Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland...of custody for young offenders in...

Out of Trouble

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland

Jessica Jacobson and Penelope Gibbs

P R I S O N

T R U S T

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04

The Prison Reform Trust aims to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiringinto the workings of the system; by informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencingparliament, government and officials towards reform.www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk

The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund continues the Princess' humanitarian work in the UK andoverseas. By giving grants to organisations, championing charitable causes, advocacy, campaigning andawareness raising, the Fund works to secure sustainable improvements in the lives of the mostdisadvantaged people in the UK and around the world.www.theworkcontinues.org

© 2009 Prison Reform Trust

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of thecopyright owners.

This report was written by Jessica Jacobson and Penelope Gibbs.

Dr Jessica Jacobson is an independent policy researcher specialising in criminal justice. She is a SeniorResearch Associate at the Prison Reform Trust and a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute forCriminal Policy Research, King's College London. She previously worked as a researcher for the HomeOffice. She has a PhD in sociology from the London School of Economics; her thesis was on ethnic andreligious identities of second-generation British Pakistanis.

Penelope Gibbs has been director of the Prison Reform Trust’s programme to reduce child and youthimprisonment since September 2007. Previously she worked as a producer for the BBC, led a strategyreview of the BBC’s approach to disability and moved into the charity sector as director of the VoluntaryAction Media Unit.

First published in 2009 by the Prison Reform Trust.

ISBN: 0 946209 97 9

Cover images: Youth Justice Agency Northern Ireland; Mike Abrahams

Printed by: Studio Projects Ltd

For further information contact:

Penelope Gibbs15 Northburgh StreetLondon EC1V 0JR

[email protected]

Tel: 020 7689 7742


Contents

FOREWORD ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Background and development of youth conferencing in Northern Ireland 1Structure of the report 3

2. THE PROCESS OF YOUTH CONFERENCING 4

Referral 4Before the conference 5The conference process 6After the conference 7

3. IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS 9

Numbers and outcomes of conferences 9Offender responses and reoffending 10Victim participation and satisfaction 12Public confidence in youth justice 13Impact on prosecution and custody rates 14Remand 16

4. DISCUSSION 18

Implementation of youth conferencing: strengths and continuing challenges 18Implications for England and Wales 20

5. APPENDICES 22Number of 10 to 17 year olds sentenced to custody 1996-2006 22Average under 18 remand population 2000-2008 22

6. REFERENCES 23


Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Irelandi

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page i

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland ii

Foreword

Imprisonment of children should always be a last resort, but the nations of the UK havestruggled, and continue to struggle, to achieve this. In its most recent report, the UNCommittee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern at the number of under 18 yearolds deprived of their liberty and the number on remand in the UK. The Prison ReformTrust (PRT) shares that concern. For the last two years we have been running Out ofTrouble, a programme whose aim is to reduce the number of children and young peopleimprisoned across the UK. This programme is supported by The Diana, Princess of WalesMemorial Fund over five years.

Much of our work so far has been focussed on the overuse of imprisonment for childrenin England and Wales. Overused it is, but there are signs of hope and areas of goodpractice. Before the programme started PRT had been encouraged by the newrestorative justice system in Northern Ireland. When we heard about early indications ofsuccess and of a significant reduction in the number of children sentenced to custody inNorthern Ireland, we determined to find out more and to profile that achievement.

There are still problems in Northern Ireland. There are far too many children locked upon remand, children wait too long for trial and looked after children are over-representedin custody. But this report seems to show that political will, good inter-agency workingand effective community alternatives, can reduce prison numbers as well as reducingyouth crime. Nor is the experience of Northern Ireland an isolated one. Our recentpublication, Reducing child imprisonment in England and Wales - lessons from abroad,presents many examples of countries and areas which have successfully reduced prisonnumbers, and prevented children reoffending. We hope the two publications will inspirepolicymakers to do the right thing and enable children and young people to get out oftrouble.

Penelope GibbsDirector, Out of Trouble programme

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page ii

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Irelandiii

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page iii

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Facts- The Youth Conference Service was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2003 – since then, more

than 5,500 referrals have been made to the service.- There are two types of conference – diversionary, where a young person is referred prior to

conviction, and court-ordered, where a young person is referred post-conviction.- In 2006, the combined reoffending rate for youth conferencing was 37.7% - this compared to

52.1% for community sentences and 70.7% for custodial sentences.- Between 2003-05, a quarter of all referrals were for violence against the person offences. - Victims were present in two-thirds of all conferences held in 2008-09 – 89% expressed

satisfaction with the conference outcome, and 90% said they would recommend it to a friend.- The number of children sentenced to immediate custody in Northern Ireland dropped from

139 in 2003 to 89 in 2006.- In addition, the percentage of convicted young offenders sentenced to custody fell from 10% in

2004 to 7% in 2006, whilst the percentage receiving a youth conference order increased from1% to 23%.

- The ratio of the 10-17 population in Northern Ireland who were sentenced to custody in 2006was 1:2265 – in England and Wales the equivalent ratio sentenced to custody in 2006/07 was1:760.

- Nearly two-thirds of children in the Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC), the main secure facility forchildren, are on remand.

- Despite a Youth Justice Board commitment to placing restorative justice at the heart of theyouth justice system, its use in England and Wales has so far been limited.

- The number of children sentenced to custody in England and Wales more than tripled between1991-2006.

This report examines recent youth justice reform in Northern Ireland, focussing particularly on theoperation and outcomes of the Youth Conference Service, which is part of the Youth Justice Agency ofNorthern Ireland.

Many of the youth justice reforms in Northern Ireland derive from the Criminal Justice Review of 2000.This led to the youth justice system adopting a statutory aim of protecting the public by preventingoffending and reoffending by children, to the introduction of new community sentences and to the settingup of the Youth Conferencing Service.

The service, which takes a restorative justice approach to tackling offending by young people, wasestablished in 2003. Its primary aims are to reduce levels of reoffending and to meet the needs of victimsof crime, and early research evidence indicates that it is enjoying some success in these terms. Theintroduction of youth conferencing appears, moreover, to have contributed to an overall decline in the useof custody for young offenders in Northern Ireland.

Youth conferencing in Northern Ireland

The Youth Justice Agency (YJA) was launched in April 2003 as an agency of the Northern Ireland Office,with the principal aims of reducing youth crime and building confidence in the youth justice system. Theagency works with children aged between 10 and 17 who have offended or are at serious risk ofoffending.

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page iv

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Irelandv

The principles of restorative justice have been placed at the heart of the youth justice system in NorthernIreland as it has evolved since 1998. The system of restorative justice which has been established involvesthe use of ‘youth conferences’ at which the offender, victim (or victim representative), professionals andothers are brought together to discuss the offence and its repercussions, and to agree on an action planfor the offender. Youth conferences are fully integrated within the criminal justice process. A young personcan be referred for a youth conference at one of two stages of the criminal justice process:

• Prior to conviction if, having been charged by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the youngperson admits the offence; in such cases, the referral is undertaken by the PPS, and theconference is known as a diversionary youth conference.

• Following conviction, in which case the conference is known as a court-ordered conference.With certain exceptions, there is a statutory requirement for the court to order a conferencefor a convicted young person who agrees to participate.

Youth conferences are organised and facilitated by youth conference coordinators – specialist, trainedofficers of the YJA. At a youth conference, the young person is invited to give an account of the offenceand the victim, if present, is encouraged to ask the young person questions about what has been said andhow they have been affected by the crime. Others in attendance are also invited to give their views on thecrime and its effects. A critical element of the conference is the collaborative development of a youthconference plan which sets out actions to be taken by the young person to make amends for the offenceand reduce the likelihood of further offending.

Where a youth conference plan is agreed at the conference, the details of the plan are submitted to thePPS (in cases of diversionary conferences) or court (if it was a court-ordered conference). If the plan isaccepted by the PPS or court, its implementation is thereafter monitored by the youth conferencecoordinator or another member of YJA staff. If the PPS rejects a plan, the case may proceed toprosecution; if the court rejects a plan, it can pass a different sentence in its place.

Impact and effectiveness of youth conferencing

The number of young persons engaged in youth conferencing has grown year on year since the servicewas launched; over the course of 2007-08, a total of just under 2,000 referrals were made to the service,and 1,350 conference plans were approved by the PPS and courts. Conferences tend to be held within thedesignated timescales (within 30 days for diversionary conferences and within four weeks for court-ordered conferences), and most result in an agreed conference plan; most plans, in turn, are endorsed bythe PPS or courts and thereafter completed by the young person.

Although it is too early to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of youth conferencing,there is ample evidence that victims who attend conferences tend to be satisfied with the process andoutcomes, and levels of victim participation are reasonably high. It is difficult to assess the impact of youthconferencing on reoffending rates, but there are some encouraging signs in this regard. The establishmentof the Youth Conference Service has contributed to an overall decline in the use of custody for youngoffenders, and to an increasing rate of diversion of young people out of the formal criminal justiceprocess.

It can be concluded, therefore, that the Youth Conference Service is working well, and makes a highlypositive contribution to the delivery of youth justice across Northern Ireland. Existing reviews of theservice have concluded that critical to its successful launch and implementation has been theprofessionalism, commitment and skills of the staff and management of the Youth Conference Service. Thecreation of the specialist youth conference coordinator role has been particularly important.

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page v

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland vi

One of the principal aims of the YJA is to ‘build confidence in youth justice’. Survey findings suggest thatattitudes towards the youth conference approach are broadly favourable – although the extent to whichthis will translate into increased public confidence in the youth justice system is not yet known. Since thelaunch of youth conferencing in Northern Ireland, the importance of promoting public awareness andpositive attitudes has been widely recognised across the service. The result has been that media coverageof youth conferencing has been broadly positive.

Implications for England and Wales

The Youth Justice Board of England and Wales has stated its commitment to ‘placing restorative justice atthe heart of the youth justice system’ (YJB, 2006: 3). The principles and practices of restorative justice feedinto many youth justice interventions delivered at both pre- and post-conviction stages across Englandand Wales. However, the extent of genuinely restorative practices in England and Wales remains somewhatlimited. There is no close equivalent to the diversionary youth conference and there is no purelyrestorative sentence, equivalent to Northern Ireland’s youth conference order, available for repeatoffenders.

An interesting question is whether it would be feasible and desirable to establish in England and Wales amore integrated and wider-ranging system of restorative justice, along the lines of Northern Ireland’syouth conferencing model. Certainly, the results of youth conferencing to date indicate that theimplementation of a similar model in England and Wales might well bring benefits – particularly in terms ofvictim satisfaction and, very possibly, constructive offender engagement. For a jurisdiction that is strugglingto contain its prison population – and in which the number of children sentenced to custody more thantripled between 1991 and 2006 – youth conferencing could, moreover, prove a welcome means ofreducing the use of custody for young offenders.

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page vi

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Irelandvii

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page vii

1. INTRODUCTION

This report provides an overview of the operationand outcomes of the Youth Conference Service,Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland. Theservice, which takes a restorative justice approachto tackling offending by young people, wasestablished in 2003. Its primary aims are to reducelevels of reoffending and to meet the needs ofvictims of crime. The introduction of youthconferencing appears, moreover, to have contributedto an overall decline in the use of custody for youngoffenders in Northern Ireland. This development isof particular interest to the Prison Reform Trustwhich, with support from The Diana, Princess ofWales Memorial Fund, is running a programme toreduce child and youth imprisonment in all parts ofthe United Kingdom. Hence the Prison Reform Trustcommissioned this study of Northern Ireland’sYouth Conference Service.

The study entailed a review of the range ofpublished literature – including evaluations, publicitymaterial and other documentation – on the YouthConference Service and related initiatives. Inaddition, the Prison Reform Trust research teamcarried out a half-day visit to the service, in thecourse of which they conducted interviews withsenior managers.

Background and development of youthconferencing in Northern Ireland

The comprehensive Criminal Justice Review waspublished in 2000. The review group made 294recommendations for change across the system,including in youth justice. The government acceptedalmost all the Review recommendations andproceeded to legislate. The Justice (NI) Act 2002included the following:

Statutory aim: the youth justice system inNorthern Ireland now has a statutory aimenshrined in legislation to protect the publicby preventing offending and reoffending bychildren. A ‘child’ is defined as being anyoneunder the age of 18, since the youth justicesystem was extended to include 17 year oldsin 2005.

New community sentences: the 2002 Act alsointroduced two sentences to provide courtswith additional community-based disposalswhile addressing the needs of the victim.Reparation Orders allow the young person tomake reparation, up to a maximum of 24hours, to the victim (if the victim consents), orto someone else affected by it, or to thecommunity. Community Responsibility Orders,which can be of 20 to 40 hours duration, aredelivered in two parts. In the first part theyoung person receives citizenship educationwhich might include programmes to addresssuch issues as offending behaviour, victimawareness and healthy lifestyle. The secondpart requires the young person to carry outpractical reparative activities suited to theirage and capabilities.

Youth conferencing: based on inclusiverestorative justice principles, this operatesboth as an alternative to prosecution or as acourt-ordered process and allows children totake responsibility for their actions, givesvictims an opportunity to say how they havebeen affected and results in an agreed plan toredress the harm done.

The Justice (NI) Acts of 2002 and 2004 did notrecommend an increase in the age of criminalresponsibility or incorporate the UN Conventionon the Rights of the Child into primary legislation.

The setting up of the Youth Justice Agency

The Youth Justice Agency (YJA) was launched inApril 2003 as an agency of the Northern IrelandOffice, with the principal aims of reducing youthcrime and building confidence in the youth justicesystem. The agency works with children agedbetween 10 and 17 who have offended or are atserious risk of offending (as in England and Wales,the age of criminal responsibility in NorthernIreland is 10), and delivers a range of servicesincluding diversionary activities, community-baseddisposals and custodial services. Within the police,dedicated officers for working with children andyoung people – youth diversion officers – wereappointed, while the Public Prosecution Service

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland 1

making amends_Layout 1 19/10/2009 16:04 Page 1

Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland2

Traditional criminal justice process• What laws were broken?• Focus on guilt.• Decides on punishment.• Offender is central.• Adversarial – offender vs state.• Limited inclusion of community.

Restorative justice• Who has been hurt?• Crime violates people and

relationships.• Identifies needs and obligations.• Victim is central.• Encourages dialogue.• Forum for community to be

involved in dealing with problems ofcrime.

The youth conference approachRestorative justice can be implemented in manydifferent ways. In Northern Ireland, the youthjustice system opted for a version involving theuse of ‘youth conferences’ at which the victimand victim’s supporters (or victimrepresentatives) are brought together with theoffender and offender’s supporters in astructured meeting facilitated by professionals.The aim of the conference – at which allparticipants have the opportunity to speak – is todiscuss the offence and its repercussions, and toagree on an action plan for the offender. Youthconferences are fully integrated within thecriminal justice process: a young person can bereferred for a conference either beforeconviction (after an admission of guilt to a

prosecutor) or after conviction (see chapter 3).The development of the youth conference modeldrew on restorative justice programmesimplemented in other jurisdictions; the ‘familygroup conferencing’ model of New Zealand,which was introduced in 1989, was particularlyinfluential.2

The main aims of Northern Ireland’s YouthConference Service are as follows:

• reparative justice and meeting theneeds of victims, so giving them a realplace in the youth conference, ratherthan just regarding it as a means toreform the young person who hasoffended

• rehabilitative justice, where what isimportant is the prevention ofreoffending by the young person, sothe youth conference focuses onoffending behaviour

appointed youth ‘champions’.Restorative justiceThe principles of restorative justice have beenplaced at the heart of the youth justice system inNorthern Ireland as it has evolved since 1998. Asdefined by the UK-wide Restorative JusticeConsortium, restorative justice:

…works to resolve conflict and repair harm.It encourages those who have caused harmto acknowledge the impact of what theyhave done and gives them an opportunity tomake reparation. It offers those who havesuffered harm the opportunity to have theirharm or loss acknowledged and amendsmade.1

The restorative justice model contrasts with thetraditional criminal justice model of prosecutingoffenders in a number of respects, as set out infigure 1 below.

Figure 1: contrasting points of focus of traditional criminal justice and restorative justice approaches

Derived from McLaughlin (2006)


• proportionality, rather than pureretributive justice

• making amends for the harm done, clearlyseparating the young person who hasoffended from the offence and focusing onthe potential for reintegrating him intothe community and on the prevention ofreoffending

• repairing relationships which have beendamaged or broken by crime

• devolving power to youth conferenceparticipants to create the youthconference and the plan [setting out theactions to be taken by the young offenderto make amends for the harm he hascaused], but requiring subsequentapproval for the plan from the court forcases which have gone to court

• encouraging participation by young peoplewho have offended, victims, and significantothers in the process.

(YJA Annual Report and Accounts, 2007-8)

The Youth Conference Service was launched, underthe auspices of the YJA, in December 2003. Part 4of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 providesits statutory footing, while the Youth ConferenceRules (Northern Ireland) 2003 set out theprocedures to be followed in delivering the service.Youth conferencing was implemented initially inGreater Belfast; over the following three years itscoverage was gradually extended to the whole ofNorthern Ireland. It has its roots in earliercommunity initiatives designed to replace brutalparamilitary punishments with more effectiverestorative measures in which disputes could bemediated.

Structure of the report

This report comprises four chapters. Following thisintroduction, chapter 2 sets out the details of thescheme’s scope and operation. Chapter 3 looks atthe effectiveness and outcomes of the service, to

the extent that evidence is available on these issues.Finally, chapter 4 concludes the report byhighlighting the key issues to emerge from the study,and briefly considers whether lessons for the youthjustice system of England and Wales can be drawnfrom the Northern Ireland experience ofimplementing restorative justice.

Over the course of the report, a number of casestudies and quotations from youth conferenceparticipants are presented in boxes. These derivefrom existing evaluations of the scheme and fromNorthern Ireland’s Youth Justice Agency.

This study has not encompassed a criticalexamination of the principles of restorative justice,evidence for its general effectiveness, or therationales for its wide-scale introduction inNorthern Ireland. There is a large body ofinternational research literature on restorativejustice and a summary of much of this is provided byCampbell et al (2005).3 For a study of the methodsby which restorative justice – and, specifically,Northern Ireland’s youth conferencing model –seeks to achieve its goals, the reader is directed toMaruna et al (2007). The starting point of this studyis an assumption that the system of restorativejustice introduced in Northern Ireland has thepotential to enhance the delivery of youth justice;this report provides a description of the system andan assessment of the available evidence of its impactand effectiveness to date.


2. THE PROCESS OF YOUTHCONFERENCING

There are various stages to the youth conferenceprocess. First, the young person who committed theoffence4 is referred for a conference. Secondly,preparation for the conference is undertaken, whichincludes inviting the victim to participate. The nextstep is the conference itself. Finally, if a youthconference plan has been agreed at the conference,this must be submitted to the authorities andundertaken by the young person.

Referral

A young person can be referred for a youthconference at one of two stages of the criminaljustice process:

• prior to conviction if, having been chargedby the Public Prosecution Service (PPS),the young person admits to havingcommitted the offence; in such cases, thereferral is undertaken by the PPS, and theconference is known as a diversionaryyouth conference

• following conviction, in which case theconference is known as a court-orderedconference. A guilty plea is not aprecondition for a court-orderedconference.

In both circumstances, a referral can only be made ifthe young person gives their full consent toparticipating in a conference. Other criteria forreferral are that the young person must be agedbetween 10 and 17 (initially the upper age limit was16; this was increased to 17 in September 20055)and must reside in Northern Ireland. To date, themajority of referrals to the Youth ConferenceService have been from the courts: 58% of all 5,350referrals made between 1 January 2004 and 31December 2008 were court-ordered. However, thebalance between court and PPS referrals is shifting:in 2004, just 30% of referrals were from the PPS,whereas in 2008 the PPS made just over half thereferrals (52%) (YJA internal monitoring data).

The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 does notprovide guidance on which kinds of cases aresuitable for PPS referral for youth conferencing, but‘it was anticipated that conferencing [would]constitute an option for many young peoplerecommended for prosecution’ (Campbell et al,2005: 37). Subsequently, the PPS has issuedguidelines on referral for youth conferencing; thesepoint to the need for decisions on prosecution tostrike a balance between public interest and the bestinterests of the child. With respect to court-orderedreferrals, the legislation states that:

A court must refer the case of a child who hasbeen found guilty of an offence by or beforethe court to a youth conference coordinatorfor him to convene a court-ordered youthconference with respect to the child and theoffence (Section 59, 33A (1) of the Justice(Northern Ireland) Act 2002) [emphasisadded].

However, the court is not required to refer foryouth conferencing if the offence carries amandatory life sentence, is triable on indictmentonly in the case of an adult, or is a scheduled offenceunder Part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.6 The otherexceptions are where the young person does notgive his consent to the referral; or if the courtproposes to make an absolute or conditionaldischarge. There is no limit on the number of timesto which a young person can be referred for aconference.

The breadth of the referral criteria for youthconferences is such that they are used for a widearray of offence types, and offences of a wide rangeof seriousness. An analysis of the 362 referralsreceived by the Youth Conference Service betweenDecember 2003 and June 2005 found that 21% ofthe offences were what could be described as‘minor property-related and other minor offences’,53% ‘intermediate offences against person andproperty’, 23% ‘serious offences against person andproperty’, and 3% ‘very serious violent offences andserious harm to the person’ (Campbell et al, 2005).Figure 2 presents a breakdown by offence categoryof all 5,350 youth conference referrals madebetween 1 April 2004 and 31 December 2008; here



it can be seen that violence against the person is thelargest offence category, accounting for a quarter ofall referrals; this is followed by criminal damage(19%), and theft (17%).

Figure 2: offence breakdown of youth conferencereferrals December 2003 – June 2005

Source: YJA internal monitoring data

Before the conference

When a youth conference referral is made, a youthconference coordinator – that is, a specialist, trainedofficer within the Youth Conference Service –undertakes the preparation for the event. Thisincludes meeting with the young person and, ifappropriate, his family or appropriate adult, to talkabout the conference and what will be expected ofhim. The coordinator also meets the victim toexplain the purpose of the conference and invitehim to attend. If the victim does not wish to attend,other forms of participation can be suggested: forexample, contributing to the conference bytelephone is a possibility, or a representative of thevictim might attend. Leaflets on ‘preparing for theconference’ are available for both the victim and theyoung person; these set out various questions thatthe individual can address in advance of the event.(The introductory sections of both leaflets arepresented in figure 3 below.) The conferencecoordinator also arranges for the other relevantparties to attend the conference, while a YJA case

manager takes responsibility for the administrationof the case and, along with the coordinator, ensuringthat the statutory requirements are met.

Figure 3: ‘preparing for the conference’ leaflets from theYouth Conference Service


Offence category % of referrals

Violence against the person 25%

Criminal damage 19%

Theft 17%

Offences against the state 14%

Motoring offences 13%

Burglary 6%

Drug offences 3%

Sexual offences 1%

Robbery 0.5%

Fraud/forgery 0.5%

Other 1%

Total 100%

Introductory section of leaflet for thevictim

We understand that you have agreed to takepart in a youth conference. We appreciate thecourage and commitment it takes to do this.

The youth conference is an opportunity:

- to tell people, especially the youngperson who offended against you,how the offence has affected youand those close to you

- to hear what the young person hasto say about the offence and to askhim/her your questions

- to have the young person makeamends for what he/she did.

Most people feel nervous about taking part ina youth conference. It takes courage. You mayalso need support before, during and after theconference.

Introductory section of leaflet for theyoung person

We understand that you have admittedcommitting an offence and have agreed totake part in a youth conference. Weappreciate the courage and commitment ittakes to do the right thing.

The youth conference is an opportunity:

- to tell people what you did and whatled up to it

- to hear what the victim thinks andfeels about what you did

- to make amends for what you did- to get support to stay out of trouble- to put all this behind you.

Most people feel nervous about taking part ina youth conference. It takes courage. You maylike to talk to others about what it means andwhat happens afterwards.


The Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland)2003 require all diversionary conferences to becompleted within 30 days of referral, and there is anexpectation that court-ordered conferences shouldbe completed within four weeks of the order beingmade. Data presented in both a Queen’s University,Belfast (QUB) evaluation of the Youth ConferenceService and a Criminal Justice Inspection report onthe service indicate that most conferences wereheld within the specified time-scales (Campbell et al,2005; CJNI, 2008). However, both evaluations alsofound that delays in the overall processing of youthcases – from the time of the offence through theprosecution process – meant that conferences werefrequently held long after the offence wascommitted. For example, in 2007 the averagenumber of days between an incident being reportedand the conference being held was 210 – aroundseven months (CJNI 2008: 28). According to theCJNI report, the delays between offence andconference were increasing, although they note thatresolving this problem is not entirely in the hands ofthe Youth Conference Service.

The Queens University Belfast (QUB) evaluationfound that three-quarters of referrals received bythe Youth Conference Service from December 2003to June 2005 successfully resulted in a conference.Of those that did not, most failed to proceedbecause the young person withdrew their consent.Reasons given for refusing consent included notwanting to discuss the offence in a group, notwanting to meet the victim, and subsequent denial ofthe offence. In five of the cases in which the youngperson withdrew consent, this occurred in thecourse of the conference; in the remaining 42 cases,consent was withdrawn before the conference.According to the CJNI report, in 2006 48 (or 5%) ofthe 969 referrals made to the Youth ConferenceService failed because the young person withdrewtheir consent.

The conference process

The following must attend a youth conference:

• the young person• the youth conference coordinator• an appropriate adult in support of the

young person – usually a parent, socialworker or another adult chosen by theyoung person

• a police officer (usually a youth diversionofficer).

The following may attend a youth conference:

• the victim or representative of the victim• friends, family members or other

supporters of the victim• family members of the young person• the young person’s legal advisor• the supervising officer if the young person

is under a court order• an approved observer• others approved by the coordinator to

assist the victim or the young person.

The conference is opened by the coordinator, whointroduces those present, and asks that everyoneshows mutual respect. The young person is thenasked to give an account of the offence, and thevictim, if present, is encouraged to ask the youngperson questions about what has been said and howthey have been affected by the crime. The policeofficer outlines the facts of the case and the effectsof the crime on the community. Others inattendance are also invited to give their views onthe crime and how it has affected them.

A critical element of the conference is thecollaborative development, by the conferenceparticipants, of a youth conference plan which setsout actions to be taken by the young person tomake amends for the offence and reduce thelikelihood of further offending. A plan can involveany combination of a range of different elements;these are presented in figure 4, while figure 5 showsthe content of plans made over the four-year period2004 to 2008. The most common component ofplans were activities (81% of plans had such anelement), apology (53%) and reparation (32%) (YJAinternal monitoring data). If the participants at aconference, including the young person, are unableto reach agreement on what the plan shouldinclude, the case is returned to the PPS or court forfurther action, as appropriate.

The duration of youth conferences varies widely.According to the CJNI report (2008), in 2006 theduration of conferences ranged from 20 minutes totwo hours 45 minutes, with an average length of justover an hour (63 minutes).The victim, but not theyoung person, is entitled to claim travel expensesand for loss of earnings associated with attendanceat the conference.



After the conference

Where a youth conference plan is agreed at adiversionary conference, the details of the plan aresubmitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS),which has the option of either accepting or rejectingit. If the plan is accepted, the young person is

required to complete it, and the matter is notclassed as a conviction on their criminal record –although it can be referred to if there aresubsequent prosecutions. If the PPS rejects the plan,it must decide whether or not to proceed with aprosecution.

In the case of a court-ordered conference, theyouth conference plan is submitted to the court. Ifthe court accepts the plan, the young person issubject to a youth conference order, and this isrecorded as a conviction on his criminal record. Thecourt also has the option of amending the plan ifthis is deemed necessary (the PPS does not havethis option with respect to plans agreed atdiversionary conferences). If the court rejects theplan, it may pass an alternative sentence in place of ayouth conference order. Hence, notwithstanding thestatutory obligation on the courts to make youthconference referrals in certain circumstances (seeabove), the fact that youth conference plans aresubmitted to the courts for approval means thatthey are the final authority with respect to thedisposal.

The QUB evaluation found that, within the studyperiod of December 2003 to June 2005, allconference plans submitted to the PPS wereapproved. Sixty-three per cent of plansrecommended to the courts were either acceptedoutright (49%) or passed with amendments (14%)(Campbell et al, 2005).

When a youth conference plan is approved by thePPS or court, its implementation is monitored bythe youth conference coordinator or other memberof YJA staff. This monitoring usually entails:

• meeting with the young person and hisfamily within one week of the plan’scommencement

• reviewing progress on a regular basis• agreeing with the family how the young

person can be supported in undertakingthe plan

• ensuring all conditions of the plan aremet.

If difficulties arise, the coordinator can arrange afamily group conference at which the coordinator,the young person, his family members and possiblyothers (including the victim) can discuss ways ofhelping the young person to fulfil the plan’srequirements and the likely consequences of failingto do so.


• Specified activity to addressoffending eg engagement inmentoring or offender behaviourprogramme, education ordiversionary activity.

• Apology – verbal or written. • Reparation: that is, doing

something for the victim orcommunity to make up for theharm caused.

• Unpaid work for up to 240 hours. • Restriction: that is, prohibiting the

young person from undertakingcertain activities or going tocertain places; this can entailelectronic monitoring.

• Payment of compensation to thevictim or a charity.

• Supervision by a social worker orother responsible adult.

• Treatment for alcohol, drug, ormental health problems.

Figure 5: content of youth conference plans 2004-2008

Source: YJA internal monitoring data

Figure 4: possible components of a youthconference plan

Agreed conference plan component % of plans

Activities 81

Apology 53

Reparation 32

Unpaid work 19

Restrictions 18

Compensation payment 17

Supervision 2

Treatment 2


The PPS or court is told of a plan’s successfulcompletion by the young person. If, on the otherhand, the young person fails to complete the planfor any reason, the matter will be referred back tothe PPS or court for further action – although theYouth Conference Service has the discretion not totake action on a minor breach. Following referral fornon-compliance, the PPS may decide to prosecutethe young person, or the court may pass analternative sentence for the original offence.


Example: youth conference coordinator’sdescription of a conference

… Along with three other people [the 16-year-old young person] had broke into churchproperty, and the premises were flooded andvandalised. The young person wassubsequently charged with burglary andcriminal damage. He agreed in court toparticipate in a youth conference.

I met with the young person and his family ona number of occasions to discuss the offenceand to encourage them to think aboutaddressing the harm done and how theoffender could make amends. The familycooperated fully in the process. I met with thevictim, a clergyman representing theparticular church organisation. He describedhow the premises had been damaged andhow groups using the building had beenimpacted, and was prepared to meet with theyoung person to communicate these feelings.

In conference both parties were able to telltheir stories. The young person wasremorseful and regretted his decision toenter the premises without permission, andfurther now realised that his actions had adetrimental affect on other people. He statedthat he was sorry and was prepared to makeamends for his mistake by way of reparationalwork. The young person donated a sum ofmoney to a charitable organisation helping toreconstruct people’s lives and homes afterthe Asian Tsunami. In addition he completedten hours voluntary work with the church,cleaning polishing and painting, supervised bythe caretaker. He kept his word as given atthe conference and completed all that hadbeen asked of him.

The young person has not reoffended. He hasreturned to school and will shortly take upvocational training. The victim is positiveabout the experience, and the caretakerpleased that he was able to not only put aface to the offence, but to put closure on it byworking alongside the offender. All partiesinvolved in the restorative conferencebelieved the outcomes to be fair andproportionate to the offence.

Source:www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/youth_conference_service/articles

Example: conference involving a sympatheticvictim

Peter has been charged with shoplifting andcommon assault and was referred to a youthconference by the Public ProsecutionService. He has come to the conferencewith his mother, Rhonda; his mentor, Simon;and his key worker, Terry. Gary, the victim ofassault, has decided to attend without asupporter.

Following discussion of the offence, thecoordinator begins exploring contributoryfactors and mentions the fact that Petershould have been in school at the time ofthe offence. Gary asks Peter if he is going todo it again. Peter: ‘No, I have been changingmy ways and everything.’ Gary: ‘You remindme a lot of me when I was younger. Wecome from a similar background, but I madea decision to change. You’ve come to thatpoint in your life now.’

Gary speaks directly to Peter and appealsfor him to change his ways. The coordinatorasks Rhonda, Peter’s mother, how theoffence affected her. Rhonda: ‘I was justangry, guilty … I didn’t think he’d do this. Hewasn’t brought up to do these things.’ Peter:‘Don’t feel guilty, Rhonda. It’s not your fault.You haven’t failed.’ Peter begins to cry. Thecoordinator offers a break and Peter,Rhonda and the coordinator leave the room.Gary is sympathetic: ‘That poor lad wasdumped on by his mates.’

Source: Campbell et al (2005)



Year(s) No. referrals No. plans approved Plans as % of referrals**

2003/04 – 2004/05* 214 129 60%

2005/06 444 299 67%

2006/07 1,298 880 68%

2007/08 1,932 1,350 70%

2008/09 1,620 1,234 76%

Figure 6: youth conference referrals and plans 2003/4 – 2007/8

Source: Youth Conference Service caseload data, YJA Annual Reports 2004/5, 2005/6, 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9.* Data available for two-year period only.**These figures do not reveal the exact percentage of referrals that resulted in plans over the course of the specified year, due to the timelag between referral and plan.

3. IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS

At the time of writing, the Youth ConferenceService has been in existence for exactly five years,for only two of which it has been in operationacross the whole of Northern Ireland. It is tooearly in the life of the service to reach anydefinitive conclusions about its impact andeffectiveness. However, three existing studies – theQUB evaluation conducted in 2004-05, the CJNIinspection carried out in 2007, and Maruna et al’sprocess evaluation (2007) – provide insight intohow the scheme works, and many of its outcomes.Additionally, further insight can be gained fromreoffending and sentencing statistics published bythe Northern Ireland Office, and data (includinginternal monitoring data) collated by the YouthJustice Agency itself.

Numbers and outcomes of conferences

The numbers of referrals made to the YouthConference Service and numbers of youthconference plans approved, over the years 2003/04to 2007/08, are shown in figure 6. (The tableincludes both diversionary and court-orderedconferences.) This table demonstrates the rapidincrease in take-up of the service over the yearssince it was launched, although the numbers appearto have flattened off between 2007/08 (whenalmost 2,000 referrals were made) and 2008/09

(1,620 referrals). According to YJA internalmonitoring data, a total of 5,350 referrals weremade over the four-year period of 1 January 2004to 31 December 2008.

Clearly, not all youth conference referrals result ina youth conference plan that is approved by thePublic Prosecution Service (PPS) or court. Thereferral can fail to translate into an approved planat various stages and for various reasons: theconference might not be held because, forexample, the young person withdraws theirconsent; the conference might be held but no planagreed by the participants; or a plan might beagreed but subsequently rejected by the PPS orcourt. For these reasons, the relatively high – andrising – proportions of approved plans, as shownin the third column of figure 6, are striking.Young men made up a large majority - 85% - of the5,350 young people referred to the YouthConference Service over the years 2004 to 2008inclusive. An age breakdown of all young personsreferred over this four-year period is presented infigure 7; here it can be seen that just under four-fifths of those referred were between the ages of15 and 17, while only 3% were aged 12 and under.(It should be noted that those young people overthe age of 17 would have been 17 or under at thetime they committed the offence.)


The QUB evaluation of the Youth ConferenceService found high rates of compliance withconference plans. Just under half of the plansapproved during the study period were completedby the end of the period, with completion takingan average of 67 days. Only 6% of the plans hadbeen revoked for non-compliance (Campbell et al,2005). This general finding is supported by theCriminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland(CJINI) report (2008), which found that 52% ofalmost 800 conference plans arising from referralsin 2006 had been completed as of June 2007, while46% were ongoing. Just 2% of the plans had beenrevoked by the courts or returned to the PPS fornon-compliance.

Offender responses and reoffending

The reduction of reoffending has been one of themain aims of youth conferencing since the servicewas introduced in Northern Ireland. It is, however,notoriously difficult to identify and measure thecontribution of a given criminal justiceintervention to any changes in levels ofreoffending.

The Northern Ireland Office (Tate and O’Loan,2009) has published an analysis of proven, one-year reoffending levels among 10 to 17-year-oldsreleased from custody and given non-custodialorders in 2006. This found the overall one-yearreoffending rate for the 2006 youth cohort to be41.8%. The figure for those released from custodyis 70.7%, compared to 52.1% for community-basedsanctions (the rate for all non-custodial disposalsis 40.7%). Youth conferencing is associated with alower level of reoffending than other community-based disposals, with a reoffending rate of 37.7%,which itself can be broken down into a figure of47.4% for court-ordered conferences and asubstantially lower figure of 28.3% for diversionaryconferences.7 The full breakdown of reoffendingrates by disposal is presented in figure 8 below. The reoffending figures for the 2006 youth cohortpaint an encouraging picture of the impact of


Baseline disposal No. reoffending Total in cohort Reoffending rate (%)*

Immediate custody 29 41 70.7%

Suspended custody 0 0 -

Community-based** 138 265 52.1%

Fine 51 178 28.7%

Conditional discharge 60 174 34.5%

Bound over 31 35 -

Other 7 20 -

Court-ordered youth conference 102 215 47.4%

Diversionary youth conference 63 223 28.3%

All conferences 165 438 37.7%

ALL DISPOSALS 481 1,151 41.8%

Figure 8: one-year reoffending rates, by disposal, of 2006 youth cohort

Source: NIO reoffending statistics, Table 1 (Tate and O’Loan, 2009).*Reoffending rates have not been calculated for some sub-sets because of the small numbers.**Includes attendance centre order, combination order, probation order, community service order, and community responsibility order.

Figure 7: age breakdown of young people engaged in youth conferences 2006

Source: Youth Justice Agency internal monitoring data


youth conferencing on reoffending – withdiversionary youth conferences, in particular, beingassociated with a comparatively low reoffendingrate. However, these findings must be treated withcaution given the small scale of the analysis. Amore thorough-going analysis would entailcontrolling for variables other than disposal (suchas offence type and prior convictions) that arelikely to affect reoffending, but the relatively smallnumbers of people passing through NorthernIreland’s youth justice system limit the scope forsuch an approach.

As noted by Campbell et al (2005), it is oftenargued that young offenders who feel they havebeen treated fairly by the criminal justice systemare more likely to respect the law in future. Youngpeople’s perspectives on youth conferencing seemlargely positive, according to internal reviews ofthe service. In 2009, for example, the YJA reportedthat 93% of young people were satisfied withconference outcomes, and that 90% wouldrecommend engaging in a conference to others(YJA, 2009).

The QUB evaluation found high levels ofsatisfaction with the conference process amongyoung persons, although most had found it to be achallenging experience, which provoked somenervousness or discomfort. Nevertheless, they feltthat the conference provided an opportunity toexpress themselves and to have their ownperspective on events recognised. Most youngpersons took responsibility for their actions,displayed a degree of shame and remorse and, inthe large majority of cases, voiced an apology.Generally, the young people engaged with theother conference participants in the process ofdesigning the conference plan, and perceived theplan to be fair and proportionate. Lack ofengagement in the conference process was usuallya function of embarrassment, nervousness,difficulty in recalling the offence or – justoccasionally – defiance (Campbell et al, 2005).

Among 26 young persons interviewed by Marunaet al for their process evaluation, views of youth

conferencing were likewise broadly positive, andmost of the interviewees had avoided criminaljustice involvement since their participation in theconference.8 Maruna et al report that:

Numerous interviewees said they firstrecognised that what they had done waswrong in the conference itself. Thisrecognition of wrongdoing consistently ledto an experience described by intervieweesas a sense of ‘shame’. Still, most desistinginterviewees were able to hold on to a senseof a ‘good core self’ inside of them despitethe mistakes they had made. Participantdescriptions of the conferencing processwere consistent across the interviewees.Successful conferences appeared to involveinitial trepidation in the anticipation of theconference, followed by relief and a sense ofresolution. A very consistent account acrossthe various interviews was that theanticipation of the conference was routinelymuch more frightening than the actualconference experience (2007: 2).


Examples: young persons’ comparisons ofcourt and conference experiences

It’s far better than court – you get to meeteveryone and say sorry. It’s brilliant.***Do a conference. It’s better than a judgeshouting at you and you thinking, ‘F-- off I’lldo it again,’ ‘cos they are punishing youinstead of helping you.***Aye, ‘cos it makes you feel better. ‘Cos youget to say sorry but probably feel bettersaying it to their face.



Victim participation and satisfaction

Alongside the reduction of reoffending, meetingthe needs of victims is another key aim of theYouth Conference Service. Conferences can goahead in the absence of a victim, but victiminvolvement is generally seen as a highly valuableaspect of the process since restorative justicework, by definition, is about confronting theoffender with the harm they have caused andencouraging them to make amends – directly or

indirectly – for that harm. The role of the victim(or representative of the organisation orcommunity that has been harmed) in describingthe impact of the offence and reflecting onappropriate reparation can thus be critical.

There has been a significant level of victimparticipation in youth conferences: according tothe CJNI inspection report (2008), a victim waspresent in 67% of 775 conferences held in 2006 –which is higher than in restorative justice initiativesin other jurisdictions. The equivalent figure for theyear 2008/09 is reported by the YJA Annual Report(2009) to be 66%. Victims who attend conferencesvary in their perspectives on the offence: of theattending victims in 2006, 38% were personalvictims of the crime; 28% were victimrepresentatives (usually representatives ofcorporate or public bodies); 28% ‘general victims’providing a broad view on the impact of an offencewhich had no direct victim; and 6% representativesof communities harmed by the offence (CJNI,2008).

Victims have generally viewed their experience ofconference participation in a positive light. TheQUB evaluation found that most victims weresatisfied with the conferences in which theyparticipated, felt that their views were takenseriously, and regarded the conference outcomesas fair. As the report points out, this would seemto contrast sharply with most victims’ experiencesof the criminal justice process which, according tothe research literature, tends to exacerbatefeelings of victimisation. It is unsurprising,therefore, that most of the victims in theevaluation said that they preferred the experienceof participating in a conference to attending court(Campbell et al, 2005). Victims surveyed for theCJNI inspection (2008) also largely reportedfeeling positive about the conference process.Confirming these encouraging findings on victims’experiences, victim satisfaction surveys conductedin 2008/09 found that 89% of victims expressedsatisfaction with conference outcomes, with 90%saying that they would recommend a conferenceto another victim (cited in YJA, 2009). Thecorresponding figures for 2007/08 were 93% and93% (cited in YJA, 2008a, 2008b). Comments fromvictims surveyed in 2007/08 included:


Examples: young persons’ descriptions ofconference experiences

And so what is the most difficult thing aboutthe whole conference?Having to listen to that person’s story. Howthey were affected. Probably for me. Youknow. Not nice. But it’s asking them howthey feel and you have to listen to it.Not nice? Like when you say not nice, doyou mean like it made you angry?No. Sad really. Like I’m upset with what I'vedone and wish you could take it back. Wish Icould change time.***Well, I'm glad [the conference is] over, like.But it was actually better than you know ifI'd went to court and all. Then, it would havebeen, the way I look at it, I'd have probablyjust thought ‘It wasn’t my fault and all’. But,like, I know it was my fault and all. And likethe whole family were saying it. But youknow what I mean? It helped me how to [beable to admit] that like. So it did.***It was scary. Even the second [conference]was scary.Why do you think it felt scary?Because you don't know what they're goingto do, if they're going to be angry or, youknow, sad or whatever.…And after the conference what did youthink about it then, what were the victims'reactions like in the conferences?They were alright, calm and even nice like.

Source: Maruna et al (2007)


[I am] pleased with being involved in theprocess

Relieved and satisfied, I got to have my say

[The best thing about the conference was]having the opportunity to see the youngperson being real and showing genuineemotion and being sorry.

Public confidence in youth justice

The Youth Justice Agency describes its principalaims as being ‘to reduce youth crime and to buildconfidence in the youth justice system’.9 It is

hoped that the Youth Conference Service cancontribute to the achievement of the aim ofbuilding confidence.

Certainly, building confidence in youth justice inNorthern Ireland is unlikely to be an easy orstraightforward task. Levels of trust in the youthjustice system have traditionally been low. Givenits departure from the traditional model of thecriminal justice process, it might be expected thatthe restorative justice approach of the YouthConference Service would meet some resistance.It is interesting to note the public’s responses tothe question of what should be the top priorityfor the criminal justice system, posed as part ofthe 2003/04 Northern Ireland Crime Survey. Thevast majority of respondents considered the mainpriority to be ‘bringing those who commit crimesto justice’ (58%), while 20% identified ‘reducecrime’ as the main priority, and just 5% ‘meetingthe needs of victims of crime’ (NIO, 2006). Youthconferencing could be described as a system ofbringing young offenders to justice, but it may notmeet most expectations of what this processentails; moreover, its stated aims of reducingreoffending and meeting victims’ needs may haveless resonance for the general public.

Nevertheless, evidence of favourable attitudestowards the youth conference approach emergedfrom an independent Northern Ireland Statisticsand Research Agency (NISRA) Omnibus Surveyconducted in September 2006, which found that69% of respondents believed this to be anappropriate method of dealing with youngoffenders (cited by YJA, 2007). The extent to whichfavourable attitudes such as these will translateinto increased public confidence in the youthjustice system is not yet known. Baseline data onpublic confidence in the youth justice system havebeen established by the Omnibus survey ofJanuary 2008, which found a general level ofconfidence of 41% (cited by YJA, 2008). A relativelymodest target of increasing the level of confidencefrom 41 to 45% has been set for the year 2008-09.To assess the extent to which the YouthConference Service contributes to any increase inconfidence over the years ahead would requireregular monitoring of public awareness of andattitudes to the service.


Examples: comments from personal victimsin attendance at conferences

I know you were messing around, but youhurt me. I felt sick. I went to the office andtold them, but I said I didn't want anythingdone. I was sick and light headed. I goaround [the area] all the time and I'd beworried in case you go near me. I don't wantyou to go near me. You can say hello, butnothing else. Don't hurt me again. I don'twant you punished.***After it happened I wouldn't go to school‘cos I was terrified of you. When I saw yougoing into school I ran away. I was terrified. Iwas shaking. You hurt me.***I was working in a club to get extra money.It was my first car. Took me three years tosave up for it [describes damage to car] offthe road for five-six days. It took me twobuses to get to work. Frustrating. Not theworst thing that could happen, but I waspissed off. I'm glad you are here, that you areowning up and facing me face to face. Youare due respect for that. It is difficult to putinto words how pissed off I was that nightand when I got the bill a few weeks later.



Since the launch of youth conferencing inNorthern Ireland, the importance of promotingpublic awareness and positive attitudes has beenwidely recognised across the service. A variety ofactivities to this end have been undertaken,including regular work with the media – andparticularly the local press. For example,information about the service is regularlydisseminated to the media, and journalists areencouraged to sit in on conferences as observers,with the permission of young persons and victims.The result has been that media coverage of youthconferencing has been broadly positive, despite thepotential for criticisms – especially from thetabloid press – of the approach for being ‘soft’ onoffenders since it departs from the traditionalcriminal justice model of prosecution andsentencing.10 Engagement in awareness-raising isexplicitly expected of conference coordinatorswho, for example, deliver talks in schools aboutthe service, and each local area is assigned a targetnumber of awareness-raising events. The publicengagement work of the Youth Conference Servicefalls within the broader communications strategyof the YJA, which comprises a range of events andactivities aimed at increasing awareness of theagency and wider criminal justice system.

Impact on prosecution and custody rates

The stated aims of the Youth Conference Service,as set out on page 10, do not include the aim ofincreasing the proportion of young offenders whoare diverted out of the criminal justice systemafter charge but before court. Nor do they includethe aim of reducing the use of custody for thoseyoung offenders who are prosecuted andconvicted. However, the structure of the youthconferencing model – with its diversionaryelement and the statutory obligation on courts tomake youth conference orders, subject to certainconditions – is such that its introduction wasbound to lead directly both to more diversion andless use of custody. Both these trends, moreover,would likely be seen as positive developments bymost youth justice practitioners and penalreformers.

With respect to its impact on the prosecutionrate, figure 9, below, indicates that the expandinguse of youth conferencing over years 2004/05 to2006/07 has indeed been associated withincreasing numbers of suspects being diverted outof the criminal justice process after charge butbefore conviction. The precise impact of youthconferencing on prosecution rates is, however,difficult to assess in the absence of more detailabout the cases. The CJNI report in which thesefigures are presented makes the point that agreater decline in the prosecution rate might havebeen expected, arguing that the figure of almost30% of suspects charged to court is ‘high ... for ajurisdiction that has a youth conferencing approachas its core approach to youth offending’ (2008: 6).It remains to be seen if, with the continuing growthof youth conferencing in 2007/08, the prosecutionrate has by now declined to well below 30%.

Figures on sentencing reveal a relationshipbetween youth conferencing and reduced use ofcustody. Figure 10 shows that the percentage ofconvicted young offenders sentenced to custodyhas declined from 10% in 2004 to 7% in 2006,while the percentage receiving youth conferenceorders increased rapidly from 1% to 23%.

Figure 10 indicates that use of the youth


Example: young person’s account of hisparents’ and grandmother’s experiences ofthe conference

Well they couldn't believe it. They said theywere really upset. You know. Because theykept saying. They kept thinking they've gotthe wrong person. You know [our son]wouldn't do this. You know? And that hurtme because they lost trust in me. You know.They could trust me. And they could tell me.You know. Their wee boy who knows rightfrom wrong. Things like that there and thathurt a lot because you know I've hurt them.Because they thought they knew me andthey didn't. You see what I mean? And thathurt them. So it hurts me because it hurtthem and er…there was obviously a bigdiscussion when I went up there for theweekend.



conference order has expanded at the expense ofboth non-custodial and custodial disposals – aswould be expected, given its applicability torelatively minor as well as more serious offences.The YJA Annual Report for 2008/09 notes that theyouth conference order accounted for around 50%of all court disposals over the course of that year(YJA, 2009).

The decline in numbers sentenced to custody iseven more marked when viewed over a ten yearperiod. In 1996, 296 children in Northern Irelandwere sentenced to custody, compared to 89 in 2006,representing a threefold decrease over a decade.Whilst the numbers in custody were already indecline at the introduction of the youthconferencing system, the reforms seem to have

accelerated this trend [see appendix 1 for moredetail on the number sentenced to custody].

As figure 10 clearly shows, the total number ofyoung offenders convicted by the courts has alsodeclined in recent years, continuing a marked longer-term trend. In 1996, as many as 1,950 youngoffenders were sentenced, compared to 1,588 in2004 and 1,273 in 2006. This means, for example,that the fall in the percentage of young offenderssentenced to custody from 10% to 7% masks alarger fall in absolute numbers from 152 to 89. It isclear, therefore, that various other factors, inaddition to the availability of new sentencingoptions, have an impact on the numbers of youngpeople in Northern Ireland who are incarcerated.


2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Indictable prosecution 1% 1% 1%

Summary prosecution 39% 38% 29%

Caution 14% 18% 16%

Informed warning 19% 16% 18%

Youth conference 5% 6% 9%

No prosecution 22% 21% 28%

Figure 9: Prosecutions and other outcomes following charge 2004/05 - 2006/07

Source: CJNI (2008), Table 1

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Immediate custody 139 9% 152 10% 144 10% 89 7%

Youth conference order 0 0% 21 1% 72 5% 289 23%

Suspended custody 64 4% 85 5% 72 5% 32 3%

Community-based* 490 31% 497 32% 443 31% 369 28%

Fine 391 25% 401 25% 348 24% 243 19%

Bound over** 100 6% 72 5% 57 4% 38 3%

Absolute & conditional discharge 383 23% 346 21% 312 21% 210 16%

Other 21 1% 14 1% 7 0% 3 0%

Total 1,588 99% 1,588 100% 1,455 100% 1,273 99%

Figure 10: Sentencing of young offenders 2003-2006

Source: NIO sentencing statistics, Table 3 (Campbell and Wilson, 2008)*Includes attendance centre order, combination order, probation/supervision order, community service order, and community responsibility order.**Referred to in NIO table as ‘recognizance’.

Outcome% of youth suspects charged

Sentence2006200520042003


Remand

While agencies in Northern Ireland have madegreat strides in reducing the numbers of childrensentenced to custody, numbers on remand remainhigh: in 2007/08, for example, 260 young peoplewere admitted to the Juvenile Justice Centre onremand, and the average remand population overthe year was 22 (YJA, 2008a). The remand figureswere somewhat lower the following year – at 195admissions and an average population of 17 (YJA,2009). But this still means that of all children in theCentre, nearly two thirds are on remand. (Seeappendix 2 for the average annual remandpopulation 2000-2008).

It is not clear why the remand population shouldbe so much higher than sentenced, particularlygiven that bail support and bail fostering schemesdo exist. The length of time children spend waitingfor their cases to come to trial may becontributing to the problem.

In her evidence to the Joint Committee on HumanRights (17 Feb 2009), Patricia Lewsley, theNorthern Ireland Commissioner for Children andYoung People (NICCY) expressed concern aboutthe number of children on remand and wrote:

There needs to be appropriate alternativesto holding children on remand.Children who are held on remand should beaccommodated separately fromthose who have been prosecuted ascommitting an offence. Currently childrenwho have been held on remand andsubsequently prosecuted do not have theirtime on remand recognised as part of theirsentence.

Convery and Moore11 conducted primaryresearch with staff and children in the JuvenileJustice Centre in 2006 into the protection ofchildren’s rights in custody, focussing on the issueof remand. At that time three quarters of thechildren in the centre were there on remand,


Example: conference without a victim

Peter has been referred to youth conferenceby the court for the offence of commonassault. He is attending the conference withhis mother and father, Rose and Steven. Thevictim is unable to attend, but is happy thatthe conference proceeds without him andhas prepared some questions for thecoordinator to ask Peter. Peter has engagedwell in the conference, has shown remorseand has given a full account of whathappened from his point of view.

The coordinator explains the victim’sphysical hurt, time off work, loss of pay andhaving to stay in the police station until 4am.They also speak of the emotional effect andexplain how it felt to see their friend alsogetting assaulted. The coordinator reads outone of the victim’s questions: ‘What givesyou the right to attack someone you don’tknow?’ Peter: ‘There is no right … we werejust being a-holes.’

In their statement the victim explains thatthe mobile phone that was stolen that nightwas a present from his girlfriend. Peter nods.The coordinator asks Peter if heunderstands. Peter: ‘Yes, that he is shocked.It’s not right.’ The coordinator goes on toexplain that the victim still has the incidentin mind when he is in the area and that hehopes it will not happen again, but would likereassurance. The coordinator again asksPeter if he understands: ‘Yeah, he has beenhurt… losing money. I regret it like. I’mfeeling sorry to them for that therehappening.’ …

After the conference, in interview, Petershows further remorse: ‘I regret ever evendoing that - it’s my stupidity.’ He explainsthat he would have liked to have met thevictim: ‘I wish the victim had have beendown - to try and express to him my regret.’



some for relatively minor offences, most of whomdid not subsequently receive custodial sentences.JJC staff and children considered that custody wasover used:

There’s still too many coming in to custodythat shouldn’t. It’s a lot about supportaccommodation. (Staff)

The judge had me remanded because theycan’t get me a place. (Child)

Over half the children in custody had been in careand living in children’s homes:

He was in and out of the [children’s home]consistently…He’s in for nuisanceoffences…he has serious learning difficultiesand there’s a concern that this may lead toserious harm. (Staff)

The latest inspection of the Juvenile Justice Centrehighlights the continuing over-use of imprisonmentfor children who were:

…neither serious nor persistent offenders.They were troubled children whose JJCplacements often resulted from benignintent on the part of courts or police. Whenunsure about how to deal with them, theywere placed in custody as much for theirown safety as in response to offendingbehaviour. Such placements breachinternational safeguards, and inappropriateuse of custody for children remains a morepronounced problem in Northern Irelandthan elsewhere in the UK.12

The inspectors were particularly concerned by thenumber of children admitted to the centre asPACE placements: 48% of admissions were PACEplacements (to ensure that children are heldsecurely pending a court appearance) and nearlyhalf of these were subsequently released at court,‘which calls into question the value of placing themin custody in the first instance’.

This report does not analyse the reasons for theover-use of custody for remand and PACEplacements. The Prison Reform Trust will examinethis in more detail and publish separately on thesubject. There may well be scope for otheragencies concerned with health and welfare toadopt restorative measures as a form of earlyintervention to prevent young people getting intofurther trouble and being drawn into the justicesystem.



4. DISCUSSION

The reform of Northern Ireland’s youth justicesystem, which followed the signing of the GoodFriday Agreement in April 1998, resulted in theestablishment of the Youth Conference Service. Thisplaced restorative justice at the heart of the youthjustice system, fully integrated within theprosecution and sentencing processes. The numberof young persons engaged in youth conferencinghas grown year on year since the service waslaunched; over the course of 2007-08, a total of justunder 2,000 referrals were made to the service,and 1,350 conference plans were approved by thePublic Prosecution Service and courts. Conferencestend to be held within the designated timescales(wider delays within the justice systemnotwithstanding) and most result in an agreedconference plan; most plans, in turn, are endorsedby the Public Prosecution Service or courts andthereafter completed by the young person.

Although it is too early to reach definitiveconclusions about the effectiveness of youthconferencing, there is ample evidence that victimswho attend conferences tend to be satisfied withthe process and outcomes, and levels of victimparticipation are reasonably high. It is difficult toassess fully the impact of youth conferencing onreoffending rates, but there are encouraging signs inthis regard. The establishment of the YouthConference Service has contributed to an overalldecline in the use of custody for young offenders,and to an increasing rate of diversion of youngpeople out of the formal criminal justice process.

It can be concluded, therefore, that the YouthConference Service is working well, and makes ahighly positive contribution to the delivery of youthjustice across Northern Ireland. This chapter brieflydiscusses some of the strengths of the scheme’simplementation, and some of the continuingchallenges encountered by the service. This isfollowed by a consideration of whether there arelessons to be learnt from Northern Ireland’sexperience of youth conferencing for the youthjustice system of England and Wales.

Implementation of youth conferencing:strengths and continuing challenges

Both the Criminal Justice Inspection NorthernIreland and Queens University, Belfast reportsobserve that the professionalism, commitment andskills of the staff and management of the YouthConference Service have been critical to itssuccessful launch and implementation. Clearly, thecreation of the specialist youth conferencecoordinator role has been particularly important;the Queens University, Belfast evaluation found thata large majority of conference participants felt thatthey had been well prepared for the conference bythe coordinator, and found him or her to be highlyskilled at facilitating the event (Campbell, 2005).Conference coordinators undertake a trainingcourse over a 12-month period which is deliveredby the University of Ulster and leads to a certificatein restorative practices; some also advance todiploma level. All coordinators must complete partof the certificate course before convening theirfirst youth conference. It has been suggested thatfurther training and additional support may berequired to help them deal with cases of aparticularly sensitive nature, such as those involvingsex offences (CJINI, 2008).

The risk of over-burdening conferencecoordinators, given their ever-increasing workload,has also been highlighted. A particular concern isthat their capacity to monitor conference plansmay be compromised if their caseloads become toogreat. More generally, the CJINI report notes thatan annual rate of 2,000 referrals to the YouthConference Service will not be sustainable withouthigher levels of resourcing of the service: at thetime the inspection was carried out, it was alreadyoperating at the limits of its capacity. The YouthJustice Agency has reconfigured its business inorder to delegate the role of supervising youthconference plans to additional Youth Justice Agencystaff.

Effective implementation of the service dependsnot simply on the quality of its own staff andadequate resourcing, but also on co-ordination withother services and agencies. To a large extent, inter-agency co-operation between the Youth



Conference Service and other criminal justiceagencies, such as the Public Prosecution Service,Court Service and Police Service of NorthernIreland (PSNI), has been good. As discussed in theCriminal Justice Inspection Northern Irelandreport, the service has also successfully builtworking relationships with a range of community-based organisations that are able to offerprogrammes and activities for young personsunder conference plans. The Criminal JusticeInspection Northern Ireland inspection also found,however, some strains in the relationship betweenthe Youth Conference Service and the ProbationBoard of Northern Ireland, partly because of theinevitable blurring of boundaries between thework carried out by the two services with respectto youth cases.13 Within the Youth Justice Agency,there have also been some tensions between theYouth Conference Service and the YJA’scommunity service directorate, reflecting theirdiffering approaches to tackling youth offending(the responsibilities of the latter include thedelivery of community-based sentences andcertain components of youth conference plans).The CJNI report concludes, therefore, that thereremains a need to develop ‘a more closelyintegrated system-wide approach to youthoffending … that has restorative justice at its core’(2008: 18).

The role of the police within youth conferencingmay need further consideration. The YouthConference Service has worked closely andeffectively with youth diversion officers within thePSNI (CJNI). Maruna et al point out, however, thatthe attendance of police officers at youthconferences can sometimes be counter-productive, where young persons have deeplyengrained hostility towards, and mistrust of, thepolice. They argue that, in contrast, the presence ofyoung person ‘supporters’ – such as their ownfamily members or even, possibly, formerparticipants in youth conferences – can be moreconstructive:

Young people who felt that there wereothers at the conference who could standup for them and defend their reputationwere most likely to find the experiencepositive and memorable. Those without suchsupporters harboured resentments andnegative memories. Additionally, when

shaming was delivered by those whom theyoung person respected it was far moreeffective than the ‘lectures’ delivered bypersons the young people did not know orcare about (Maruna et al, 2007: 64).

Another key issue raised by the existing studies ofthe Youth Conference Service is that of theappropriateness of referrals to the service. In mostcases, it would appear that referrals are indeedappropriate; but in a minority of cases, referralsare made for very minor issues that do notnecessarily warrant the investment of time andresources associated with youth conferencing.Moreover, as noted by Maruna et al, where aconference is regarded by the young personhimself as a disproportionate response to aninsignificant matter, this can have negativerepercussions: ‘those who participated inconferences for what they perceived to be minoror ‘harmless’ offences were the most likely toretain a sense of resentment and anger about theconference’ (2007: 60). In addition, with respect tovery minor property crimes, the appropriatenessand utility of repeatedly referring the morepersistent offenders for youth conferences hasbeen questioned by some stakeholders (CJNI,2008).

Finally, while levels of victim participation in youthconferences are high (and higher than levels inmost restorative justice schemes in otherjurisdictions), they are not quite at target levels. Itmay thus be necessary to devise and implementnew methods of encouraging victim participation,especially since the research evidence onrestorative conferencing demonstrates that thepresence of an actual victim – rather than ahypothetical or stand-in victim – has a positiveimpact on outcomes (Maruna et al, 2007). Inpractice, as recognised by Campbell et al (2005), itis not possible to have a victim or even a victimrepresentative in attendance at all youthconferences, but efforts should be made to engagevictims wherever possible. A related considerationis that where an offence has no direct victim(s)(for example, a drugs offence), the structure andlanguage of the conference may need to beamended to take this into account, as theconferencing process tends to be oriented aroundthe concept of victim and offender (Campbell etal, 2005).



Implications for England and Wales

The Youth Justice Board of England and Wales hasstated its commitment to ‘placing restorativejustice at the heart of the youth justice system’(YJB, 2006: 3). The principles and practices ofrestorative justice feed into a wide range of youthjustice interventions delivered at both pre- andpost-conviction stages across England and Wales.14

For example, the sentence of referral order, whichwas introduced in 2002, is essentially a restorativedisposal, available – and in certain circumstancesmandatory – for any first-time offender whopleads guilty.15 The referral order entails referralto a youth offender panel comprising the offenderand his parents/carers, two community-basedvolunteers, a youth offending team representativeand, where appropriate, the victim. The panelagrees a ‘contract’ specifying activities to beundertaken by the young offender to repair theharm caused by the offence and tackle hisoffending behaviour.

In the last year some extensions in the statutoryuse of restorative justice for young offenders havebeen introduced:

• Under the Criminal Justice andImmigration Act 2008, an offender withone prior conviction who pleads guiltycan receive a referral order if they havenot previously had one; a referral ordercan also be used twice for the sameoffender in exceptional circumstances.

• The youth restorative disposal is beingpiloted in eight areas. This is a pre-courtdisposal which gives specially trainedpolice officers and police communitysupport officers on-the-spot discretionto hold young people who havecommitted certain minor offences toaccount. It is only possible to use ayouth restorative disposal for a firstoffence.

However, notwithstanding the commitment of thegovernment and the Youth Justice Board torestorative justice, the extent of genuinelyrestorative practices in England and Wales remainssomewhat limited. There is no close equivalent tothe diversionary youth conference and there is no

purely restorative sentence, equivalent toNorthern Ireland’s youth conference order,available for repeat offenders. The referral ordercan only be used in limited circumstances and it isstill unpopular with many magistrates and districtjudges.16 Additionally, while the referral order isbased on restorative principles, in practice thelevel of victim attendance at youth offender panelsis low17 – probably reflecting, at least in part, theinadequate resourcing, and generally low profile, ofvictim-oriented work within the youth justicesystem. There are very few dedicated restorativejustice practitioners in England and Wales andyouth offending team staff who manage referralpanels have much less training than their NorthernIreland counterparts. In short, restorative justice isat present less central to, and less integratedwithin, the youth justice system of England andWales than in Northern Ireland.

An interesting question is whether it would befeasible and desirable to establish in England andWales a more integrated and wider-ranging systemof restorative justice, along the lines of NorthernIreland’s youth conferencing model. Certainly, theresults of youth conferencing, as described overthe course of this report, indicate that theimplementation of a similar model in England andWales might well bring benefits – particularly interms of victim satisfaction and, very possibly,constructive offender engagement. For ajurisdiction that is struggling to contain its prisonpopulation – and in which the number of childrensentenced to custody more than tripled between1991 and 2006 (PRT, 2008) – youth conferencingcould, moreover, prove a welcome means ofreducing the use of custody for children.

Clearly, adapting the Northern Irish model ofyouth conferencing to the English and Welshcontext would pose a number of challenges.Perhaps the greatest and most obvious challengelies in the fact that England and Wales is a farlarger jurisdiction than Northern Ireland. Thepopulation of England and Wales, at around 54million, is 30 times that of Northern Ireland. Withthe much greater population size comes a muchlarger youth justice system, and a much greatercomplexity of agencies and partnerships (andassociated budgetary structures andarrangements) in relation to which any new system



of restorative justice would have to be devised andimplemented.

If any far-reaching change is to be made to theyouth justice system of England and Wales, strongpolitical will and leadership will be required to seethrough the process. In Northern Ireland, theestablishment of a largely new system ofgovernment in the wake of the Belfast Agreementof 1998 provided the opportunity for a radical re-assessment of existing structures of criminaljustice, and the consequent implementation of aprogramme of change. Similar opportunities fornew and fresh thinking about youth justice andcriminal justice do not often present themselves inEngland and Wales. Indeed, policy debate oncriminal justice in this jurisdiction has beenseverely hamstrung in recent years by a punitivepolitical climate, and by a populist media that hasvociferously criticised existing policy and practiceas too lenient. However, the current review of thework of the Youth Justice Board, combined witheconomic pressures, may lead the system in amore effective direction.

Nevertheless, despite the assumptions made bypoliticians and the media about society’s generalpunitiveness, the public may have an appetite forapproaches to youth crime that depart from thetraditional criminal justice model. A surveycommissioned by the Prison Reform Trust, forexample, has found that members of the publicgenerally believe non-custodial sentences to bemore effective than custodial sentences fortackling non-violent offending in children andyoung people (PRT, 2008). In Northern Ireland,there appears to be a high level of public supportfor restorative justice as a method of dealing withyoung offenders, and the Youth ConferenceService had made efforts to cultivate this supportby actively engaging with the media and widerpublic. Effective public engagement may be criticalto the success of any attempt to expand the roleof restorative justice within the youth justicesystem of England and Wales.


Example: young person’s account ofvocational training undertaken as part of hisconference plan (young person waspreviously a persistent offender)

[For my conference plan] I had to build atable. Like with [a woodwork course]. Istarted going like when I was fourteen. I’mstill there. I was there [as part of myconference plan] and I stayed on there ‘cos Iliked it. I stayed on. … I did woodwork and Ibuilt the table. And that was wood stainingand all. … And obviously just like I stayed on.I built two plant pots. A dartboard. A tableand that kind of thing.

Where did that go? All those things youmade.I gave the two plant pots to my ma. Thedartboard case for me. And the table, Idonated it to [named] charity. And like sothat’s why. Where I’m like getting the joineryfrom because I like staining the wood thensort of helped with me as well. With job[skills] like. Because that’s what I want to donow. I really wanna do joinery now. So it wasuseful.… So you actually think that like yourconference plan is one of your high points inyour life?… There’s nothing really else to do in mylife. Because obviously where I live there’snothing to do. Apart from the weekends andyou go out and raise hell and drink. But it’snot really a high point like. That’s justsomething, something that you’d do. All thisaction plan stuff it’s giving me something[else] to do like. Because every Tuesday Ihave to go down and see [the workshop]..… [and now] I know. I know what I’m gonnado: joinery. I’m dead set on now doingjoinery like. And I wouldn’t even havethought of doing joinery before the thing[conference plan]. Before I started buildingthe table and all. Because it’s, it’s interestinglike where you start with something andthen you just make it into a table. And it’slike stuff that I’ve done like there’s somecracking stuff I’ve made out of it like. It’sgood.



5. APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

Appendix 2:


Sentence

1996 2001 2006

Prison 2 29 0

Custody Probation - - 9

Young Offenders Centre 149 46 45

Training School Order 145 - -

Juvenile Justice Centre Order - 72 35

Total immediate custody 296 147 89

Number of 10 to 17 year olds sentenced to custody 1996 - 2006

Year JJC Other* Total

2000 18 15 33

2001 14 15 29

2002 18 20 38

2003 14 30 44

2004 15 27 42

2005 17 26 43

2006 17 23 40

2007 22 12 34

2008 17 15 32

Average under 18 remand population 2000-2008

Source: Youth Justice Policy Unit, Northern Ireland Office * Other includes those at the Young Offenders Centre (YOC), Maghaberry and Female Prison

Number of persons

Source: Youth Justice Policy Unit, Northern Ireland Office


6. REFERENCES

Footnotes1. www.restorativejustice.org.uk/About_us/pdf/

What%20is%20RJ3%202007.qxd.pdf 2. The New Zealand approach to restorative

justice is well known and has influenced thedevelopment of schemes in many otherjurisdictions, besides Northern Ireland. Familygroup conferencing is incorporated in theformal criminal justice system, and typicallyinvolves meetings between the offender, hisfamily and the victim(s). The programme isviewed by many as having its roots intraditional Maori culture. (The maincomponents of the New Zealand approach,alongside other examples of restorativejustice, are discussed in Campbell et al’sevaluation of the Northern Ireland YouthConference Service (2006).

3. For evaluations of restorative justice schemesin England and Wales see, among others,Wilcox and Hoyle (2004), Shapland et al(2008), Miers et al (2001).

4. In all Youth Justice Agency official documents,the term ‘young person’ rather than ‘youngoffender’ is used to refer to any individual whohas been referred to the service.

5. From this date, 17-year-olds came under theremit of Northern Ireland’s youth court.

6. Where the offence is indictable only in thecase of an adult, or is a scheduled offenceunder the Terrorism Act, the court may, but isnot obliged to, refer for a youth conference.

7. These reoffending figures compare veryfavourably with those from England andWales. Here, the one-year proven reoffendingrate was 69% for offenders aged 10 to 17who received community penalties in the firstquarter of 2006 (Ministry of Justice, 2008).

8. Maruna et al’s interviews were all carried outat least one year after the young person’sinitial involvement in the Youth ConferenceService.

9. www.youthjusticeagencyni.gov.uk/about_us 10. As related to Prison Reform Trust researchers

in interviews with Youth Conference Servicestaff.

11. Convery, U. and Moore, L. (2006) 12. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland

(2008) 13. The QUB evaluation also found that ‘the

introduction of youth conferencing posedsome challenges for the probation service in

the early days’, but that initial problems werebeing effectively addressed (Campbell et al,2005: 133).

14. See Wilcox and Hoyle (2004) for a review of46 restorative justice projects funded by theYouth Justice Board.

15. Unless the offence is so serious that thecourt decides custody is absolutelynecessary, or the offence is relatively minorso that a disposal such as a fine or absolutedischarge can be given. If the offence ispunishable with imprisonment, but custody isnot necessary, a referral order must beimposed.

16. YJB research into attitudes of sentencersfound that they tended to feel that the referralorder was not a rigorous enough response toserious offending, and resented the fact thatthey did not have recourse to other non-custodial options in sentencing first-timeoffenders pleading guilty to serious offences(Fine Art or Science YJB, 2009).

17. The youth offending teams joint inspectionreport of 2006/07 found that out of 271referral orders, in only 23, or 8% of, cases didthe victim attend the panel (HM I

BibliographyCampbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J.,Jackson, J., Corrigan, T. and McEvoy, K. (2005)Evaluation of the Northern Ireland YouthConference Service, Belfast: Northern IrelandOffice

Campbell, P. and Wilson, M. (2008) Courtprosecutions and sentencing for 10 to 17 yearolds 2006, Belfast: Northern Ireland Office

Convery, U. and Moore, L. (2006) Still in our care –protecting children’s rights in custody in NorthernIreland, Belfast: Northern Ireland Human RightsCommission

Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2008)Youth Conference Service: Inspection of the YouthConference Service in Northern Ireland, Belfast:CJNI

HM Inspectorate of Probation (2007) Jointinspection of Youth Offending Teams, 2006/7, HMInspectorate of Probation



Tate, S. and O’Loan, C. (2009) Northern Irelandyouth reoffending: results from the 2006 cohort,Belfast: Northern Ireland Office

Maruna, S., Wright, S., Brown, J., van Marle, F.,Devlin, R. and Liddle, M. (2007) Youthconferencing as shame management: results of along-term follow-up study, submitted to the YouthConference Service, Youth Justice Agency, by ARCS(UK) Ltd

McLaughlin, A. (2006) Youth Conference Service,powerpoint presentation

Mika, H (2006) Community-based restorativejustice in Northern Ireland, Belfast: QueensUniversity Belfast

Ministry of Justice (2008) Reoffending of juveniles:results from the 2006 cohort, England and Wales,London: Ministry of Justice

Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K.,Hale, C., Netten, A., Uglow, S., Doolin, K., Hallan,A., Enterkin, J. and Newburn, T. (2001) Anexploratory evaluation of restorative justiceschemes, London: Home Office

Northern Ireland Office (2006) Digest ofinformation on the Northern Ireland criminal justicesystem, 5, Belfast: Northern Ireland Office

Prison Reform Trust (2008) Criminal damage: whywe should lock up fewer children, London: PrisonReform Trust

Prison Reform Trust (2009) Reducing child andyouth imprisonment in England and Wales –lessons from abroad, London: Prison Reform Trust

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J.,Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J.,Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2008) Doesrestorative justice affect reconviction? The fourthreport from the evaluation of three schemes,London: Ministry of Justice

Wilcox, A. and Hoyle, C. (2004) Restorative justiceprojects: The national evaluation of the YouthJustice Board’s restorative justice projects,London: YJB

Youth Justice Agency (2005) Youth Justice Agencyannual report and accounts 2004-5, London: TheStationery Office



Youth Justice Agency (2008a) Youth Justice Agencyannual report and accounts 2007-8, London: TheStationery Office

Youth Justice Agency (2008b) Youth Justice AgencyYouth Conference Service, News Sheet, August2008


Youth Justice Board (2006) Developing restorativejustice: an action plan, London: Youth JusticeBoard

Youth Justice Board (2009) Fine art or science?Sentencers deciding between community penaltiesand custody for young people, London: YouthJustice Board



Out of Trouble

Making Amends: restorative youthjustice in Northern Ireland

The Youth Conference Service, established inNorthern Ireland in 2003, placed restorative justiceat the heart of the youth justice system, integratedwithin both the prosecution and sentencingprocesses. Since then, the number of young peopleengaged in youth conferencing has grown year onyear and, to date, more than 5,500 referrals havebeen made to the service.

There is sound evidence that victims who attendconferences express high-levels of satisfaction withthe process and outcomes, and levels of participationare reasonably high. There are encouraging signs thatyouth conferencing is leading to a reduction inreoffending rates. The establishment of the YouthConference Service has also contributed to anoverall decline in the use of custody for youngoffenders, and to an increasing rate of diversion ofyoung people out of the formal criminal justiceprocess.

This report, commissioned as part of the PrisonReform Trust’s strategy to reduce child and youthimprisonment in the UK, explores the experienceand impact of youth conferencing in NorthernIreland and looks at the potential benefits ofintroducing a similar model to the youth justicesystem in England and Wales.

P R I S O N

T R U S T

ISBN 0 946209 97 9


Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland...of custody for young offenders in...

Documents

Transcript of Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland...of custody for young offenders in...