Latest News & Updates

Youthlaw’s submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s inquiry into Australia’s youth justice and incarceration system.

The government recently announced that there will be an inquiry into Australia’s youth justice and incarceration system.

As an issue which impacts many of the young people that we assist.

We prepared a submission for the Committee to consider which covers the impacts of recent changes we’ve seen (both positive and negative), issues we see on the ground, and our asks of the Committee.

Please see a full copy of our submission here.

Youthlaw calls for support for the Youth Justice Bill 2024

The Victorian Youth Justice Bill 2024 will be presented to the upper house in Vic. Parliament during the next few weeks

We support the Youth Justice Bill. We regard it as a very important opportunity for significant change to youth justice in Victoria.

Main purposes of the Bill are to:

  • Raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age
  • Ensure oversight and accountability of the Youth justice (YJ) system to
    • Promote safety
    • Prevent and reduce children’s and young people (YP) offending
    • Support the rehabilitation and positive development of children and YP involved in the YJ system
    • Provide victims with appropriate opportunities to participate in the YJ process
    • Protect the rights of children and YP involved in the YJ system
  • Establish a new hierarchy of options police must consider, pre-charge and at all stages post charge including using
    • Youth warnings and youth cautions
    • Early diversion group conferences
    • Court ordered diversion from criminal proceedings

The Bill sets out very clear steps and considerations for the police and magistrates that educate and guide them in their decision-making. They must now consider a young person’s trauma background and being from an overrepresented cohort in the criminal justice system (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strat Islander, out of home care background, multicultural youth and young people with mental &/or physical disability).

The Bill includes principles and considerations specific to Aboriginal young people across the youth justice system through specific guiding principles, sentencing principles, custodial principles and rights. The Bill includes a statement of recognition in respect of Aboriginal children and young people, acknowledging; Aboriginal children and young people are over-represented in the youth justice system, particularly in custody, and that ; Inequality, and structural and institutional racism, caused by colonisation and laws, policies and systems which explicitly excluded and harmed Aboriginal people and culture, have led to this over-representation and the continuation of systemic injustice.

The Bill raises the Age of Criminal responsibility to 12. This is informed by the evidence that the current age is damaging to these young people, and a non-criminal response is required to address the needs that underly offending.

Specifics of the Bill in relation to the new pre-charge & post charge laws are:

  • The Bill sets out a new hierarchy of options police importantly, now must consider, before ultimately charging a child (these are taking no action, issuing a warning, issuing a caution, referring the child to an early diversion group conference to commence a proceeding).
  • At each step, police need to determine it is ‘clearly not appropriate’ before considering the next option in the hierarchy. This places positive obligations on police to consider each option and refer to certain criteria. (e.g., police must consider the nature/seriousness of offending etc.).
  • Police also must record reasons if a warning caution or early diversion group conference isn’t appropriate.
  • The fact that a young person has had one before doesn’t preclude them having another.
  • Nothing prevents a warning or caution being made after charges are laid, which means the court may be requested to withdraw charges in circumstances where the failure to caution or warn was clear.
  • The pre-charge options will not be noted on a child’s criminal record.
  • For ATSI children, an elder can give a caution, if consented to, at a culturally appropriate location. The latter will avoid the current practice of cautions being issued at police stations.
  • The pre-charge diversion group conferencing option excludes some types of offences but is well thought out. Young people must have legal representation too, which is good. If a child is charged, and the court considers the pre-charge group conferencing is appropriate they can make a referral for the child to do this. They must consider police submissions, but the magistrate ultimately decides.
  • Post charge diversion is provided for and consolidates current practice. It retains Victoria’s successful court-ordered diversion program, the Children’s Court Youth Diversion (CCYD) scheme, with updates to its eligibility criteria to reduce barriers to participation.
  • Children will be able to access treatment and rehabilitation programs while on bail or remand. This is currently not available and is a missed opportunity to respond to these young people’s needs.
  • There will be greater guidance and emphasis on deferred sentencing. Currently this is under utilised as a sentencing option. It provides an opportunity to link the young person to services and supports they need. The Bill clarifies the circumstances under which a sentence can be deferred and requires the court to explain to a young person how their behavior during the deferral period could impact their sentence.

Youthlaw calls for the following amendments to the Bill

Without the following we still support the Youth Justice Bill being passed.

  1. We oppose the prosecutor having to agree to diversion. This is the current law and practice, and we observe regularly a lot of inconsistency and subjective prejudice in the making of such decisions. We strongly support an amendment to the Bill that requires the prosecutor’s view be sought but the magistrate ultimately decides.
  2. We believe that the Age of Criminal Responsibility should be raised to 14. The government’s position is to develop an alternative service model before raising the age to 14 by 2027.  We will continue to work with the government on this alternate non-criminal response.
  3. We believe the minimal age of detention should be 16. The Bill proposes 14.  It is our position that detention is not a place for young people under 16, is damaging and negatively disrupts their development including schooling.  Our position is also informed by the evidence that children in detention are overwhelmingly from overrepresented cohorts including ATSI children, children who have been in child protection or have traumatic backgrounds and children with disabilities.
  4. We do not support the introduction of electronic monitoring bracelets.
  5. We support removing the reverse presumption for bail (and funding of suitable bail support programs) for children. Last year the Government signaled its intention to include this in the Bill

Patton’s apology to the Stolen Generations is just the beginning — we continue to fail kids in care.

We are repeating the past harm and horror of treatment of children in institutional care, today.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with respect to Aboriginal children.

As we talk about truth telling, but as the State Government stalls on accepting and implementing all recommendations of the Yoorook Commission of Inquiry into child protection and the criminal justice system, Aboriginal children are being removed from their family at alarming rates. They are almost 22 times as likely to be placed in out of home care, than non-Aboriginal children, and have the highest rate of child removal in the country (Yoorook, 2023).

When a child is removed from their family by child protection, due to safety concerns and placed in the care of the State, the State is meant to have ‘parental responsibility’ for that child.

Yet, these children are frequently housed in homes that are harmful and devoid of the fundamental requirements children need to develop and thrive. As testimony of Yoorook child witnesses made clear, frequently, children feel unsafe in their out of home care placements. Multiple reports have evidenced the unacceptable risk of harm children are exposed to, upon entering residential care.

How does the child protection ‘system’ continue to fail children?

There are many documented reasons, and these are best documented Yoorook’s report from 2023 into the child protection system.

However, one issue stems from the manner in which out of home care is outsourced by Government, to private social service providers, without suitably trained workers. The staff who work in out of home care ‘homes’ require minimum qualifications, to do one of the hardest jobs in society: to care for very traumatised, damaged children and teenagers, which is often exacerbated by the fact of removal itself.

This should be remedied. Rather than a Certificate IV in Child, Youth & Family Intervention, workers need tertiary training, in social work, psychology and youth work. Rather than being on casual contracts, ‘residential care workers’ should be employed on permanent, well-paid contracts, so that they can build relationships with children that will allow children to feel safe, cared for and to build healthy attachments.

Children in out of home care often turn to drugs and alcohol to manage trauma and disconnection. They are then policed, often for minor infractions like drinking at a bus stop. As this policing intensifies, their criminalisation does too, along with their contact with the courts. Too often, the adults who provided the alcohol and drugs are not subject to the same degree of policing. Moreover, the Framework to Reduce the Criminalisation of Children and Young People in Out of Home Care remains largely unimplemented – designed to reduce unnecessary police contact with children in care.

Police contact is heightened too, while police remain tasked with arresting children who have run away from their placement after a safe custody warrant is issued by a court. It is abhorrent that we continue to use armed police officers, to return traumatised children, to their ‘homes’, sometimes in handcuffs. It is extremely traumatising and compounds ongoing harms against these children.

In care, children are subjected to extremely high amounts of sexual exploitation. Adult men, groom them, loiter close to the homes, and seek sexual favours and relationships, often in exchange for drugs and alcohol.

Children drop out of school frequently after entering care and they lose their connection to community and culture– sometimes this is the result of being placed in an entirely different region to that which their family is in, or that they last lived in, and having no cultural plan developed and implemented if they are an Aboriginal child.

Finally, there remains a huge gap in planning around leaving care, and a desperate lack of housing for young people leaving care as adults, with many at risk of homelessness and the compounding health risks attached to homelessness.

In watching children enter out of home care, many in the sector (including community advocates, lawyers, child protection case managers, justice workers and residential carers) despair because we know that children’s trajectory is dim. It should not be this way.

It is shocking that the State removes children from families only to put them in environments that are at times, even less safe.

We often talk about the Stolen Generation as though it was history. It’s not.

Last week, Chief Commissioner Shane Patton, apologised to the Stolen Generations, for Victoria Police’s role in forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their families, country and culture.

To make this apology meaningful, we need to ensure we stop repeating the past – for Aboriginal children and all children in care.

A very important first step, is implementing Yoorkook’s recommendations in full.

Sophie Ellis

Senior Lawyer | Youthlaw

Supporting Smart Justice for Young People’s launch of ‘Working Together’

 

Youthlaw, as a co-convener of Smart Justice for Young People and proud to support the launch of ‘Working Together‘,  Smart Justice for Young Peoples’s Action Plan to End the Over-Representation of Particular Youth Cohorts in the Criminal Justice System.

Some information about Working Together from the Smart Justice for Young People team;

Working Together is for all decision makers working with young people aged 10-25 across government and the government funded community sector. The problem of over-representation of First Nations children and young people; multicultural children and young people, children living in residential care; 18-25 year olds; and girls and young women with complex needs in the Criminal Justice System is urgent.  Ending it requires our immediate and sustained collective and coordinated attention but no one organisation, law, policy or practice can achieve the necessary change alone, especially when demand is ever-increasing, and resources constrained.  Working Together provides us with the blueprint and is the culmination of two years of consensus building amongst coalition members and contains 49 system level requests across the whole of government and well as six key individual portfolios.

Follow Youthlaw and Smart Justice for Young People on social media to keep updated on this exciting launch.