THE HAMILTON SHERIFF YOUTH COURT PILOT: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
A pilot Youth Court was introduced in Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003. It is targeted on alleged offenders aged 16 and 17 (and appropriate 15 year olds) who are resident in North or South Lanarkshire, have had three separate incidents of offending in the previous six months resulting in a criminal charge and are appearing summarily before Hamilton Sheriff Court. There is also flexibility for cases to be considered where the young person's contextual background and circumstances suggest that a referral would be appropriate to enhance community safety and reduce the risk of re-offending.
The objectives of the pilot Youth Court are to:
- reduce the frequency and seriousness of offending by 16 and 17 year olds (and some 15 year olds) through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement
- promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of the young offenders while maximising their potential
- establish fast-track procedures for those young offenders appearing before the Youth Court
- enhance community safety by reducing the harm caused to victims of crime and provide respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime
- examine the viability and effectiveness of existing legislation in servicing a Youth Court and to identify whether legislative and other changes may be required.
Distinctive features of the Youth Court in terms of personnel and management include:
- four of the nine sheriffs at Hamilton Sheriff Court sit in the Youth Court
- a Youth Court Implementation Group (chaired by a sheriff and consisting of representatives of agencies with a role in the court) reviews the operation of the court
- a full-time Youth Court co-ordinator has been appointed to service the Implementation Group and to co-ordinate practice across the relevant agencies
- additional court resources include a sheriff clerk and two Procurators Fiscal
- in South Lanarkshire, a dedicated youth justice social work team provides a service to the Youth Court and to local area teams, whilst in North Lanarkshire, dedicated Youth Court social workers are located throughout the authority's social work teams.
A research team at the University of Stirling was commissioned to undertake a two-year evaluation of the Youth Court pilot. This report presents the findings from a formative/process study of the first six months of operation of the pilot Youth Court to identify any changes that might be required to enhance its operation. The next phase of the evaluation will examine the impact of the Youth Court on sentencing practice, and its effectiveness in reducing offending and related problems and in promoting the social inclusion of young people.
The research methods employed included: interviews with sheriffs and representatives of key agencies associated with the Youth Court; scrutiny of documentary and statistical material; analysis of case data; and observation of the Youth Court in action.
Referral Criteria
There appeared to be broad agreement that the criteria for referral were appropriate although several respondents indicated that in some circumstances it might be appropriate to consider young people on solemn procedure who might benefit from the range and intensity of services available in the Youth Court.
Concerns were raised that the criteria were being used differently by different agencies. In particular, the issue of contextual background and circumstances could be interpreted in different ways. While there was a recognition amongst agencies that flexibility and the use of discretion were important, it was noted that there was some ambiguity in criteria relating to 'persistent offending' (which relates to alleged offending rather than convictions) and 'seriousness'. These issues were being addressed by the Implementation Group which monitors the implementation and operation of the Youth Court.
Referrals
There was a general view shared across all professional groups that 15 year olds should only be referred in exceptional circumstances (only one case had appeared and advice had been sought from the Children's Panel on 3 occasions). Procedures for dealing with those aged 15 were viewed as appropriate and the communication between the Procurator Fiscal and Reporter was considered to be constructive and effective.
Despite concerns about the risk of 'net-widening', there was little evidence that the Youth Court was drawing in young people who would not otherwise have appeared in the sheriff court summarily.
Between June and December 2003 a total of 147 referrals involving 120 young people were made to the Youth Court. The majority of referrals were male (95%) and most were aged 16 (31%) or 17 (51%), most of the remainder being older co-accused. In just under two thirds of cases (64%) the young person appeared from custody, while 30 per cent appeared on an undertaking and six per cent appeared on citation.
Fast Tracking
Youth Court procedures and processes in relation to referral appeared to be working effectively, particularly the fast-track process which ensured that young people were dealt with in the Youth Court in a timely manner. (The procedures state that young people should make their first appearance in court within 10 days (exceptionally 14) from the date of the charge.)
Fast-tracking following referral was viewed to be working well, assisted by a range of factors including: the high proportion of pleas in the early stages; the rolling up of charges under one complaint which encourages plea-bargaining and consequently fewer trials; trials being assigned more quickly; and fewer motions for adjournments.
Sentencing in the Youth Court
Procedures and practices relating to sentencing appeared to operate relatively well at this stage in the operation of the Youth Court. Social enquiry reports were viewed positively and the assessment and detail of information provided was considered to make an important contribution to the court process. The introduction of additional interventions to meet the needs of young people, was welcomed.
The opportunity to include electronically monitored curfews as a condition of bail was welcomed by sheriffs as an alternative to remand in custody, though the provision had not yet been used extensively. It was seen as useful in ensuring that the relevant authorities were aware of the location of the accused while they awaited their next court appearance and in addressing community concerns about young people involved in offending and 'nuisance behaviour'.
Between June and December 2003, a total of 65 individuals were sentenced in the Youth Court, with deferred sentences being passed in a further 35 cases and seven young people being found not guilty or having a plea of not guilty accepted. Thirty-eight young people were made subject to probation orders, thirteen of which included a restriction of liberty order (RLO) with electronic monitoring. RLOs were imposed in three other cases. Curfews were most often imposed overnight, with some tailoring to accommodate young people's circumstances. A community service order was imposed on 12 young people and one was given a custodial sentence.
Review Hearings
Youth Court sheriffs can determine whether there should be regular review hearings to provide judicial oversight of the young offender's response to some community supervision orders. Review Hearings elicited a mixed response from sheriffs and Youth Court professionals in terms of their purpose and procedures. Concerns were expressed about a lack of clarity about certain aspects of the review process, confidentiality and dealing with sensitive material in open court and these issues were being reviewed by the Implementation Group. However, respondents considered that review hearings encouraged young people to be accountable for their behaviour and provided a motivating factor for changing behaviour.
Services Provision
A range of services were already in place or were being developed to support young people and reduce the risk of re-offending. Youth Court professionals were generally satisfied with the range of available resources and restorative justice was viewed as a positive area of development. Concerns had been expressed about the lack of supported accommodation and mental health services for those aged 16 to 18.
Resources were viewed as sufficient in relation to the number of young people being processed through the Youth Court, indeed it was suggested that the expected number of young persistent offenders had been over-estimated. Increases in the number of referrals and the use made of available resources were being kept under review.
Multi-agency approach
The multi-agency approach of the Youth Court was working well. The Youth Court Implementation Group, consisting of key stakeholders involved in the operation of the court, provided a useful forum for identifying and monitoring a range of administrative and managerial issues relating to the operation of the Youth Court, training and the development of inter-agency partnerships. Effective systems had been established for inter-agency communication and the role of the co-ordinator was viewed as important in responding to any difficulties that arose between agencies.
A two-day inter-agency training course was provided to all those professionals who were involved in the operation of the Youth Court.
Conclusions
This report has examined the processes involved in the first six months of operation of the Hamilton Youth Court with the aim of identifying any changes that might be required to enhance its operation. Most of the early concerns have been or are being addressed by the Implementation Group or the Youth Court co-ordinator.
Overall, respondents considered that the early phase of the pilot was working effectively. Aspects of the Youth Court which were perceived to be most effective included:
- clarity among the participating agencies as regards their respective roles
- establishment of effective protocols for multi-agency working
- fast-tracking of cases to and through the court
- rolling up of charges under one complaint which encourages plea-bargaining
- a reduction in the number of trials and adjournments
- provision of personnel assigned and dedicated to the Youth Court
- provision of a wide range of community programmes for young offenders.
The final phase of the evaluation will continue to generate information on Youth Court processes and will also examine: the influence of the Youth Court on sentencing practice; its effectiveness on reducing offending and related problems; its effectiveness in promoting the social inclusion of young people; and cost-effectiveness of the Youth Court model.