July 2011

Youth DiversionA thematic inspection of youth diversion in the

criminal justice system in Northern Ireland

i

Youth DiversionA thematic inspection of youth diversion in thecriminal justice system in Northern Ireland

July 2011

Laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under Section 49(2) of theJustice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, (as amended by paragraph 7(2) ofSchedule 13 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policingand Justice Functions) Order 2010) by the Department of Justice.

ii

iii

Contents

List of abbreviations iv

Chief Inspector’s Foreword v

Executive Summary vi

Recommendations viii

SECTION 1: Inspection Report

Chapter 1 Introduction 3

Chapter 2 A holistic approach? 7

Chapter 3 Diversionary options 11

Chapter 4 Operational practice 17

Chapter 5 Outcomes 25

SECTION 2: Appendices

Appendix 1 Methodology 30

Appendix 2 Terms of Reference 34

iv

List of abbreviations

CJI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland

EQIA Equality Impact Assessment

JJC Juvenile Justice Centre

NI Northern Ireland

NIAO Northern Ireland Audit Office

PBNI Probation Board for Northern Ireland

PPS Public Prosecution Service

PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland

PYOP Priority Young Offenders Project

UK United Kingdom

YCS Youth Conference Service

YDO Youth Diversion Officer (in police)

YJA Youth Justice Agency

YOC Young Offenders Centre

v

Chief Inspector’s Foreword

Youth diversion in Northern Ireland is an important element in the overall approach to youthjustice. Preventing young people from becoming involved in offending behaviour, or divertingthem away from the formal justice system is not just an issue for the criminal justice system butone for the whole of society. It also involves a wide range of Government departments includingEducation, Health and Social Services.

This inspection examined the role of the criminal justice agencies in dealing with young peoplewho have offended and who meet the criteria for diversion as an alternative to prosecution.

In Northern Ireland a lower proportion of young people under 18 convicted of committingcrimes receive custodial sentences in comparison with England and Wales.

The inspection found that criminal justice agencies were using restorative practice as the principalmeans of avoiding criminalising young people early in their lives. Youth diversion based onrestorative practices is well embedded in policing principles through the system of informedwarnings and restorative cautions. The Youth Justice Agency (YJA) takes the lead in restorativepractice and the Youth Conference Service (YCS) is well established and has gained internationalrepute. The appointment of specialist youth prosecutors by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS)should help to ensure that decisions taken about the method of disposal are done so withcognizance to all relevant issues.

However, to deliver the best outcomes for young people as regards offending behaviour, thereneeds to be a co-ordination of effort across departments. There should be cross-departmentalgovernance of the justice element of the 10-year Strategy for Children and Young People toachieve better buy-in and co-ordination of effort. The strategy should also be used to routinelydraw together the justice agencies and other relevant public sector organisations as part of anoverall approach. We will be returning to this theme in our forthcoming inspection of YouthInterventions.

This inspection was led by William Priestley and Rachel Lindsay and I would like to thank allthose who contributed to this exercise.

Dr Michael MaguireChief Inspector of Criminal Justicein Northern IrelandJuly 2011

vi

Executive Summary

Introduction

With around one quarter of the population under the age of 18 and around 200,000 youngpeople between the ages of 10 and 17, the approach to youth diversion in Northern Ireland is animportant element of the overall approach to youth justice. Young people who have becomeinvolved in crime need to be encouraged to desist from further criminal behaviour and deserveto be supported in striving to reduce the factors that increase the risk of them committingfurther offences.

Diverting young people away from criminal behaviour requires a joint and co-ordinated effort byall the relevant justice agencies. It also involves those agencies such as Social Services, Healthand Education that can make a difference in helping to sustain and support young people inmaking a positive contribution to society.

In Northern Ireland a lower proportion of young people under 18 convicted of committingcrimes receive custodial sentences in comparison with England and Wales, where over the lastthree years, an average of between 3% to 5% of offences committed by young people broughtto justice result in a custodial sentence. In Northern Ireland on average around 1% of crimescommitted by young people that are brought to justice result in a sentence of detention.

Overall findings

The approach to youth justice in Northern Ireland is one based largely on restorative practice,avoiding criminalising young people early in their lives and aimed at enabling young people tobecome effective members of society. Youth diversion based on restorative practices is wellembedded in policing principles through the system of informed warnings and restorativecautions. The Youth Justice Agency (YJA) takes the lead in restorative practice and the YouthConference Service (YCS) is well-established and has gained international repute. Theappointment of specialist youth prosecutors by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) should helpto ensure that decisions taken about the method of disposal are done so with cognizance to allrelevant issues. The voluntary and community sector are important contributors to youthdiversion whether through interaction with statutory agencies or by provision of programmeswithin the youth community.

There needs to be some fine tuning to ensure that the most appropriate method of diversion isapplied in each case to ensure the best outcome for the young person and for society. The goalshould be to ensure that each diversionary option receives only those referrals that it is capableof dealing with in the best interests of the young people, with the ultimate aim of enabling andsupporting them to desist from future criminal behaviour.

The age of criminal responsibility is a factor in directing very young people into the justice systemdespite the general diversionary approach of the system in Northern Ireland. Young people come

vii

into the justice system from the age of 10 onwards as opposed to 12 in Scotland and an averageof 14 or 15 across other European jurisdictions. In terms of international obligations, thiscomparatively low age of criminal responsibility has been the subject of negative comment by theEuropean Commissioner for Human Rights. The terms of reference for the review of the YouthJustice System in Northern Ireland announced by the Justice Minister on 1 November 2010 statethat ‘The review will give particular regard to the statutory aims of the youth justice system, internationalobligations in this area...’. Inspectors recommend that inclusion of the age of criminal responsibilityas part of this review would be useful and timely.

The 10-year Children and Young Persons Strategy published by the Office of the First Ministerand Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has the potential to integrate the approaches to youthdiversion to address the main contributory factors to youth offending and re-offending. However,to deliver the best outcomes for young people as regards offending behaviour, there needs to bea co-ordination of effort across departments. There should be cross-departmental governance ofthe justice element of the 10-year Strategy for Children and Young People to achieve better buy-in and co-ordination of effort. The Strategy should also be used to routinely draw together thejustice agencies and other relevant public sector organisations as part of an overall approach.

The re-introduction of ‘police discretion’ whereby low level unsociable behaviour can beaddressed at the time by police officers without recourse to the formal justice system is alsogenerally positive. It helps to avoid early criminalisation of young people who may never come tothe notice of the justice system again. There are aspects of this approach that need carefulmonitoring such as the recording and provision of information to specialist police officers so thatinformed decisions about young persons’ subsequent behaviour can be made with the aim ofproviding them with the best chance of avoiding re-offending.

‘Speedy justice’ is generally regarded as positive for young people who are developing and changingquickly during adolescence and therefore require timely interventions. However, it is important toretain expertise and knowledge within the system so that informed decisions can be made as tothe most appropriate method of disposal and that cautions can continue to be delivered with thenecessary restorative element. The delivery of ‘speedy justice’ needs to be monitored to ensurethat decisions and subsequent warnings and cautions are not delivered with undue haste andthat they are always delivered by suitably trained staff to maintain their quality and impact.

Young people from a looked-after care background are over-represented in the justice system.Young people in such situations should be accorded the same sort of leeway as they wouldexperience in a family environment where prosecution or reporting is not the first option inresponse to offending behaviour. Some family support panels had introduced elements ofrestorative practice as a first instance when dealing with young people in homes rather thancalling the police as the first option. The situation of these children needs to be monitored toestablish whether they are receiving equitable treatment as regards diversionary options.

Diversionary disposals are not criminal convictions and should not be disclosed as such. Therehad been instances of disclosure of diversionary disposals to the potential disadvantage of youngpersons during vetting procedures prior to employment.

viii

Strategic recommendations

• Inspectors recommend that the issue of the age of criminal responsibility should be included inthe review of the Youth Justice System which originated as part of the Hillsborough Agreementin February 2010 (paragraph 2.5).

• Inspectors recommend that there should be cross-departmental governance of the justiceelement of the 10-year Strategy for Children and Young People to achieve better buy-in andco-ordination of effort (paragraph 2.8).

• Better use of the 10-year Strategy for Children and Young People to routinely draw togetherthe justice agencies and other relevant public sector organisations should be consideredas part of the comprehensive review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland(paragraph 4.11).

Operational recommendations

• Inspectors recommend that the police discretion initiative is closely monitored with regardto offending behaviour by young people to ensure that information is recorded and madeavailable to Youth Diversion Officers and deciding prosecutors as appropriate in the event ofany further misdemeanours (paragraph 4.13).

• Inspectors recommend that the PSNI widens the scope of its equality impact assessmentof the youth diversion scheme and that any anomalies are closely examined and mitigatedto ensure the continued fair application of the scheme across all section 75 categories(paragraph 4.14).

• Inspectors recommend that the ‘speedy justice’ initiative is closely monitored by the PSNI andthe PPS with regard to offending behaviour by young people to ensure that decisions are notmade with undue haste and that the quality and impact of warnings and cautions is maintained(paragraph 4.19).

• There should be careful future monitoring of the proportion of ‘looked-after/cared for’children in the justice system to establish whether they are receiving equitable treatment asregards diversionary options (paragraph 4.21).

Recommendations

Inspection Report

1Section

1

2

3

1.1 When the newspapers have gotnothing else to talk about, theycut loose on the young. The youngare always news. If they are up tosomething, that’s news. If they aren’t,that’s news too. Kenneth Rexroth.

Around one quarter of the populationof Northern Ireland (NI) is made up ofpeople under the age of 18 and thereare around 200,000 young peoplebetween the ages of 10 and 17. Theapproach to youth offending differsacross the United Kingdom (UK) asdoes the outcomes for young peopleprogressing through the various youthjustice systems. In England and Wales,between 3% and 5% of offencescommitted by young people brought tojustice result in a custodial sentence.In NI on average just below 1% ofcrimes committed by young people thatare brought to justice result in asentence of detention at the JuvenileJustice Centre (JJC) or Hydebank WoodYoung Offenders Centre (YOC), whilstin Scotland, there are no prisoncustodial places for children up to theage of 16.

1.2 Preventing young people from becominginvolved in offending behaviour, ordiverting them away from the formaljustice system is not just an issue for thecriminal justice system but one for the

Introduction

CHAPTER 1:

whole of society. It also involves awide range of Government departmentsincluding Education, Health and SocialServices. Many research articles pointout that offending behaviour by youngpeople is directly linked to many factors,some of which are poverty, socio-economic status and peer behaviour.

1.3 Key messages from Criminal JusticeInspection’s (CJI’s) previous inspectionsin the youth justice area are that therehas been a reduction in the number ofyoung people in custody at any one timefrom an average of 250 during the 1990sto a current average of under 30 at theJJC, and at the time of report drafting,17 at the YOC. Coupled with that arehigh levels of investment in the provisionof a JJC which has been designed withthe care of young people as the centralfocus and the diversionary andrestorative approaches of the YouthJustice Agency (YJA).

1.4 This thematic inspection of youthdiversion commenced during May 2010with preliminary consultation on theterms of reference with the mainjustice organisations and other relevantcommunity and voluntary organisations.Fieldwork started in August 2010 andcontinued into September and involvedstakeholders from the voluntary andcommunity sector, young people

4

(accessed through voluntary groups),and representatives of the main justiceagencies involved in this area ofoperation. The inspection focuses onthe three main elements of CJI’sinspection framework as they apply toyouth diversion. The system is assessedas regards Strategy and Governance,Delivery, and Outcomes (or projectedoutcomes) in terms of youth diversion.How youth diversion arrangements inNorthern Ireland align with existinggood practice and relevant standardswhere appropriate is also outlined.

Definition of youth diversion

1.5 CJI will follow up the publication of thisreport with an inspection into youthinterventions which will look in moredepth at the range of diversionaryactivity that would otherwise beregarded as sitting outside of the strictdefinition of youth diversion. However,for the purposes of this inspection andto properly set the context weencompass as many of the issues aspossible in the definition of youthdiversion. This means that diversion istaken to include any of the activities of,and options open to justice agenciesthat, at one end of the spectrum aredesigned to divert young people frombehaviour likely to lead to offending.At the other end of the spectrum, itincludes activities and options designedto divert young people from being thesubject of custodial orders. The fullrange of diversionary activity in betweenis also included. Diversionary activitycan therefore range from earlyintervention with young people belowthe age of criminal responsibilityidentified as being at risk of becominginvolved in offending behaviour, tooptions applied to young people who

have offended and re-offended manytimes. This includes those young peopleinvolved in the Priority Youth OffenderProject (PYOP) jointly run by theProbation Board for Northern Ireland(PBNI) and the Youth Justice Agency(YJA). To properly set the context forthe report, we also spoke with a rangeof people from the voluntary andcommunity sector who are involved indiversionary activity. This report doesnot present in-depth all the informationgathered during fieldwork but uses thatinformation to set the overall context formainstream youth diversion in the criminaljustice system. In-depth examination ofthat information will inform our reportinto youth interventions.

1.6 The United Nations and the WorldHealth Organisation define ‘youth’ asbeing persons between the ages of 15and 24 and most figures for youthoffending produced by the UnitedNations reflect that. The later startingage of the United Nations figures reflectthe generally later commencement ofthe age of criminal responsibility inother countries. However, in NorthernIreland, youth diversion arrangementssince August 2005 have been generallyapplicable to persons between the ageof criminal responsibility (10) and theage someone attains adult status (18).It is how youth diversion is applied topeople in this age group that is thesubject of this inspection topic.

1.7 The three main justice agencies involvedin the inspection are the Police Serviceof Northern Ireland (PSNI); the PublicProsecution Service (PPS); and the YJA.The PBNI also plays a role in youthdiversion, for example it is involved in apartnership with the YJA in delivering apilot project (PYOP) to deal with

persistent young offenders. This projectis currently being evaluated and wasreferred to in CJI’s review of the YouthConference Service1 published in April2010. Interventions made by theProbation Board with young peoplewill be included in a later CJI inspectionon youth interventions.

The three main agencies

1.8 As the gateway into the justice systemfor many young people, formal statutoryyouth diversion arrangements in NI areadministered by the PSNI either actingalone or in partnership with the YJAand, where there has been an offencereported, as directed by the PPS. Thestated aims of the PSNI youth diversionscheme are:

• to provide an effective, fair,proportionate and restorativeresponse to those offending, at riskof offending or involved in anti-socialbehaviour and provide satisfactoryoutcomes for victims;

• to identify those at risk of offendingor coming to harm;

• to work with partner agencies toprevent children and young personsfrom offending/committing anti-socialbehaviour, using a range of initiatives;and

• to promote the needs of victims andcommunity and where possible,providing an opportunity for them tohave their views heard, by engaging inthe restorative process.

1.9 The PSNI has specialist Youth DiversionOfficers (YDOs) in place across allpolicing districts to achieve the aims ofthe scheme and to improve partnership

work between the PSNI and otheragencies and, to help achieve betteroutcomes for young people whobecome involved in offending behaviour.YDOs are a critical link within theentire justice system and across otherdepartments such as Education andSocial Services in the drive to divertyoung people from offending behaviour.That they are specialist officers havingthe skills and time to devote to this areahas meant that many young people onthe threshold of committing criminaloffences have been steered away fromsuch behaviour by the intervention ofYDOs. Interventions with parents andother agencies have helped ensure thatappropriate support is given to enhancethe chances of a young person avoidingbeing criminalised early in their lives.

1.10 The PPS has appointed specialistregional youth prosecutors to tailorthe system for young offenders and tohelp achieve more speedy outcomes.Prosecutors are guided by the ‘PPSCode for Prosecutors’ and by a manualspecifically referring to diversionthrough the Youth Conference Service.The Prosecutor’s Code states ‘…there are circumstances in which, althoughthe evidence is sufficient to provide areasonable prospect of conviction,prosecution is not required in the publicinterest. For example, Public Prosecutorsshould positively consider theappropriateness of a diversionary option(particularly if the defendant is a youth).’

1.11 Prosecutors are also a critical link in theprocess of diverting young people awayfrom the formal criminal justice systemthereby avoiding early criminalisation.The provision of specialist youth

5

1 Youth Conference Service: Report on the Inspection of the Youth Conference Service in Northern Ireland; February 2008: and Youth ConferenceService:A follow-up review of inspection recommendations April 2010 - www.cjini.org.

prosecutors has greatly improved theservice for young people. Non-specialistprosecutors still make decisions relatingto young people, for example in ‘speedyjustice’ schemes designed to speed upthe justice process for young people.Swift justice is important, especially foryoung people whose circumstances maychange greatly in their adolescent years.However, decisions about how youngpeople are to be dealt with need to befully informed and in the ‘speedy justice’systems prosecutors are heavily relianton the immediate information given tothem by investigating, non-specialistofficers.

1.12 The Youth Justice Agency MissionStatement is: ‘Our aim is to reduce youthcrime and to build confidence in the youthjustice system’. The strategic aims of theYJA include:

• reducing offending;• developing restorative justice; and• delivering positive outcomes for

young people.

The aims are delivered through allthe directorates with each having anelement of youth diversion built in,whether it is to divert young peoplefrom offending or re-offending. Theagency is central to the approach toyouth diversion in Northern Ireland.

Aims and objectives of the inspection

1.13 The aim of the inspection is to examineand assess youth diversion arrangementsacross the criminal justice system in NI.The objectives of the inspection are to:

• assess the effectiveness of youthdiversion arrangements in the NIsystem by collecting and analysing

quantitative and qualitativeinformation from organisations andstakeholders;

• examine the effectiveness oforganisational strategies with regardto youth diversion and how theysupport and link with overarchingyouth strategies such as the 10-yearStrategy for Children and YoungPeople in Northern Ireland 2006-16;

• examine how youth diversion isdelivered collectively by the criminaljustice system and individually byorganisations to meet needs andexpectations of stakeholders andcustomers;

• examine and assess the outcomes ofstrategies and delivery mechanismsfor youth diversion against targetsand expectations; and

• examine how outcomes of youthdiversion arrangements arebenchmarked against otherjurisdictions and alternativeapproaches to youth justice.

Methodology

1.14 The full inspection methodology is setout in Appendix 1 and in the terms ofreference (Appendix 2) but briefly itincluded the following steps:

• research and review ofdocumentation;

• design and planning;• fieldwork and consultation;• delivery;• reporting and action plan; and• publication and closure.

6

2.1 Diverting young people away fromoffending behaviour is not solely thepreserve of justice organisations.There has been much research,locally and internationally, that clearlydemonstrates the link between youngpeople’s offending behaviour and social,economic, health and education factors.Many governments acknowledged thattackling and preventing youth crimenecessitate approaches that addressthese and other factors, by introducinglegislation that requires agencies toapproach youth crime in more holisticand partnership based ways. Forexample,The Children’s Hearing Systemin Scotland is applied to young peopleunder 16 who have committed anoffence (except serious offences)or are in need of care and protection.The system is based on therecommendations of the KilbrandonReport2, which found that childreninvolved in the criminal justice system,either as offenders or in need of care,had common needs for both socialand personal care. However, theKilbrandon-based system has beensubject to pressures over the years,especially since devolution and thebasic principle of early and minimalnon-justice based intervention has been

eroded. Recent research conductedover a long period of time and involvinga large number of young people inScotland suggest that the basicKilbrandon principle is one that deliversbetter outcomes for young people andfor society3.

2.2 In Scotland the age of criminalresponsibility has been raised from eightto 12 years. In the rest of the UnitedKingdom (UK) it is 10, whilst in manyother European jurisdictions it is higher.In Scandinavian countries it is generally15 and in some countries such asBelgium and Luxembourg, it is as highas 18. The comparatively low age ofcriminal responsibility has been thesubject of comment by the EuropeanCommissioner for Human Rights.In 2008 following a visit to the UK thecommissioner commented that ‘Notingthe very low age of criminal responsibility inthe UK, the Commissioner recommends thatthe Government considerably increase theage of criminal responsibility to bring it inline with the rest of Europe where theaverage age of criminal responsibility is14 or 15.’ In England and Wales thissituation is unlikely to change at least inthe short to medium term.

7

A holistic approach?

CHAPTER 2:

2 The Kilbrandon Report – Children and Young Persons Scotland, reprinted 2003, HMSO Edinburgh.3 Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime; Lesley McAra and Susan McVie; Criminology

& Criminal Justice 10(2) 179-209; 2010.

8

2.3 The low age of criminal responsibilityhas a dual effect on the entry of youngpeople into the criminal justice system.By setting at 10 years the age at which ayoung person may be deemed to becapable of committing a criminal offence,it brings young people into the systemearlier than would be the case in manyother jurisdictions. The counterargument is that doing so brings to theattention of the justice system offendingbehaviour at an early age and enablesearly intervention by justice agencies.However, research has indicated that ifearly intervention is attempted in aneffort to divert young people away fromthe formal justice system, then this isbest done by non-justice agencies and aspart of an overall strategy to tackleyouth poverty and other factors such aspoor education that are associated withincreasing the risk of offendingbehaviour.

2.4 Raising the age of criminal responsibilitywould ensure that young people do notenter the justice system early in theirlives thereby avoiding the stigmatisingeffect this may have. This would need tobe done in conjunction with approachesthat tackle the risk factors associatedwith offending behaviour by youngpeople and deal with the few seriousoffences committed by very youngchildren. In Scotland the debate whichresulted in raising the age from eight to12 featured reassurances that a systemwas in place to deal with those few veryyoung children who commit seriouscrimes. The fact that Scotland has awelfare-based Children’s Hearing Systemwith appropriate disposals availablefor such serious cases provided suchreassurance. The debate illustrated thecomplex nature of youth offending and

the need for a holistic approach toaddress the social, economic, healthand education factors associated withyouth crime.

2.5 The United Nations standard minimumrules for the administration of juvenilejustice (The Beijing Rules) proposes thatthe age of criminal responsibility shouldbe set according to: ‘whether a child canlive up to the moral and psychologicalcomponents of criminal responsibility; thatis, whether a child, by virtue of her or hisindividual discernment and understanding,can be held responsible for essentiallyanti-social behaviour’. The Rules go onto state that: ‘efforts should therefore bemade to agree on a reasonable lowest agelimit that is applicable internationally’. Aninternationally agreed reasonable lowestage limit based on the Beijing Rules hasnot yet been reached but in the contextof youth diversion in Northern Ireland,Inspectors recommend that theissue of the age of criminalresponsibility should be includedin the review of theYouth JusticeSystem which originated as partof the Hillsborough Agreement inFebruary 2010.

2.6 There is no overall strategy for youthdiversion in Northern Ireland. Theapproach to youth diversion is made upof a number of organisational strategiesand approaches which underpin theyouth diversion scheme such asthe PSNI Youth Strategy, the YJADiversionary approach, and thePPS Code for Prosecutors andother guidance on youth diversion.Additionally, agencies outside thejustice system also have strategies thatindirectly impact on youth diversionsuch as the Southern Area Family

9

Support Strategy. However, there is noone strategy for youth diversion thateffectively co-ordinates the approach ofall the agencies involved whether theyare justice agencies or other relevantpublic bodies.

2.7 The 10-year Strategy for Children andYoung People in Northern Ireland setsout a series of pledges that recognisethe need for a holistic approach toensuring young people fulfil theirpotential and contribute positively tosociety. One of the pledges it makes isto be guided by the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child.Diversionary options such as the YouthConference Service (YCS) and the PSNIYouth Diversion Scheme are identified asbeing drivers for positive change.However, Inspectors found that the10-year Strategy was not driving thework done by criminal justiceoperatives, education and social welfare,or members of the voluntary andcommunity sector as the overarchingmechanism by which approaches in thejustice sector could be drawn together.Officials and youth justice professionalstold Inspectors that whilst the CriminalJustice Board had adopted governance ofthis area with regard to justice issues,key departments which have an impacton outcomes such as education,employment and learning and socialservices were not represented.

2.8 Inspectors believe that the 10-yearStrategy has the potential to be usedto integrate the approach to youthdiversion in Northern Ireland toaddress the main contributory factorsto youth offending and re-offendingwhich have been identified as:

• poverty;• social exclusion;• health;• education; and• employment and employability.

Through various action plans, forexample, relating to health, educationand economic well-being, there aredelivery mechanisms within the 10-yearplan to achieve real outcomes for youngpeople. With specific regard to justiceissues, the action plans engage manypartners from within the systemsupported by voluntary and communitysector organisations. A ministerialsub-committee of the Office of theFirst Minister and Deputy First Ministeroversees delivery of the Strategy butbetter cross-departmental governancewould provide the overall sense ofdirection required to deliver betteroutcomes through the justice systemfor young offenders. Within the justicesystem, the Criminal Justice Boardgoverns the area of the Strategy relatingto youth justice through a sub-group butthere is no inclusion of the departmentssuch as health and education deliveringagainst action plan objectives that impacton offending behaviour. To deliver thebest outcomes for young people asregards offending behaviour requires co-ordination of effort across departments.Inspectors recommend that thereshould be cross-departmentalgovernance of the justice elementof the 10-year Strategy forChildren andYoung People toachieve better buy-in andco-ordination of effort.

10

11

Diversionary options

CHAPTER 3:

3.1 Youth crime dominates media coverageof youth culture in Northern Ireland(NI) and across the United Kingdom(UK). However, research suggests thatyoung people are more likely to bevictims of crime than they areperpetrators and, that most youngpeople who do come into contact withthe formal criminal justice systemusually only appear before it once.Despite these findings, there has been anincreasing concern among the generalpublic over the perceived rise inpersistent young offenders.

3.2 In NI the four main elements of theformal approach to youth diversion isset out in existing legislation. The PublicProsecution Service (PPS) has a centralrole to play in all of these options as itis prosecutors who decide, in all cases,upon receipt of a report from the policeas to the course of action to befollowed. Once a prosecutor hasdecided that there will be noprosecution, in the case of youngpersons the three main diversionaryoptions are:

• informed warning;• restorative caution; or• diversionary youth conference.

A further option of placement on theyoung driver scheme exists for thoseyoung people over the age of 17 whocommit a lower end speeding offence.

If a prosecutor decides that aprosecution is warranted and the caseis taken to a court of law, furtherdiversionary options open to thejudiciary are:

• court ordered youth conference; or• other order upon conviction.

Whilst it could be argued that these areoptions that sit outside the definition of‘diversion’ the fact is that the process isdesigned to divert young offenders awayfrom what otherwise may be a periodin custody. However, in the context ofthis report the focus will be on the pre-conviction diversionary options. In ourreport on youth interventions whichwill follow on from this inspection, wewill look more closely at post-conviction interventions. Therelationship between the pre-convictiondiversionary options are set out inFigure 1. The diagram clearly showsthat diversionary options are entirelydependent on the young personadmitting to his or her part in thealleged offence.

12

InformedWarning

3.3 An informed warning may be directed by the prosecutor and this is for the police toadminister. Informed warnings are usually delivered by Youth Diversion Officers (YDOs) inthe presence of parent(s) or guardian(s). The warning is formal and is recorded on theyoung person’s criminal record but is removed after a period of 12 months free fromfurther offending behaviour. An informed warning is not a conviction. Since January 2008the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have administered 3,852 informed warningsacross the age range illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Informed warnings by age group (1 January 2008 - 31 August 2010)

Restorative Caution

3.4 If the prosecutor directs a restorative caution, it may be administered by a police officer,someone from another agency such as the Youth Justice Agency (YJA), or a community

Figure 1: Flowchart of diversionary options

Offence reportedto PPS

Divisionaryoptiontaken

YES

NO

Case prosecutedat Court

InformedWarning

RestorativeCaution

YouthConference

Prosecutorassesses case

NoProsecution

Young personadmits offence

Offence detectedby police

Age (years)

13

Figure 3: Restorative cautions by age group (1 January 2008 - 31 August 2010)

Age (years)

3.5 In comparison to the distribution ofinformed warnings across the agegroups, many less cautions areadministered to people at the youngerend of the scale reflecting the graduatednature of the diversionary options.

Diversionary youth conference

3.6 The decision whether or not to refer ayoung person to a diversionary youthconference is for the PPS to make, butthese conferences can only take placewhere the young person has admittedthe offence and agrees to participate in aconference. A diversionary conference isa meeting or a series of meetings heldto consider how a young person shouldbe dealt with for an offence. Aconference plan is agreed which ispresented to the prosecutor for theirapproval. If the prosecutor accepts theplan, it must then be complied with bythe young person. However, if the youngperson fails to comply or the

prosecutor does not accept the plan,then the prosecutor may refer the caseto court. The Youth Conference Service(YCS) was the subject of inspectionreports by CJI published in February2008 and April 2010.4 Diversionaryyouth conferences are organised by theYouth Conference Service directorate ofthe YJA. The aim is to provide a forumof discussion involving offender, victim,and others affected by the crime. Theoutcome is a conference plan which mayinclude any or all of the following:

• an apology to the victim;• reparation to the victim or to the

community;• payment to the victim in

compensation;• supervision by an adult;• work or service for the community;• participation in activities designed to

deal with offending behaviour;• training or education to deal with

problems such as drugs or alcohol;

4 Youth Conference Service: Report on the Inspection of the Youth Conference Service in Northern Ireland; February 2008: and Youth ConferenceService:A follow-up review of inspection recommendations April 2010 - www.cjini.org.

representative. Victims of the offending behaviour may take part in the process and it isdesigned to enable the young person to develop a greater understanding of the impact oftheir behaviour. A restorative caution is not a conviction but it does appear on a youngperson’s record for two years and six months. Since January 2008, the police haveadministered 3,262 restorative cautions as illustrated in Figure 3.

14

• restrictions on conduct orwhereabouts, for example curfews;and

• treatment for mental problems or foralcohol or drug dependency.

Of a total of 884 conferences in 2008,206 were diverted at court prior toconviction due, (see Figure 4) forexample, to an indication of admission ofguilt before the hearing. These referralsare not ‘court ordered’ conferences butare categorised as diversionary.

Court ordered youth conference uponconviction

3.7 This category applies when a youngperson has been referred to a court toanswer a criminal charge. On convictionthe law dictates that a court must (withsome exceptions) consider referring thematter to a youth conference. In suchcases conference plans are forwarded tothe deciding judge for approval. A judgemay require the plan to be amendedbefore approving it. There are othersentencing options available at thisstage of the process, for example,community service orders. However,these will be looked at more closely inour forthcoming inspection into youthinterventions as they are not strictlydiversionary options. During the years2008 and 2009 the number of courtordered conferences was 807 and 889respectively. This represents 48% of allconferences ordered in both years.

Other diversionary activity

3.8 Categories of diversions which could beadded but which are not universallyrecognised are ‘take no further action’or ‘advice and warning.’ These optionsare not formally recognised by thecriminal justice system with regard torecorded offending behaviour by youngpeople. However, at the lower end ofthe spectrum of offending behaviour,police officers have told Inspectors thatthey still exercise their discretioninformally and with pragmatism and, forexample, choose to move young peopleon from minor offending behaviourwithout recourse to the formal justicesystem. In many of these cases policeofficers dispense informal, verbal adviceto the young person(s) involved. Onoccasion this type of diversion involvesspecialist police Youth Diversion Officers(YDOs) who receive information on thebehaviour of young people from patrolofficers.

3.9 Prosecutors do not have the option ofdirecting ‘advice and warning’ but insome minor cases this approach may bethe best option for the young personand society in general. The option of‘doing nothing’ is explored further inChapter 4. However, a recent policeinitiative in restoring and encouragingofficers’ use of discretion is now wellunderway. This requires officers to usetheir own judgement in dealing withlow-level offending behaviour such as is

Figure 4: DiversionaryYouth Conferences 2008 and 2009

Year Diversionary Conferences Diverted at court2008 884 206

2009 978 225

15

common during instances of anti-socialbehaviour but interventions arerecorded by officers to track repeatoccurrences. Although accurate costsof informed warnings and restorativecautions are not known, the option of anofficer being able to use discretion todeal with minor offending behaviour islikely to cost much less than goingthrough a formal process.

3.10 Outside the formal justice system thereis a myriad of activity that takes placewith young people which is rightlyregarded as diversionary activity.These activities are explored further inChapter 4. However, in general theoutcomes of such activity are difficultto quantify whilst being recognised bysenior criminal justice figures andacademics as being invaluable inpreventing and diverting offendingbehaviour. Some of these activitiesare included in the action plan of theOffice of the First Minister and DeputyFirst Minister 10-year Strategy but thereare many more activities organised byvoluntary and community sectororganisations that divert young peopleaway from offending behaviour.

Youth diversion in other jurisdictions

3.11 Across jurisdictions in variousdemocracies, there is almost universalrecognition of the effectiveness of earlyintervention and restorative approachesas the most effective way of reducingyouth crime. At present in England andWales, the Youth Justice Board overseesthe Youth Justice System working toprevent offending and re-offending bychildren and young people under the ageof 18, and to ensure custody addressesthe causes of their offending behaviour.

The Board is focused on earlyintervention as an effective means toreduce youth crime. A report5 by theAudit Commission indicated that earlyintervention to prevent young peopleoffending would potentially save publicservices in England and Wales more than£80 million a year. In 2008-09 the costto criminal justice services of dealingwith youth offending in England andWales was calculated to be £4 billiona year.

3.12 In Scotland where there has been a lotof public interest and debate aboutyouth justice issues, the core approachto youth offending is the Children’sHearing System. Here again, there hasbeen recognition that early preventativework plus appropriate support in theadolescent years is required to tackleoffending behaviour amongst youngpeople. Young people under the age of16, who offend will normally be dealtwith through the Children’s HearingSystem. Persons aged 16 and over willnormally be subject to the adult criminaljustice procedures. In Scotland it isthe Procurators Fiscal who haveresponsibility for identifying suitablepersons for diversion into otherinterventions in anticipation that thiswill have more beneficial impact onfuture offending behaviour than a courtreferral. The Youth Justice Frameworkfor Scotland aimed at preventingoffending by young people has five mainthemes, which are:

• prevention;• early and effective intervention;• managing high risk;• victims and community confidence; and• planning and performance

improvement.

5 Audit Commission:Youth Justice 2004:A Review of the Reformed Youth Justice System.

the holistic and restorative approach toyouth offending in New Zealand.

3.15 Northern Ireland’s approach to youthdiversion, in particular the YouthConference Service, has attracted a lotof interest from other jurisdictions. Thislevel of interest, the relatively low rateof youth crime in Northern Ireland andlow rates of re-offending in comparisonto other non-diversionary disposals suchas custodial sentences, suggest that thebasic approach is sound. However,improvements to the system and itsoperational delivery can still be madewithin the overall aim of ensuring thatyoung people who offend are dealt within the most appropriate and effectivemanner to prevent re-offending.Chapter 4 deals with the operationaldelivery of youth diversion in NorthernIreland.

3.13 The Framework has wide buy-in acrossthose areas that most impact on theprevention of offending behaviour byyoung people. It is formally ownedby the Scottish Government, theConvention of Scottish LocalAuthorities, the Association of ChiefPolice Officers Scotland, ScottishChildren’s Reporter Administration,and the Crown Office and ProcuratorFiscal Service. However, importantlyit is endorsed by Inspectorates andprofessional organisations outside thejustice sector including education, care,and social work. This promotes a moreholistic approach to youth offendingbuilding in support structures to helptackle the causes of re-offending.Governance of the Framework isthrough a group that represents all ofthe various stakeholders in recognitionof the need for a co-ordinated, cross-departmental approach.

3.14 Elsewhere there has also beenrecognition of the fact that youthoffending needs a holistic approach.For example, in Canada the Youth JusticeRenewal Initiative looks beyondlegislation and the youth justice systemto explore how society as a whole canaddress youth crime and its associatedfactors. The approach is based onprevention, meaningful consequencesfor youth crime, and intensifiedrehabilitation and reintegration to helpyoung people safely return to theircommunities. The Canadian systemrecognises that youth justice renewalrequires an integrated and balancedapproach involving co-operation andfunctional integration of child welfare,mental health and court systems. InCJI’s previous inspections of the YouthConference Service we also referred to

16

17

4.1 Outside of the criminal justice systemthere are many interventions made withvery young people through socialservices, education, health andcommunity and voluntary organisations.Measuring the impact of theseinterventions is extremely difficult;nevertheless organisations involved insuch activities see them as being crucialin helping to divert young people awayfrom potentially criminal behaviour laterin life. In support of this many in thecriminal justice sector also see thesesorts of interventions as vital in helpingdivert young people away from offending.

The third sector

4.2 Many diversionary interventions arespecifically targeted at young peoplewho are at higher risk of later offendingbehaviour, such as those young peoplein the care system, at risk, sociallydisadvantaged or living in poverty.However, these interventions arenot always carried out by justiceorganisations or for the specific purposeof reducing the risk of offending. Thefact that justice organisations are notinvolved in early intervention of this kindmeans that early labelling or perceivedstigmatisation can more easily be avoided.

4.3 All of the young people consultedduring this inspection said that theyfound interacting with non-statutory

organisations more useful than withjustice organisations and that it avoidedtheir own communities labelling themas criminals from an early age. In thecontext of youth offending in NorthernIreland (NI) this is an importantconsideration which may impact on thesafety of young people committingoffences in areas where there is stillparamilitary activity. Co-ordinators fromthe voluntary and community, or ‘third’sector engaged in early interventionwith young people, emphasised theimportance of reinforcement of positivebehaviours rather than a fixation on thenegative if young people were to bediverted from committing crime.

4.4 There is a wide range of organisationsworking with young people using variousmeans, often activity based, to divertthem away from committing crime.Practitioners in the justice systemrecognised the importance of theseactivities, but neither sector couldprovide empirical evidence that theiractivities were having a direct effect inreducing the level of offending. This isnot surprising and should not be seennegatively. Outcomes of diversionarymeasures for young people is thefocus of Chapter 5 of this report butpresenting measureable outcomes inthis instance cannot be seen as a simplepresentation of cause and effectstatistics. Rather it is the qualitative

Operational practice

CHAPTER 4:

evidence gathered from young peoplethat should be examined along with suchstatistics that are available.

4.5 Some third sector organisations provideprogrammes for young people totallyindependent of the justice sector.For example, Inspectors spoke toparticipants in programmes running invarious areas of Belfast that hadundoubtedly prevented young peoplefrom becoming involved in trouble overthe summer marching season. Severalyoung people asserted that had they notbeen engaged in the programmes run bythese organisations they would definitelyhave been involved in public orderdisturbances. This is obviously valuablediversionary work by any measure.Other schemes delivered by the thirdsector involved young people takingpositive steps towards their educationand employability, engaging young peopleat interface trouble spots, and inputson influencing their peers’ behaviour.IncludeYouth provide programmes foryoung people that they describe aspreventative and do not offer them aselements of a criminal justice led schemesuch as a youth conference plan.

4.6 However, some of the activity of thethird sector organisations is directlylinked to the formal justice system. Forexample, Belfast RESPECT6 developed anew programme having consulted withthe Youth Justice Agency (YJA), ProbationBoard for Northern Ireland (PBNI), andthe Police Service of Northern Ireland(PSNI). Funding for the programmecomes from the National Lottery andthe work is seen as very valuable by the

18

justice agencies. Referrals to suchschemes come not only from themainstream justice agencies but also onoccasion from the various communityrestorative justice schemes. Otherschemes are more closely tied to thejustice sector in providing elementsprocured for the delivery of youthconference plans, for example, thework undertaken in Belfast by ‘Trainingfor Life’.7

4.7 Funding for the many third sectorschemes comes from a myriad ofsources but in many cases not fromthe justice sector. Expenditure by thejustice sector as a whole is concentratedon the reactive rather than on thepreventative. However, it is much lessexpensive to divert a young personfrom criminal acts than to deal withthem after they have committed acrime. Costs per head of the variousdiversionary and preventative schemesrun by the third sector vary hugely buton average, are in the region of a fewhundred pounds per scheme. The costof administering a restorative cautionhas been roughly estimated at just under£1,000. Comparisons with England andWales are not possible because of thedifferent approach to youth justice,different legislation and differentmethods of disposals. However, theMinistry of Justice in England and Walesand the National Commission onRestorative Justice in the Republic ofIreland have estimated that, for every£1 spent on restorative justice methods,£8 is saved from the criminal justicebudget.8

6 Re-Engaging and Supporting People to Enable Community Transformation.7 A youth project based in Upper Springfield, Belfast.8 As reported in The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Official Report:Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland 18 February

2010 (Hansard).

4.8 With regard to the funding of the thirdsector, the Northern Ireland AuditOffice (NIAO) report of 2010; ‘CreatingEffective Partnerships between Governmentand the Voluntary and Community Sector’,cautioned against the potential effectof public bodies’ procurementarrangements in altering voluntary andcommunity sector organisations’ roles.The NIAO recommended that thereneeded to be a greater focus ondecreasing unnecessary bureaucracy;better communication between publicsector funders of the third sector; and,more focus on outcomes. This appliesas much to justice sector organisationsas funders of the third sector as it doesto agencies outside the justice systemwhether they are procuring services insupport of youth diversion approachesor supporting third sector organisations’youth programmes.

Pre-offending statutory sector

4.9 There is a level of co-ordination of workacross the statutory sector, including thejustice agencies, especially at operationallevel, as regards the delivery of holisticdiversionary practices. Examples weregiven to Inspectors of work ongoing inthe South East Trust area where familysupport panels have been established inconsultation with communities, thirdsector and statutory agencies to delivera ‘whole child’ model, or holisticapproach. Referrals may be made by anyorganisation or community. An examplewas given of a parent needing supportdue to the behaviour of an eight-year-old child. A tailored service wasdeveloped, funded by Social Serviceswhich provided necessary support andearly intervention. The case illustratesthe difficulty in measuring outcomes.It cannot be said for certain whether

this type of intervention helps keepyoung people out of the justice system,nevertheless the work does appearworthwhile and has had positiveoutcomes for parents and the youngpeople involved.

4.10 There has also been the developmentof child intervention panels which bringtogether representatives from the PSNI,YJA, Social Services and EducationWelfare. Each agency has clearly definedroles and the role of wider partnersincluding families and third sectororganisations are integrated into theapproach. The panels also recognise thelinks to existing initiatives such as familysupport panels.The panels have only justbeen introduced and it is much too earlyto assess their impact. However, theholistic approach to dealing with youthdiversion and intervention is one that iswell supported by research across manyjurisdictions. These panels will befurther assessed in our inspection ofyouth interventions.

4.11 The introduction and development ofinitiatives such as family support andchild intervention panels is a positivestep. Although such initiatives are morepro-active than waiting for fully fledgedoffending behaviour to become apparentbefore intervening, there is still roomfor better co-ordination between publicbodies prior to a moment of crisis in ayoung person’s life. Better use of the10-year Strategy for Children andYoung People to routinely drawtogether the justice agencies andother relevant public sectororganisations should be consideredas part of the comprehensivereview of theYouth Justice Systemin Northern Ireland.

19

4.12 The PSNI have re-introduced theconcept of police discretion in dealingwith low-level offending behaviour.Again, this has been a recent step andthe outcomes are yet to be seen. Thisapproach roughly falls into the ‘donothing’ category, although in reality thismeans ‘do nothing formally’ that wouldlead to early criminalisation of youngpeople. Doing nothing in terms ofdealing with low-level offending is anoption that has been argued works verywell with the majority of young peoplewho after all, do not go on to commitany further misdemeanours havingachieved maturation; through, forexample, better relationships, stability,opportunities and improvedunderstanding. Inspectors understandthat the police discretion systemrequires officers to record incidents andany interventions made and this is animportant element that should not beoverlooked. In terms of assessing anylater offending behaviour, it is vital thatpolice Youth Diversion Officers (YDOs)and prosecutors have access to allrelevant information. Therefore it isimportant for all officers to recordthese informal interventions fully. Thescale of low-level offending is illustratedby the number of non-offences recordedby the PSNI. These are incidentsinvolving young people that do notamount to an offence and therefore arenot reported to the PPS for a decisionsuch as illustrated in Figure 1. Between1 January 2008 and 31 August 2010 thePSNI recorded 52,248 such incidents.In comparison, during the same periodthere were 26,494 offences committedby young persons.

4.13 The discretion initiative follows on froma previous approach to non-offencebehaviour which required police officers

dealing with such incidents to note thebehaviour and pass relevant informationto YDOs. This earlier approach did notsucceed service-wide and closesupervision of the discretion initiativewill be required to ensure that itbecomes fully effective. If implementedacross every facet of the PSNI frompatrol officers to neighbourhood andsupport group officers, it could be avaluable way of dealing with low-leveloffending without prematurelycriminalising young people. Missingcritical opportunities for diverting youngpeople away from criminal behaviourcan have drastic consequences,therefore, ensuring every interventionhowever informal is recorded andmade available to YDOs and decidingprosecutors is essential. At the time ofinspection fieldwork, the PSNI and thePPS were jointly working on a protocolspecifically with regard to dealing withyoung people. Inspectorsrecommend that the policediscretion initiative is closelymonitored with regard to offendingbehaviour by young people toensure that information is recordedand made available toYouthDiversion Officers and decidingprosecutors as appropriate in theevent of any furthermisdemeanours.

Police youth diversion scheme

4.14 This scheme applies to informedwarnings and restorative cautions asset out in Chapter 3 and has been inoperation since 2003. In general thescheme is administered by police YDOsfollowing decisions made by the PPS asto what disposal is appropriate. Themost recent equality impact assessment(EQIA) of the scheme took place in

20

21

2007 and indicated there had been nobias during the decision-makingprocesses. However, some anomalieswere identified. For example, moreProtestants were referred but therewere more Roman Catholicsprosecuted; and more likelihood that 15-to 16-year olds will be prosecuted thanwill receive a diversionary disposal.

The EQIA indicated that the PSNI wouldmonitor these anomalies. However, itwould be useful to widen the scope ofthe impact assessment to take accountof the other section 75 categories.Inspectors recommend that thePSNI widens the scope of itsequality impact assessment ofthe youth diversion scheme andthat any anomalies are closelyexamined and mitigated to ensurethe continued fair applicationof the scheme across all section75 categories.

4.15 The entry level of the police diversionscheme is the informed warning; thenext level up in terms of seriousness isthe restorative caution. As illustrated inFigure 1 the uptake of these diversionaryoptions is dependent on the admissionand co-operation of the young person.One incentive to pursuing a diversionaryroute is that the diversions are notrecorded as criminal convictions.However, recently the incentive ofavoiding a criminal record by followingthe diversionary route has beenjeopardised as disclosure of informedwarnings and cautions had become anissue. This is further examined inChapter 5.

4.16 In Chapter 3, Figures 2 and 3 illustratedthe numbers of informed warnings andrestorative cautions issued between 1

January 2008 and 31 August 2010.For the same period the PSNI hadrecommended informed warnings orrestorative cautions in 35.2% of casesforwarded to the PPS for decision.As a percentage of the number of casesdirected on by the PPS, the two PSNIdiversion scheme disposals accountedfor 32.9%. Figure 5 illustrates asummary of the level of agreementbetween the PSNI recommendationsand the PPS decisions with regard todiversionary options over the mostrecent period for which figures areavailable for non-charge cases only.These figures provided by the PPS arebased on the first recommendationmade by the police investigating officeragainst the first prosecutorial decisionfor the calendar years 2007 to 2009.The level of agreement is low except forthe informed warning category. Similarfigures produced by the PSNI showed aslightly higher level of agreement in eachcategory (red text in brackets) reflectingsome variance in how data is producedby each organisation. The Causewayprogramme has the potential to producemanagement information across thesystem that would be directlycomparable. However, that is not acurrent function of the Causeway systemas it presently operates.

Inspectors found that the relationshipbetween the PSNI and the PPS withregard to youth diversion was good.Officers commented that they hadeasy access to specialist advice fromprosecutors even though they maynot always agree with decisions made.Figure 6 in Chapter 5 illustrates the re-offending rates recorded by the policein respect of each of these diversions.

4.17 YDOs are trained in restorative

22

Figure 5: PSNI recommendations/PPS decisions

PSNI recommendations PPS decisions %Agreement

Caution 5,083 2,028 39.9(54)

Informed warning 4,065 2,725 67(70.6)

Youth Conference 1,303 411 31.5(40)

practices and deliver informed warningsand restorative cautions. Some policedistricts have also trained some otherofficers in restorative practices but theyrarely delivered cautions or warnings.Young people who had receivedinformed warnings and/or restorativecautions from police YDOs were verypositive about their experiences. Manysaid that they had been able to build arelationship with the officer which hadaffected their future behaviour positively.Relationship building is recognised assomething very positive whenattempting to divert young people awayfrom crime and police officers toldInspectors that this was vital workthough often misunderstood by theircolleagues. YDOs were well versed inthe rights-based approach to dealingwith young people, but raised concernsthat many of their colleagues did notshare the same values. ‘It’s hard to get abeat officer to accept that a 15 or 16-year-old is behaving the way they are because ofother factors in their lives and that they arein fact vulnerable. It all gets lost in dealingwith what is seen as just youths causingannoyance.’

4.18 Recent initiatives such as discretionand ‘speedy justice’ are generallypositive developments for young people.It is recognised that by the time anappropriate disposal for a young personhas been decided on, in many cases, theyoung person has moved on with their

lives making subsequent actions taken bythe agencies largely irrelevant. However,in ensuring ‘speedy justice’ it is alsoimportant to retain the appropriate levelof expertise and knowledge within thesystem. An officer initially dealing with ayoung person may not have immediateaccess to all the relevant detailsrequired to pass on to a prosecutor sothat informed decisions can be made asto the appropriate method of disposal.For example, information aboutprospective employment that may bejeopardised by a less than fully informeddecision may not be available to anofficer initially dealing with a youngperson. YDOs gather such informationwithout unnecessarily delaying thejustice process. Similarly, decidingprosecutors in such cases are not alwaysthose specialist youth prosecutorsnominated by the PPS.

4.19 In addition YDOs also raised concernsthat cautions were being deliveredwithout the necessary restorativeelement in the name of speedy justice.The absence of involvement from YJAstaff in these types of disposals as theyfocus on diversionary youth conferencesand adjudicated offenders, places moreemphasis on the integrity of the policeprocess. If police officers are to leadthis process without inputs from YJAstaff the process should remain in thehands of officers with the necessarylevel of skills. As with the discretion

23

admissions to the Juvenile Justice Centre(JJC) in 2006-07 came from thatbackground. The issue of young peoplefrom a looked-after/care backgroundbeing criminalised early in life because ofstrict organisational policies with regardto property and assaults on staff wasraised in our report into the YCS9 aswell as in our report on the JJC10

where trivial offences were identified asproviding an opportunity to use custodyas quasi-care. Whilst the wishes of thevictims, in this case the care homeowners or staff, must be considered,so too must the future affect ofprosecution on looked-after children.Young people in such situations shouldbe accorded the same sort of leeway asthey would experience in a familyenvironment where prosecution orreporting is in general not the firstoption in response to offendingbehaviour. In the event of incidentsbeing reported, the justice systemshould take cognizance of the carehome background in which thesechildren find themselves in. Policeofficers consulted during the inspectionsaid that they had recently seen adecrease in reporting as a first option bycare home staff. Inspectors were givenan example from the South East Trustarea where family support panels hadintroduced elements of restorativepractice as a first instance when dealingwith young people in homes rather thancalling the police as the first option.Prosecutors were aware of the disparityin figures and assured Inspectors thatevery case was dealt with on its ownmerits, taking into account all knownfactors including the care background ofyoung people involved. There shouldbe careful future monitoring of the

initiative, the delivery of ‘speedy justice’should be monitored to ensure thatdecisions and subsequent warnings andcautions are not delivered with unduehaste and that they are always deliveredby suitably trained staff. Inspectorsrecommend that the ‘speedyjustice’ initiative is closelymonitored by the PSNI and thePPS with regard to offendingbehaviour by young people toensure that decisions are not madewith undue haste and that thequality and impact of warningsand cautions is maintained.

4.20 In support of their approach to youthdiversion the PSNI have introduced ayouth steering group with a rotatingchairperson from the third sector.The steering group comprises trainersfrom the Police College and policedistrict representatives along withyoung people from the same policedistricts. The group addresses issuessuch as complaints and has met withrepresentatives from the Office of thePolice Ombudsman for NorthernIreland (OPONI). The group hasinfluenced the diversionary approachtaken by the police and this has includedchanges being made to policy andprocedures. For example, the removalof the closure type ‘Youths CausingAnnoyance’ which had the effect ofstereotyping young people. The PSNIalso introduced a youth champion’sforum comprised of representativesfrom the third sector.

4.21 There is a high proportion of youngpeople from a looked-after/carebackground represented in the criminaljustice system. Around 30% of

9 Youth Conference Service: Report on the Inspection of the Youth Conference Service in Northern Ireland; February 2008.10 Inspection of Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre; May 2008.

24

proportion of ‘looked-after/caredfor’ children in the justice systemto establish whether they arereceiving equitable treatment asregards diversionary options.

Diversionary conferences

4.22 This is an area that we have previouslyinspected and which has attractedinterest from many other jurisdictions.Conferencing is seen as a very positivemethod of diversion when usedappropriately. During this inspectionconcerns were still raised regarding:

• selection of the most appropriatecases for conferencing;

• the balance of needs of the youngperson and the victim;

• appropriate conference plans;• repeat conferences; and• adult centred conference

environment.

We have previously commented on allthese areas. However, as regards youthdiversion, young people spoken to in thecourse of this inspection were generallypositive about their experiences ofyouth conferencing with only a fewexceptions. Selection of the mostappropriate cases for conferencingis a matter for the PPS based on theevidence and recommendations of thepolice. The appointment of specialistyouth prosecutors should begin to finetune this area in the future so thatappropriate referrals are made to alldiversionary options available.

Developments

4.23 The Minister of Justice has recentlyannounced a review of the youth justicesystem in Northern Ireland and has set

out the terms of reference for such areview. This will encompass many of theissues raised during this inspection aswell as looking at the wider issueswhich we have mentioned but do nothave the remit to inspect. As part ofthis review, it would be useful to includeareas such as the interaction of otherstatutory organisations with justiceagencies in a co-ordinated way todeliver real outcomes for young people.

4.24 The PSNI with the support of the YJAand PBNI have introduced a version ofthe Integrated Offender Managementscheme which operates in other parts ofthe UK as a pilot project in ‘H’ Districtwhich covers the Ballymena area, andthere are plans to extend the policeelements of the project to otherdistricts. Integrated OffenderManagement deals not only with youngoffenders but it applies a holisticapproach to all priority offenders. Initialresults for offences such as burglary andtheft appear very positive, but it is tooearly to make a full assessment of theimpact on or outcomes for youngpeople. This area will form part of afuture inspection in relation topersistent offenders.

25

Outcomes

CHAPTER 5:

• percentage of looked-after childreninvolved in criminal activity;

• percentage of looked-after childrenon bail, in education, in employmentetc;

• percentage of young offenders onplacement in community initiatives;

• range of types of offending;• length of time between offences;• citizenship data (educational

attainment, relationships etc); and• public and community confidence in

youth justice.

5.3 Many of the outcomes outlined abovehave either not been measuredaccurately to date or, are in the courseof being measured for the first timebecause of their recent introduction.If the youth justice system moves to amore holistic approach to dealing withyouth offending following the reviewannounced by the Minister of Justice,considerable effort will be needed todefine outcomes for the system, society,and for young people, and to accuratelymonitor and measure those outcomes.

5.4 For the main police administereddiversionary disposals and Figure 6illustrates the current rates ofre-offending recorded from 1 January2008 to 31 August 2010.

5.1 Defining outcomes and reporting onthem in the area of youth justice is aproblem, especially when consideringholistic approaches. The criminal justicesystem generally reports outcomes suchas re-offending or reconviction rates,numbers of diversionary disposalscompared with prosecutions, number oforders, referrals and conferences planscompleted, and the numbers of youngoffenders held in the Juvenile JusticeCentre (JJC).

5.2 The Youth Justice Agency (YJA) hasincluded measures such as diversionfrom anti-social behaviour, parentingcapacity, involvement in the community,and attendance at school. The agencyalso considers family factors such asdomestic violence and siblings’involvement in offending behaviour whendealing with young people. In the SouthEast Trust area an outcomes groupmonitors ‘looked-after’ children targetsin health, education and crime andhighlights any increase in criminalactivity. The group also monitorsemployment outcomes such as thenumber of young people in placements.Third sector organisations also attemptto measure outcomes more holisticallybut produce less empirical data. Apartfrom the rates of re-offending andnumbers of diversionary disposalsoutcomes could include the:

26

The most recent figures from the 2006cohort indicate that the rate of re-offending for diversionary conferences isaround 38.4%. Re-offending measures ayoung persons subsequent involvementwith the justice system as regardsfurther diversionary disposals as wellas criminal convictions. Some earlierfigures measured only reconviction rateswhich excludes figures for diversionarydisposals. Most recently (February2010) reconviction rates (as opposedto re-offending rates) were reported as44.3% for court-ordered conferencesand 30.7% for diversionary conferences.Currently the reconviction ratesfrom custody is 72.9% and 49.6% forprobation orders. Young people inNorthern Ireland who are convictedof crimes are less likely to receivecustodial sentences than theircounterparts in England and Wales.

5.5 Staff from across the criminal justicesystem told Inspectors that theyregarded keeping young people out of

custody as a positive outcome. Youngpeople also generally regarded this as apositive outcome. However, this needsto be considered carefully because asizeable proportion of young peopleconsulted who had been to the JJC toldInspectors that due to the circumstancesof their home environment, they lookedupon the centre as a positive option tohelp them get their lives back on trackand to receive decent food, livingconditions and education provision.

5.6 Apart from indicating the positiveexperiences young people had at theJJC, this further indicates the need fora holistic approach to youth diversion.There is little chance of keeping youngpeople out of the justice system whenthe factors that increase the risk ofthem offending and re-offending are notaddressed as part of an overall, cross-departmental approach. At the time ofdrafting of this report, 31 young peoplewere being held at the JJC. A total of 18of these young people were on remand,

Figure 6: Percentage re-offending by age category (1 January 2008 - 31 August 2010)

Age % InformedWarning % Restorative Caution

10 29.8 55.6

11 46.7 45.1

12 37.5 56.5

13 43.1 56.8

14 44.3 59.3

15 41.3 57.2

16 39.2 54

17 22.1 26.6

Overall 38 51.4

27

12 had been committed; and one wasthere subject to the Police and CriminalEvidence Order. The capacity of the JJCis 48. Running below capacity should beseen as a positive outcome for youngpeople, the system and for society. Atthe time of drafting this report thenumber of young people under 18 beingheld in custody at the Young Offenders’Centre at Hydebank Wood was 17.Four of these young people had beensentenced whilst 13 were on remand.The average number of young peopleunder 18 held at Hydebank Wood at anyone time during 2010 was just over 14.

5.7 The high level of diversionary optionsand the subsequent low percentage ofyoung people receiving a custodialsentence upon conviction is regarded asa positive outcome by many within theyouth justice system. Figure 4 (seeChapter 3) shows that court orderedconferences are running at around 48%of the total number of conferences andthe numbers of withdrawals at courtdue to a diversionary route being takenhas also increased in the period 2008-09. Whilst on the surface this mayappear to suggest that inappropriatecases are being brought before thecourts and subsequently being diverted,a diversionary disposal cannot beconsidered unless the accused youngperson admits to the offendingbehaviour. This often happens atcourt before a hearing takes place.

5.8 A positive outcome for young offendersis that diversionary disposals do notnecessarily result in them having acriminal record for the rest of theirlives. Young people consulted during thisinspection were very well aware of thelater consequences to them of having acriminal record, especially with regard to

employability. The positive outcome ofavoiding a permanent criminal recordfor first and/or minor offences is animportant aspect of encouraging youngoffenders to desist from re-offending.It means that the positive behaviour ofdesisting from crime is encouraged andrewarded and crimes committed early inlife do not prevent young people fromtaking up employment opportunities.This is an important element indecreasing the risk of re-offending.However, during inspection fieldwork itbecame apparent that rules ondisclosure had meant that disposals suchas informed warnings had been suppliedto employers during employabilitychecks through Access NI to thedisadvantage of young people. If thiscontinues, it could result in a decrease inyoung offenders opting for diversionarydisposals and an increase in cases beingtested at court.

5.9 Diversionary disposals are not criminalconvictions and should not therefore bedisclosed as such due to the potentiallydamaging effect such procedures couldhave on young people. It is clearlywrong that young people who do notre-offend should suffer unnecessarilyhaving received a diversionary disposal.At the time of drafting this report,Inspectors were told that the PSNIhad agreed internally at the ChiefConstables’ Forum that diversionarydisposals considered as ‘spent’ wouldnot be visible to Access NI via theCriminal Records Viewer when runningemployability checks. This decision wasto be implemented early in 2011.

28

Appendices

2Section

29

Appendix 1: Methodology

Document review

Policies, procedures and other documentation relating to youth diversion from within thecriminal justice system were examined. A review was undertaken of this documentation tocross-reference information against the topic areas and facts obtained later during the fieldwork.This was used also to design interview questions for the fieldwork phase. Additionally thefollowing publications were examined and taken into consideration during this inspection:

• Alternatives to prosecution – A discussion paper; NIO, 2008.

• Barnardos: Parliamentary Briefing Paper on Youth Justice 2005.

• Beyond the Margins: Building Trust in Policing with Young People. Elizabeth Nelson,Ruari-Santiago McBride; Olivia O’Riordan; Paul Smyth ICR, Belfast. March 2010.

• Child and Family Poverty In Northern Ireland - A report prepared by Eithne McLaughlin andMarina Monteith for the Equality and Social Need Division, OFMDFM (2006).

• Childhood in Transition: Experiencing Marginalisation and Conflict in Northern Ireland,Siobhán McAlister, Phil Scraton, Deena Haydon November 2009. Queen’s University Belfast.

• Children’s Services Planning in Northern Ireland: Developing a Planning Model to AddressRights and Needs, Eamon McTernan & Ann Godfrey Child Care in Practice Vol. 12, No. 3, July2006, pp. 219_240.

• Code for Prosecutors: Including a Code of Ethics.

• Debating youth justice: From punishment to problem solving? Eds Zoë Davies and WillMcMahon, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies King’s College London.

• Designing effective local responses to youth crime; Irish Youth Justice Service. Dublin. 2008.

• Garda Youth Diversion Project, Procedures Manual, ESF 2007 – 2013 1st edition.

• It’s Never Too Early… It’s Never Too Late - The ACPO Strategy for Children and Young People;2008.

• Make me a Criminal: Preventing Youth Crime. Julia Margo. Institute for Public Policy Research.February 2008.

30

31

• Memorandum by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council ofEurope following his visits to the United Kingdom (5-8 February and 31 March-2 April 2008)Issue reviewed: Rights of the child with focus on juvenile justice CommDH(2008)27Strasbourg, 17 October 2008.

• Metropolitan Police Service Community Safety and Partnership Unit Youth Strategy 2003 to2008.

• NIAO: Creating Effective Partnerships between Government and the Voluntary and CommunitySector. 2010.

• Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Lyness, D. McEnarney, R. and Carmichael, M.Digest of information on Northern Ireland criminal justice system (4).

• Out of Trouble Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland. Jessica Jacobsonand Penelope Gibbs; Prison Reform Trust.

• The Bottom Line: Severe Child Poverty in Northern Ireland (Monteith and McLaughlin, 2004).

• The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Official Report:Youth Justice Agency ofNorthern Ireland,18 February 2010 (Hansard).

• The European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures.

• The Kilbrandon Report: Children and Young Persons Scotland, HMSO Edinburgh, reprinted2003.

• United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines).

• United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The BeijingRules).

• United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (The HavanaRules).

• UN guidelines for action on children in the criminal justice system (The Vienna guidelines).

• Young People’s attitudes and experiences of Policing,Violence and Community Safety in NorthBelfast; Jonny Byrne, Mary Conway and Malcolm Ostermeyer; Northern Ireland PolicingBoard June 2005.

• Youth Crime:Young people aged 10-17 receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction,2000-01 to 2009-10 Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin Published 14 October 2010.

• Youth crime and justice: Key messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions andCrime; Lesley McAra and Susan McVie; Criminology & Criminal Justice 10(2) 179-209; 2010.

• Youth Justice 2004:A Review of the Reformed Youth Justice System.The Audit Commission,London, 2004.

Fieldwork and Consultation

One-to-one and focus groups, structured and semi-structured interviews were conductedwith a range of personnel from the relevant agencies. Interviews were also conducted withstakeholders who had an interest in this area of work including young people accessed throughcommunity and voluntary organisations.

The following organisations or individuals were consulted during face-to-face semi structuredinterviews:

• Director of the YJA;

• Probation Board for Northern Ireland lead for PYOP and youth policy;

• PSNI lead and deputy for youth diversion;

• Director and Senior Research and Development Officer National Children’s Bureau;

• Strategic Partnership Developer PSNI;

• Youth Justice Agency staff;

• Barnardos – Policy lead;Assistant Director Children’s Services; Children’s Service Manager;Lead for Restorative Practices in Residential Care; Manager Armagh Partnership; NewryPartnership;

• PSNI Youth Diversion Officers focus groups - urban and rural;

• Director of Include Youth;

• Human Rights lead Northern Ireland Policing Board;

• Lead and deputy Criminal Justice Board sub-committee on youth justice;

• Policy lead Children’s Law Centre;

• Director of NIACRO;

32

33

• PSNI ACC Champion for Youth Justice;

• Assistant Director Safeguarding Children and Assistant Director Cared for Children South EastHealth and Social Services Trust;

• Manager Belfast RESPECT;

• Leads for Integrated Offender Management PSNI;

• Focus Group Young Persons and Director of Training for Life;

• Focus Group Young Persons and Director of Rathbone Belfast;

• Focus Group Young Persons and Director of Inner East Youth Project;

• Focus Group Young Persons and Manager of Challenge for Youth;

• Focus Group Young Persons and Director of Links Youth Work Project;

• Public Prosecution Service – Deputy Director; and

• Public Prosecution Service focus group youth specialist prosecutors.

34

Appendix 2: Terms of Reference

An inspection ofYouth Diversion arrangements

Terms of Reference

IntroductionCriminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) proposes to undertake a thematic inspection ofyouth diversion arrangements across the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Theinspection will focus on the three main elements of CJI’s inspection framework as they apply toyouth diversion. The approach to youth diversion across the criminal justice system will beassessed as regards Strategy and Governance, Delivery, and Outcomes (or projected outcomes).How youth diversion in Northern Ireland aligns with existing good practice and relevantstandards where appropriate will also be evaluated.

ContextThe United Nations and the World Health Organisation define ‘youth’ as being persons betweenthe ages of 15 and 24 and most figures for youth offending produced by the UN reflect that.However, in Northern Ireland youth diversion arrangements since August 2005 have beengenerally applicable to persons between the age of criminal responsibility (10) and the agesomeone attains adult status (18). It is how youth diversion is applied to people in this age groupthat will be the subject of the inspection topic. The three main justice agencies involved withthis inspection will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI); the Public ProsecutionService for Northern Ireland (PPS); and the Youth Justice Agency (YJA). The Probation Board forNorthern Ireland (PBNI) also has a role to play in youth diversion, for example, it is involved inpartnership with the YJA in delivering a pilot project to deal with prolific young offenders (PYOP).

As the gateway to the criminal justice system for many young people, youth diversionarrangements in Northern Ireland are administered by the PSNI either acting alone or inpartnership with the YJA and as directed by the PPS. The Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB)is currently conducting a study into Children and Young people and CJI proposes to adjust theamount of fieldwork and information requested from the PSNI so as not to overlap that study.CJI will be able to make use of the information collected during the study with the cooperationof the NIPB.

The aims of the PSNI Youth Diversion Scheme are:

• to provide an effective, fair, proportionate and restorative response to those offending, at riskof offending or involved in anti-social behaviour and provide satisfactory outcomes for victims;

• to identify those at risk of offending or coming to harm;• to work with partner agencies to prevent children and young persons from

offending/committing anti-social behaviour, using a range of initiatives; and• to promote the needs of victims and community and where possible providing an opportunity

for them to have their views heard, by engaging in the restorative process.

In the PPS Code for Prosecutors the section dealing with the public interest test states that‘However, there are circumstances in which, although the evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonableprospect of conviction, prosecution is not required in the public interest. For example, Public Prosecutorsshould positively consider the appropriateness of a diversionary option (particularly if the defendant is ayouth).’ There is also a section dedicated to providing details of diversionary options including‘Diversionary Youth Conferences’.

The Youth Justice Agency Mission Statement is ‘Our aim is to reduce youth crime and to buildconfidence in the youth justice system’. The strategic aims of the YJA include:

• reducing offending;• developing restorative justice; and• delivering positive outcomes for young people.

The aims are delivered through the four directorates with Community Services,Youth ConferenceService and Custodial Services each having an element of youth diversion built in, whether it is todivert young people from offending or re-offending.

Definition of Youth DiversionFor the purposes of this inspection and to encompass as many of the issues as possible thedefinition of youth diversion is being set wide. This means that diversion will be taken to includeany of the activities of, and options open to justice agencies that, at one end of the spectrum aredesigned to divert young people from behaviour likely to lead to offending. At the other end ofthe spectrum it includes activities and options designed to divert young people from enteringprison. The range of diversionary activity in between would also be included. Diversionaryactivity can range from early intervention with young people identified as being at risk ofbecoming involved in offending behaviour to options applied to young people who have offendedand re-offended many times.

Aim and objectives of the inspectionThe aim of the inspection is to examine and assess youth diversion arrangements across thecriminal justice system in Northern Ireland (NI).

The objectives of the Inspection are to:

• assess the effectiveness of youth diversion arrangements in the NI system by collecting andanalysing quantitative and qualitative information from organisations and stakeholders;

• examine the effectiveness of organisational strategies with regard to youth diversion and howthey support and link with overarching youth strategies such as the 10-year Strategy forChildren and Young people in Northern Ireland 2006;

• examine how youth diversion is delivered collectively by the criminal justice system andindividually by organisations to meet needs and expectations of stakeholders and customers;

• examine and assess the outcomes of strategies and delivery mechanisms for youth diversionagainst targets and expectations; and

• examine how outcomes of youth diversion arrangements are benchmarked against otherjurisdictions and alternative approaches to youth justice.

35

36

MethodologyThe following methodology is proposed:

Research and review of documentationA literature review will be conducted by CJI during April and May 2010. Each criminal justiceorganisation will be asked to supply CJI with all relevant documentation including reports,protocols and statistical data by the end of May. Using these submissions Inspectors willdetermine whether any further information should be requested from criminal justiceorganisations. Other stakeholders, such as the Children’s Commissioner and relevantvoluntary/community sector organisations will also be asked for views and submissions.

FieldworkInspection fieldwork will be spread over the early summer months with agencies andstakeholders dependent on availability of key staff. Statistical and other information relevantto the inspection will be made available to CJI by the NIPB from their study into Childrenand Young People. Fieldwork will consist of structured and semi-structured interviews withappropriate staff at various grades in each criminal justice organisation and examination ofstatistical information (not including re-offending statistics) regarding cases for the period1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. The most recent figures for re-offending are from the2006 cohort and these will be examined to help assess the effectiveness of youth diversionarrangements. For example, by determining the proportion of young people referred fordiversion who go on to commit offences or who receive multiple referrals. Young people whohave been involved with recent diversionary activity delivered by criminal justice organisations orcommissioned by them will be consulted to gain insight into their first hand experiences and toassess the effectiveness of approaches in the view of the young people, their parents and/orcarers.

Organisations will be asked to provide CJI with any statistics they collect to enable them todetermine the effectiveness of youth diversion arrangements. Any necessary follow-up work andinterviews with other stakeholders will be scheduled to take place during late summer 2010.

Design and PlanningPreliminary research work has been carried out which has identified relevant good practice,standards and guidance for youth diversion.

DeliveryThe major stakeholders identified for this inspection are the PSNI, NIPB, PPS,YJA, PBNI, and,The Children’s Commissioner, as well as a wide range of voluntary sector organisations involvedwith diversionary youth work.

Reporting and action planA draft inspection report will be produced by the end of August 2010 and shared with theparticipating agencies for factual accuracy checking in line with existing protocols.

37

Publication and ClosureFollowing factual accuracy checking by relevant agencies and internal CJI Quality Assurance (QA)processes the final draft inspection report will be sent to the Minister of Justice seeking approvalto publish. Once permission to publish has been received from the Minister a date of publicationwill be identified by CJI and communicated to the main agencies involved in the inspection andto the Department of Justice (DoJ). A report and covering letter will be sent by CJI to otheragencies and stakeholders identified as needing sight of the report prior to publication. A pressrelease will be prepared by CJI and will be shared with the agencies involved and with the DoJ.

In addition CJI Deputy Chief Inspector Brendan McGuigan and Chief Inspector Dr MichaelMaguire will perform QA and oversight of the inspection process as required and set out by theCJI inspection management system.

Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved

First published in Northern Ireland in July 2011 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND

14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA

www.cjini.org

ISBN 978-1-905283-64-4

Typeset in Gill SansPrinted in Northern Ireland by Commercial Graphics Limited

Designed by Page Setup