If crime is falling, does that show prison works? Not at all. Home Office research shows that every 15% increase in incarceration reduces crime by only 1%. So this 25% crime reduction would have needed a 375% increase in the prison population.

Optimists wonder if the prison population is rising because the police are better at catching criminals than before. Alas, no. Still only some 3% of crimes are ever brought to court. More police on the street do make citizens happier - which is the proper aim of politics - but the police are not catching more criminals. On the contrary, more crimes are reported and the crime rate can appear to rise with more calls for “bobbies on the beat”.

So why are prison numbers rising? Because judges and magistrates give ever longer sentences: they deny it, yet they send 10 times more shoplifters to jail than a decade ago. Why? Because they get mixed messages from government and a daily bellow from the media. Any judge who wants a quiet life does better to err on the side of long sentences than risk the wrath of the press.

The government does not want more people in prison: it promises to cap numbers at 80,000 - hardly progress. It has set up, under Lord Woolf, a new sentencing guideline council, which met for the first time last week to set better tariffs: judges hand out wildly differing sentences. The government is not short of its own research showing what works, with good community sentences on offer - but it doesn’t keep telling the people and the judges about those. Few hear of the great good done by 8 million hours a year of unpaid community service. Charity shops would collapse without that work.

I met an organiser of a holiday home for terminally ill children who depended on the work of people on community service orders. London’s riverside has been restored by them: it should be popular. And they have a 70% non-reoffending rate. Judges and the press need to hear politicians praise all this community reparation. But they never do.

Instead, last week Blair boasted at prime minister’s questions that the number of first-time burglars sent to jail had risen under Labour. Former home secretary Michael Howard caused alarm with his “three strikes and you’re out” for burglars. Here comes the Labour PM boasting about one-strike sentencing.

Prison costs £37,000 a year per head. The Audit Commission in January criticised this waste, with a hard financial calculation of the money misspent by the time a teenager gets sent to prison. The commission estimated that spending £42,000 on early interventions from birth through adolescence would spare £153,000 on subsequent incarceration.

This is not the view of lily-livered do-gooders: this comes from the official body that audits local government. Adding up what help a dysfunctional family could (but rarely does) get, they began with Sure Start, parenting support, language therapy, educational psychology, anger management and a learning support assistant. All that prevention would still save well over £100,000.

The government needs no telling. Its youth offending teams are doing well, pulling together probation, health, education, police and social workers to devise personal plans for out-of-control young criminals. Some 8,000 heavy-duty young offenders have been diverted from prison to an intensive support and surveillance programme (ISSP). Mostly on electronic tags to enforce a curfew, these young offenders get 25 hours a week of education and intensive work with an array of drug and alcohol treatments, and psychological support. Soon the first evaluation of ISSPs is expected to show a marked reduction in crime and the seriousness of crimes committed afterwards - far better results than prison gets.

Six months on, an ISSP costs £8,500, compared with six months in a young offender institution, which costs £21,000. Much against their will, three-quarters of the Youth Justice Board money goes on incarceration ordered by the courts. That leaves a strictly limited amount of money to create more ISSP places and a still graver shortage of residential drug treatment places. This is the economics of madness.

ISSPs should now be made available to most non-dangerous criminals of all ages, instead of filling up jails with illiterate drug addicts and those from care - the state’s own failed children denied intensive help when they most needed it. With prisons now at 8,000 higher than official capacity levels - the criteria were hastily changed this week - overcrowding means inmates get little drug treatment or education worth the name, shunted round the country, disrupting what few programmes and home contacts they have.

Gordon Brown has tough choices to make over his comprehensive spending review this July: tight money, hard priorities. His 130 public service agreements demand departments hit targets to qualify for their money. He might enjoy meting out stern discipline to his old adversary David Blunkett. He should order him to reduce the prison population to 1997 levels and send the non-dangerous of all ages on to ISSPs. Do as Douglas Hurd did and release petty offenders to show the judges they are over-sentencing. Impose a new Home Office golden rule: never let the prison population rise again unless more violent criminals are being caught. Spend all the wasted money where it works - or lose it to the education department, which will spend it better.

Meanwhile, Blair and Blunkett continue their destructive twin-track agenda: tough talk in public while pursuing some excellent community programmes in semi-secret. This is not only a cynical dereliction in leadership; it leads the public to assume crime must be far worse than it is. It’s time to tell the good news: crime is falling, prevention works. Rob Allen, of Rethinking Crime and Justice, has collated recent polls that show people are ahead of the tabloids: only one in 10 thinks prison works.

This article appeared in the Guardian on March 10, 2004. I am grateful to the Editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Editor

Luke is nine years old, small for his age and delicate with a heart-shaped, pale face and shy smile. For all his apparent sweetness, however, Luke has an 80 per cent chance of becoming a violent criminal, destined to waste his adult years in prisons after a youth spent wreaking havoc on his community, tearing his family apart in the process.

Luke is one of the first children to be targeted by a new scheme about to be extended across Britain. Scoring children aged from eight to 13 against a hit-list of risk factors, the Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) believe they can pinpoint children likely to be heavily involved in crime by the time they reach adulthood, even if they have yet to commit a single offence.

This bleak prediction is based in Luke’s case on his fulfilling at least six categories on a nine-point checklist, including persistent antisocial behaviour, a disruptive attitude at school, being excluded from class and having a mother unable to curb his rudeness, aggression and violent tantrums.

‘The scheme is not rocket science, nor is it ethically questionable; just ask a local school or police station if they can identify the children at most risk of becoming serious criminals and they will have no trouble,’ said Bob Ashford, Head of Prevention for the Youth Justice Board.

‘In the past, local agencies have worked in such a fragmented way that children who have not yet committed a crime have slipped through the net. But it has been proved beyond any doubt that if children aged from eight to 13 slip into crime, there is an appallingly high likelihood of them going on to become persistent or violent adult offenders.’

The best way of preventing this, Ashford believes, is early intervention. With £70,000 funding from the Children’s Panel, YISPs identify children with behaviours that could lead them to offend and involves a wide range of agencies from social services to sport clubs, to help divert them from the path.

Three months ago, Luke and his family were identified as being at risk by Nottingham’s YISP, the first pilot project in Britain, set up two years before the rest of the 91 trial panels.

‘I know that, without the support we’ve received in the last three months, Luke would have ended up in prison, having almost certainly hurt someone very badly in the process,’ says Carole, Luke’s mother. ‘I’ve been trying to get social services to take him seriously since he was four, and have watched his behaviour get worse and more out of control. But they said they couldn’t do anything until he committed a serious crime. My arguments for preventing Luke getting to that stage were ignored.’

The impact of Luke’s behaviour on the rest of his family has been harsh: his 12-year-old brother, Jonathan, found living with Luke so disturbing that he attempted suicide last year, while the local authority, fed up with complaints from the family’s neighbours, were on the verge of evicting them.

‘I felt like I was clinging on by my fingertips to my family because, without the help I needed, I could see it all rushing towards some terrible end,’ Carole said.

YISPs are still so new that only Nottingham has completed any in-depth research. Their survey, however, found such an impressive level of success that, added to favourable reports from other pilot projects, 286 more panels are to be set up later this year.

According to their research, 79 per cent of children referred to Nottingham’s panel had managed to avoid crime and anti-social activities when reviewed three months after their case had been closed. Of the 14 children on permanent or fixed-term school exclusion when they were referred to the panel, just two remained on fixed-term exclusions and none was permanently excluded.

Evidence that Nottingham’s panel is contributing towards a wider reduction in offending and offences committed by children is also growing, with the number of young offenders falling from 1,872 in 2000 to 1,459 in 2002, the latest figures available.

‘Luke hasn’t been excluded from school since the scheme began, which has meant I have been able to start working again,’ Carole added.

However, there are fears that the panels stigmatise children and families, and questions over the ethics of bringing children who have not committed a crime into the criminal justice system.

‘It’s a very blinkered, superficial approach,’ said Sharon Moore, from the Children’s Society. ‘By labelling these children as future criminals, you’re putting them into a box that could become predictive. I fear the long-term results.’

This article appeared in the Observer on May 02, 2004. I am grateful to the Editor for permission to reproduce it here.

Editor

NIYFJA AGM: Opening Address

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

The total cost of domestic violence for the state, employers and victims