Youth courts need urgent reform, finds inquiry

The inquiry, chaired by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, found that once children enter the criminal justice system, courts “do not possess the means to address their needs”.

The probe, which launched last September, criticises a lack of specialist professionals throughout the youth justice system, with legal practitioners and the judiciary both coming under fire for insufficient training on recognising young offenders’ needs and knowledge on youth court law.

And it also identifies a lack of consensus in the legal profession on the core purpose of the youth court – with “conflicting emphasis” placed on preventing youth offending, considering the welfare needs of the child, and achieving justice among individual legal practitioners.

Lord Carlile said that although much good practice has developed over the years in relation to crime committed by children, the youth justice system is “far from being fit for purpose”.  
“Too often children are being left to flounder in court with little understanding of what is happening to them,” he said.

“Nowhere is this disengagement and lack of comprehension more obvious than in the Crown Court.

“Even with determined special measures to make the court more child-friendly, there is strong evidence that an appearance in the Crown Court for a child is a negative and terrifying experience.”

The inquiry calls for under-18s to always be dealt with in youth court rather than Crown Court, as well as for the introduction of a system to ensure there is always a senior youth magistrate or youth-ticketed district judge available in adult magistrates’ courts if a youth court is not in session.

In addition it recommends that all legal practitioners representing children at a police station or court to be suitably accredited, and calls for criminal records to be wiped clean at the age of 18 for children who haven’t committed a serious or violent offence.

It also suggests that “problem-solving conferences”, that attempt to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, should be piloted as an alternative to traditional youth courts for under-16s.

The conferences would place greater emphasis on involving victims, families and wider support services, in order to address the harm caused by the offence, as well as its underlying causes.

Enver Solomon, director of evidence and impact at the National Children’s Bureau, which provided the secretariat for the inquiry, said the report sets out important reforms that must be taken forward.

“It merits urgent attention by all political parties to bring forward new approaches that are well evidenced and will deliver far better outcomes for child defendants, victims and their families,” he said.

Lord McNally, chair of the Youth Justice Board, said that the combined efforts of the YJB and the youth justice system to divert children and young people from crime and address the causes of their offending behaviour have resulted in the number of first-time entrants to the system dropping dramatically in recent years.

“Those that remain in the system have complex needs and are, on balance, more challenging to work with,” he said.

“This means that it is important for the system to meet their needs to stop them reoffending.

“I particularly welcome the recommendation that legal practitioners who represent children and young people should receive appropriate training, and agree that the closer involvement of children's services with looked-after children in the youth justice system, particularly at court, is to be encouraged.”

Penelope Gibbs, chair of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ), said that the suicide of a teenager just after she appeared in an adult court highlights how “alienating and disturbing” the experience can be for young people.

“As this report sets-out, adult courts, whether presided over by magistrates or Crown Court judges, are particularly unfit to deal with children's needs,” she said.

“However, even the youth court is in many ways unsuitable for children - it is staffed by lawyers who sometimes have no specialist training, and by magistrates who sit on youth cases infrequently. It too needs reform.”

The inquiry panel was made up of MPs and peers across all three main political parties.