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 This is undertaken even though the Home Office has withdrawn all financial support to the YJB this year.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

Victim's Code - Is it enough, or is it toothless?

 

 

The announcement this week that the Victim’s CommissionerBaroness Newlove will be conducting reviews to find out if the Criminal JusticeSystem is adhering to the Victims Code is to be welcomed!  Let’s face it, anything that improves an individual’s experience of navigating the daunting criminal justice system after having a crime inflicted on them is to be applauded. 

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, otherwise known as the ‘Victim’s Code’ was first introduced in 2006 with a purpose of setting out the services which were to be provided to victims of crimes by criminal justice agencies in England and Wales.  The ‘Code’ was reformed in 2013 and includes entitlements, such as, allowing the victim to read a statement out loud in court, or to have someone else read it for them.  To read a list of ‘entitlements’ in the Victims Code click HERE  

The confusion arises when you find out that the ‘Victims Personal Statement Scheme’ has been in place since 2001; not exactly a new entitlement. And even though being able to read your statement out in court is cited as an entitlement, the court judge can still refuse to allow it. So what are the new ‘entitlements’ in the ‘Victim’s Code’?  There isn’t any. Most entitlements are already being given to victims of crime or should be given.  This gives rise to the question of whether this is just a way of the government acting like it is doing something to help victims, when really it does nothing that isn’t already being done.

There is also the question of whether the ‘Victims Code’ is enough, and what are the consequences for criminal justice agencies for not following it?  Well to try and put it simply; although the ‘Code’ comes under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, if a victim of crime has not received the relevant service, they would have to complain to the relevant service provider and if that doesn’t achieve anything the victim can then take their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman via their MP. 

So the upshot is there are no real consequences for criminal justice agencies for not following it, and half the time when there are complaints of criminal justice agencies not adhering to the ‘Code’ most agencies point the blame at each other.  Meanwhile, victims suffer whilst agencies play the blame game!

The wider question to be asked is: is the reform of the ‘Victims Code’ going far enough to ensure that victims are put first, and that the system is more responsive and easier to navigate?  Well, it is quite telling that the former head of public prosecutions Kier Starmer, who is now a member of the Labour founded Victim’s Taskforce, has been quoted as saying that:
     

“From a victim’s point of view, our justice system is hardly fit for purpose”

         (TheGuardian, 2014)

He goes on to say that:

“No doubt individual failings by police and prosecutors provide part of the explanation.  But to suggest these shortcomings are the core problem is complacent, and overlooks the real improvements that have taken place in recent years.  A more radical review of our criminal justice arrangements is long overdue”

                                                                                                                                             (TheGuardian, 2014)

“These measures (Victims Code) are ‘bolt-ons’ to the existing arrangements.  What is needed is a fundamental rethink, leading to a specific and legally enforceable Victim’s Law alongside a real and radical shift in attitude and approach”

(The Guardian, 2014)

 

Although Starmer does not specifically detail what he means by a ‘Victim’s law’ I agree with elements of his views, such as, that there needs to be a radical shift in attitude and approach.  Why he didn’t do anything about it whilst in his previous role is beyond me!  But maybe a move away from an adversarial system to an inquisitorial system could be the answer?  Who knows, but it is worth investigating. 

One thing about the ‘Code’ which baffles me and highlights the need for radical reform is the point at which it states that “victims of crime should be treated in a respectful, sensitive and professional manner without discrimination of any kind. They should receive appropriate support to help them, as far as possible, to cope and recover and be protected from re-victimisation”. 

This point baffles me due to the fact that it does not seem to apply to defence barristers who are sometimes responsible for re-victimising victims of serious sexual offences amongst other crimes.  There are many women who speak of being ‘raped all over again ‘and traumatised by defence barristers’ up and down the country.  It seems that the ‘Code’ will look after you until you cross the threshold into the courtroom and your time comes to stand in front of a defence barrister, when you are made to go through every minute detail of the crime in front of total strangers and have your character, integrity and life ripped to shreds and dragged through the mud.  Legal professionals, such as defence barristers, have been the culprits a lot of the time; they have been the authors of a lot of problems over the years with the way that victims have been treated. 

So why then are defence barristers allowed to behave like this? Something needs to change! 

Additionally, why do rape victims feel like they are on trial and have limited (5 minutes before going into the courtroom) time with the CPS prosecutor?  Actually come to think of it, why do rape victims not have anybody fighting their corner in the courtroom? The CPS prosecutor works for the crown and the defence barrister works for the defendant (the defendant is able to have unlimited time with his barrister/solicitor).  This is surely not fair!

Here are a few cases where the treatment of rape victims by defence barristers could have been better.

• The case of Frances Andrade - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/frances-andrade-inquest-despair-sex-abuse-trial
• http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/may/19/lawyers-oxford-abuse-ring
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076965/Rape-victim-upset-Well-shes-smiling-Facebook-said-lawyer.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/21/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

 After highlighting the issues with defence barristers, it is interesting to highlight the fact that there has been much emphasis on how the police respond to rape victims, and how this could potentially have an impact on the low reporting rates for rape.  When in actual fact it is more likely to be that individuals who have been raped know what they have to go through in a courtroom which could actually be what is putting rape victims off reporting these crimes. 

In the academic field of Criminology the idea of improving victim’s experiences and ‘rebalancing’ the Criminal Justice System to recognise the needs of the victim is not a new concept.  It has been around since the 1940’s and comes in the form of what is called ‘Victimology’. 

Academics argue that the increasing concern with rebalancing victims ‘rights’ can be dangerous as it tends to suggest that defendants have more rights than victims, and that to improve victim’s rights would have to make rights for defendants worse.  And it goes on to state that changing the system to allow victims more rights could change the fundamental principles of criminal justice; if that happens they say victims would gain nothing.

Academics argue that criminal justice should not be thought of as a balancing act between defendant and victim.  The focus should be on the general principles that underpin the system of criminal justice.  Put simply, the rights of victims should be abandoned and replaced with a concept that focuses on the right for everybody to be treated in a fair manner.

It is fair to say that victim’s right have come a long way from the 1940’s.  However there is still a fair way to go, and no doubt this debate will continue to rage on until the government take proper action to improve the rights of victims, specifically victims of serious sexual abuse.

J. Taylor