Youth Justice Board's Budget Reduced by 45% since 2010/11

The Youth Justice Board has released their Corporate Plan and Business Plan which can be found HERE. The Youth Justice Board is a public body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. The main responsibilities are to oversee the youth justice system in England and Wales, work with others to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for young people is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behavior. Visit their website HERE

The YJB has announced in their 2014-2017 Corporate and Business plan that they will be focusing on reducing reoffending of young people by improving resettlement strategies for young people who are released from custody, increasing educational opportunities while in custody, ensuring young people are placed at the secure estates that best suit them, and by creating the secure college pathfinder to be built in spring 2017. More information about the secure college can be found HERE.

In addition to working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Secretary of State for Justice, the YJB also works with the Home Office. Their mission with the Home Office is to 'prevent anti-social behavior and youth crime, including youth violence and support the delivery of the cross-departmental Ending Gang and Serious Youth Violence strategy and related work to prevent the sexual exploitation of girls'. This is undertaken even though the Home Office has withdrawn all financial support to the YJB this year.

In addition to working with the Home Office, the YJB also works with:

• Young Offenders - to get their opinion on youth justice and youth offending.
• The Department of Health - to ensure there are mental health and substance misuse services available to young people in the youth justice system.
• Department of Education - to ensure education services meet the needs of children and young people.
• Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) - to support YOT objectives and also make sure YOTs are evaluated and performing to high standards.
• Secure Accommodation Providers - such as the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), local authorities and private sectors.
• Voluntary Sectors - with around 6,000 volunteers to support initiatives such as restorative justice, act as appropriate adults for young people in custody, mentors, in prevention or education schemes and with families. If you are interested in volunteering, click HERE
• Adacemic Community - to ensure that advice and guidance is based upon the latest UK and international research.

The main objectives in their Business plan for 2014/15 are as follows:

1. Improvement in the delivery of the youth justice system in the community.
2. To create an under-18 secure estate that better meets the needs of young people.
3. To make structural and process improvements that support a better youth justice system.
4. Make sure young people are placed efficiently in the most appropriate establishment.
5. The safety and well-being of children and young people in the youth justice system is assured.
6. Practitioners have access to the best advice and support, and use this in practice.
7. The YJB is seen as an effective and efficient public body.

Needless to say, the YJB has a lot on their plate over the next year. However, their report has indicated that by the end of 2014/15, they will have 'delivered cumulative savings of £525m, with a budget now £210m (45%) less than the 2010/11 baseline'.

This is the breakdown of expenses and savings made:

 

The YJB is now solely funded by the MoJ following 'the transfer of the Home Office prevention funding from the YJB to police and crime commissioners'. <--- This is another topic for another day...   

One finding based on recent Youth Justice statistics is that there has been a decrease in the number of First Time Entrants (FTEs) into youth custody. This was seen as a result of the positive work of the YJB, which I am sure some of it was. However, in their business plan, the YJB openly admits that in order to deal with the financial challenges stated above, they have incorporated a strategy which is to: 'Maximise savings from having fewer young people in custody by decommissioning beds in the under-18 secure estate'. Well...if you have less money and there are less spaces available in custody for young offenders, then obviously there will be a reduction in the number of FTEs. Is this reduction really an outcome of best practice, or is it simply the outcome of a reduced budget?

This isn't to take away from the hard work that the YJB does to help prevent offending and re-offending. Instead, it is a means to provide a clearer picture of what is really going on and to help us understand that while we are being told that more is being done to help young people in England and Wales, the government is actually spending LESS money on young people at risk of offending and re-offending. It is also important to consider whether or not the government is perhaps embellishing the results of their youth offending statistics by taking credit for the reduction in FTEs, when in reality it is very likely the result of budget cuts and fewer available spaces in youth custody.

A. Neaverson

Want to know why sharing the video of James Foley's murder is illegal?

According to an article published in the Guardian Wednesday 20 August 2014 "passing on clips of Isis militant murdering US journalist on social media could lead to prosecution under anti-terror laws".

(Photo from The Guardian, Credit Nicole Tung/AP)

 



According to the Guardian, Scotland Yard has indicated that under terrorism legislation, sharing or viewing the video of James Foley's Murder is illegal. Social Media networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are working hard to suspend accounts and remove offensive images. At first, these images were being removed for being 'offensive' and going against their user agreements; but now with legal backing, the clampdown on social media is heightened.

More specifically, according to The Guardian, the Metropolitan police said in a statement: "The MPS counter-terrorism command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation".

SO15 is responsible for protecting London and the UK from threats of terrorism. You can find out more about them HERE. I wanted to understand more about why sharing and 'viewing' the video could be considered a crime, and also what part of the Terrorism Legislation sharing videos or pictures falls under.

Having looked at Legislation.co.uk, it appears that Section 1 and Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 cover areas that are related to the 'Encouragement of Terrorism". Section 1 starts by saying that Encouragement of Terrorism applies to

"a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences".

It continues:

"A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and (b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published he - (i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or (ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences".  

If you are re-tweeting something or sharing it on Youtube or Facebook, you are at risk of being seen to make a statement that could be understood by members of the public to be 'directly or indirectly encouraging others or instigating acts of terrorism'. Its possible that by sharing the video and photos, you are fueling feelings of hate which could lead to a reaction. However, even if you DONT end up encouraging someone to 'commit, prepare or instigate any such offence' you can still get in trouble because as stated in subsection 5:

It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) (a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism.... (b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act of offence".  

So what this means is that if you share videos or photos, you can be held criminally responsible even if there is no outcome based on your actions. But why do the Met Police warn about viewing videos? This part comes down to the way that Social Media is designed. On Facebook, for example, if you view a video, sometimes this shows up on your 'Facebook Friends' newsfeeds. On Youtube, if you view a video, it increases that video's count which means it moves up in the list of 'search results' which are based on most popular videos. Although it is a stretch, there are still ways that even viewing a video can result in you sharing content which, under the Terrorism Act 2006 is illegal.

If you are still not convinced by this social media crackdown and insist on Freedom of Speech and being able to watch and share what you want, you might want to consider the potential outcomes first. According to Section 1 subsection 7:

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable - (a) on conviction of indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to a fine or both; (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum...

Furthermore, Section 2 deals specifically with Dissemination of terrorist publications and subsection 2 states:

...a person engages in conduct falling within this subsection if he - (a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication; (b) gives, sells or lends such a publication (c) offers such a publication for sale or loan; (d) provides services to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan; (e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or (f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

It finishes with: ...

'publication' means an article or record of any description that contains any of the following, or any combination of them - (a) matter to be read; (b) matter to be listened to; (c) matter to be looked at or watched.

This section relates a lot more to the actions that are most likely to be taken across social media platforms. The same sentences apply if a person is found guilty of the offences listed above.

Besides the moral issues surrounding instances of people sharing this video and photos, there are also many legal considerations as well which are leading us into a whole new wave of criminal offences based on technological advances.

A Neaverson 

Sexual Offender who has been sentenced for 12 counts of abuse and victimized at least 4 young girls will spend less than 3 years in Prison: Rolf Harris

By A. Neaverson

If you were to read the headline without the celebrity name attached, you would be absolutely appalled by the seemingly lenient sentence. However, in today’s society we have become more accepting of responses such as ‘Yeah, that’s what I expected because he is so famous’. Since when did we fall back into the pre-classical approaches to criminal justice and have one set of laws for the rich and another for the poor? 

 

Rolf Harris has been sentenced to 5 years and 9 months in prison, meaning he is likely to spend less than 3 years physically behind bars. Furthermore, he will not be ordered to pay compensation to his victims. According to the BBC, Rolf showed no emotion while his sentence was being read out; maybe he didn’t know if he should cry or smile.

As described within the Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Sweeney found here, Rolf Harris was sentenced for 12 counts of indecent assault on 4 victims who were aged between 8 and 19 at the time. He received the following sentences for each count:

Count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment.

Count 2: 6 months’ imprisonment consecutive.

Count 3: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 4: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 5: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 6: 12 months imprisonment concurrent

Count 7: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 8: 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 9: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive

Count 10: 9 months’ imprisonment concurrent

Count 11: 9 months imprisonment concurrent.

Count 12: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive.

 
 Some people are asking “But what did he do?”, “Didn’t he just grope a few girls? Back in the day that wasn’t uncommon”. Well let me help you to get a better picture of what Rolf Harris did to innocent children.

You indecently assaulted ‘A’ in 1969 (when she was aged 8 and you were aged 39). You did so when you made an appearance at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant, and she approached you for your autograph. Others were present. Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing.

Victim 'C' - Age 13, took her on holiday and indecently assaulted her; and again when she was 15. You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs and you went up to ‘C’’s bedroom on the top floor of the house....."

 
Ill stop there, but if you want to know "what did he do" the judge summarises it here.

So why did he only get less than 6 years... or 6 months per offence? Because of his Mitigating Factors (which are factors that work in favour of the defendant and can result in a lesser sentence). According to the sentencing remarks, the judge considered the following mitigating factors as part of his sentencing decision:

“On your behalf I am asked to take into account a number of matters in mitigation, including the following:

(1) With the exception of ‘C’ the offences were brief and opportunistic. 

(2) The fact that you have no previous convictions and have led an upright life since 1994 ‐albeit it is accepted that that must be tempered by the reality, underlined in the Attorney General’s Reference (above), that you got away with your offending for years. 

(3) The fact that you have a good side, that there are many people who know you who speak well of you, and that over many years you have dedicated yourself to a number of charitable causes.

(4) The fact that you are not in the best of health, as attested to in the report of Dr Fertleman, and that therefore, although capable of serving a prison sentence, it will be particularly tough on you. 

(5) The fact that your wife, who you help in looking after, has various health problems, as attested to in the report of Dr Mitchell‐Fox. 

(6) That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family.”

I’m sorry, but that’s just not good enough for me. The mitigating factor that I think we especially need to reconsider is the last one, “That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family”. What about the young women’s right to spend their childhood without having it ruined by a sexual predator. Forget about their childhood; the events that took place have ruined their adolescents and impacted their adult years as well, not to mention the outcome that this trial will now have on them. They have been suffering for over 30 years, yet the judge says that Rolf Harris should be enabled to spend his last few years within the safe comfort of his family. It appears that the Mitigating factors are being put before the negative outcomes that his victims have been dealing with for their entire lives.  

Rolf Harris was sentenced based on ‘sentencing historic sexual offences set out in Annex B of the current Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline” which means that the “maximum sentence on Count 1 is one of 5 years imprisonment, on each counts 2-9 it is one of 2 years imprisonment, and on each of counts 10-12 it is one of 10 years”. Today, these offences attract significantly higher maximum sentences, but regardless, as stated “on each of Counts 10-12 it is one of 10 years” for a maximum sentence meaning he could have received more time in prison.

Perhaps this is why, according to the BBC “the sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the ‘unduly lenient sentence scheme’". To read more about the unduly lenient sentence, click here

It would be interesting to look at a comparison of this ‘celebrity status’ with a normal ‘citizen status’ case to see if the types of sentences are similar, or if they have been impacted by his celebrity status.

A.Neaverson

criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com