• The principle that custody should only ever be used as a last resort for children is enshrined in domestic law and international human rights conventions, but is not currently applied as such.
• As the number of children in custody has declined over the past decade, the overrepresentation of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) children has worsened, such that 2019 saw more BAME children in custody than white children for the first time.
• This paper sets out proposals for new legislation to ensure that custody for children is only ever used as a genuine last resort.
• Distinct and tightened legal restrictions would apply more equitably to all children and minimise the influence of a range of biases, that can see disproportionately negative outcomes for BAME children and those in local authority care.
• The suggested legislative criteria would ensure that custody is only available for the most serious crimes, where the child poses a serious and continuing risk to the public, and where there is genuinely no way of managing that risk in the community.

These proposals would be a vital tool in stemming the flow of children who are sentenced and remanded to custody. The report has been submitted to the Justice Select Committee as part of its inquiries into youth justice.

Read the report here.

SCYJ responded to the consultations setting out our position and recommendations around priority areas of the youth justice system.

In particular, SCYJ would like to see:

• The minimum age of criminal responsibility significantly increased
• A commitment to maximise diversion and minimise contact with the criminal justice system, in lieu of welfare-based service provision
• Investment in community-based, child-centred responses to children in trouble with the law
• A significant reduction in numbers of children deprived of their liberty, and the closure of all penal custodial establishments
• Criminal records and anonymity law reformed to promote reintegration
• Child-centred courts that promote understanding and participation

Read our full response here.

In summary:

• We welcome the child first Principles laid out, but do not feel they are fully reflected within the individual Standards.
• We welcome the YJB’s intention to emphasise outcomes rather than describe processes, but do not feel that the new Standards have, as yet, achieved this goal. We also question whether the youth justice system is established enough that process-driven requirements are unnecessary, when key elements continue to be beset by failure.
• The vague, subjective nature of the Standards will cause difficulties in monitoring. Updating the Key Elements of Effective Practice (KEEPs) would help remedy this, although this would still not address the core issue of difficulty in monitoring or holding services to account under the new standards. It also seems that monitoring will become more opaque, and the YJB’s process for intervention more unaccountable.
• It is unclear what the Guidance sections will contain, making it impossible to comment fully on the adequacy of the current draft.
• The out-of-court Standards focus on desistance from crime, rather than diversion into more suitable child-focused systems, and the promotion of positive behaviours.
• There is a concerning absence of children’s rights in the ‘at court’ Standards, and we require clarification on certain subjects, including suggestions on victims’ statements.
• We are pleased to see a move away from time requirements and the prescription of enforcement and intervention reviews in the ‘in the community’ Standards, but feel that the standards could be strengthened further.
• The Secure Settings Standards include some welcome recognitions, but we are concerned that the lack of clearly defined processes removes important safeguards for children, potentially making secure settings less safe and less accountable.
• We are pleased to see the introduction of a distinct Standard on transition and resettlement, but believe more requirements should be described.
• The YJB should produce a child-specific version of the standards.

Read our full response here.

SCYJ welcomes the government’s commitment to tackling serious violence, and the strategy’s acknowledgment of the importance of early intervention and a whole-system approach. However, we have concerns that the proposals do not go far enough, and that the criminal justice measures risk increasing the number of children (under 18-years-old) in custody.

SCYJ is calling on the government to gather evidence on effective interventions and adopt a public health approach that sees resources directed towards preventative services that will have a long-term impact on violent crime.

Read our full response here.

We believe their approach is largely very successful, and we congratulate HMIP on this. There are, however, both some gaps in the document and also some weaknesses in adopting a mainly outcome driven focus that we believe could be easily accommodated within this overall framework, and we would urge HMIP to consider doing this.

Read our full response here.

SCYJ’s submission outlines how:

1. Solitary confinement and restraint always risk breaching a child’s human rights.
2. The use of solitary confinement and restraint is on the rise.
3. This shows a failure to adopt a child-focused approach to custody. We press for a wholesale reform of the custody system for children.

You can read our submission here.