Youth justice reform in the ‘big society’

Abstract

This article examines some of the recent changes to youth justice, focusing in particular on the impact of the government's social justice and public sector reform programme upon those developments. The analysis is conducted within a children's rights framework; one which considers how well the reforms protect the criminal justice rights of the child (as articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and whether they promote government accountability to this vulnerable group of children. Given the government's emphasis on the importance of communities and on the renewal of democratic accountability, the article concludes with a discussion of the relationship between the public sector reforms, children's citizenship, and the reciprocity necessary in criminal responsibility.

Keywords:

• youth justice
• big society
• children's rights
• citizenship

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Raymond Arthur, Kevin J Brown, Richard Collier, Jenny Johnstone and Aoife Nolan for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Notes

1. There are differences between the two parties to the Coalition in terms of political and economic priorities, on which see the respective manifestoes prior to the election in 2010 (Liberal Democrat 2010, Conservative Party 2010).

2. R v. Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary and another, ex parte L (a minor) [1993] 1 All ER 756. Although on conditional cautions see R (on the Application of Guest) v. DPP) [2009] EWHC 594 (Admin), [2009] 2 Cr App R 26.

3. Only the legislative provision relating to the introduction of a code of practice on conditional cautions has been brought into force. The Youth Conditional Caution has however, been piloted for 16- to 17-year-olds in five areas. See the discussion in committee stage of the Legal Aid Bill (Committee Debate, Eighteenth Sitting, 13 October 2011, col. 802).

4. The ‘court ordered secure remand’ applies for girls aged 12–16, boys aged 12–14 and vulnerable boys aged 15–16 for whom a place is available (where the child is placed in a local authority children's home or a secure training centre and acquires the status of looked after child); and remand to custody (a YOI) is used for all other 15- to 16-year-olds boys.

5. For example, the YJB's decision to de-commission criminal justice beds in secure children's homes (the subject of an unsuccessful judicial review in R (on the application of Secure Services Ltd and others) v. Youth Justice Board [2009] EWHC 2347 (admin)) may have proved premature in light of the spike in the child custody figures post riots (which increased by 8.2% in the space of two weeks; or in real numbers from 2104 to 2265. See Crispin Blunt's response to the written question from Andrew Slaughter MP on 9 September 2011, HC Debs 837 W–838 W); and the YJB's most recent proposed Strategy for the Secure Estate drops its previous commitment to placing children within 50 miles of their home (Ministry of Justice/YJB 2011), downgrading the importance accorded to the child's right to enjoy her family life.

6. For many children involved in criminal justice processes, the lack of enjoyment of political citizenship activities goes beyond participation in electoral processes. Sloam notes that ‘[e]conomic and social marginalisation provides a major barrier for youth participation in democracy – people do not engage if they do not feel they have a stake in society’ (2011b, p. 95).

7. An approach which, in the words of Aranella (1991, p. 1533) ‘allows us to sooth over our collective conscience – if the individual is morally to blame we are not, even if we failed to assist her overcoming her bad luck which resulted in the criminal behaviour’.

8. The opportunities that are being made available as part of the ‘Big Society’ are unlikely to be enjoyed by those who are socially and economically excluded (Sloam 2011b).