Evaluation of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court Pilot

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Its objectives were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. An evaluation of the pilot commissioned by the Scottish Executive found that it appeared in many respects to be working well. It was a tightly run court that dealt with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. Whether a dedicated Youth Court was required or whether procedural improvements would have been possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was, however, more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Court was intended to avoid the risk of net-widening and its consequences for young people.

Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot 2003-2005

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children’s Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. Evaluation of the Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots suggested that they had been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both were tightly run courts that dealt with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements included the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. However, whether Youth Courts are required in Scotland or whether procedural improvement were possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Courts were intended. This suggested the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.

Rights versus reality : the difficulty of providing 'access to English' in Queensland courts

This project reviewed the success of the Aboriginal English in the Courts booklet which was published by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in 2000, with a view to improving access to the courts for speakers of Aboriginal English in Queensland. Surveys and interview were conducted with judges, magistrates, prosecutors, legal aid lawyers and courts registry staff. The feedback from the research has shown that the handbook has had little impact on ‘access to English’ in Queensland courts. The problems relate to the tension between protecting the rights of the accused under an adversarial system and legitimately introducing the issues of language uncertainty to the court in a non-prejudicial manner. In addition, the interviews have brought to light emerging language issues in remote communities that cannot be remedied under existing language policy mechanisms, such as the provision of interpreters or friends of court.

Crime in Rural Australia

Contemporary rural crime is more varied and sophisticated than it once was. The new forms range from agricultural crimes, such as the theft of water designated for agricultural production, to environmental crimes such as the illegal dumping of waste. They take place side by side with “traditional” rural crimes such as cattle duffing while “urban” crimes such as drug and alcohol abuse and violent assaults are also prevalent, and on the rise. Crime in Rural Australia covers them all. It brings together leading academics who examine the major dimensions of crime and justice in rural and regional Australia including: •the extent of rural crime •farm crime •violence •juvenile crime •policing •Indigenous crime and justice •crime prevention •drugs •fear of crime, and •sentencing and punishment. It includes vignettes on rural policing and the stock squad from the perspectives of the NSW police. An ideal text for rural crime and criminology courses, Crime in Rural Australia will also be of interest to criminal justice practitioners, policy-makers, and criminology scholars. Three of the editors, Dr Elaine Barclay, Dr John Scott and Associate Professor Russell Hogg, are associated with the Centre for Rural Crime at the University of New England. Professor Joseph F. Donnermeyer is the International Research Co-ordinator for the Rural Crime Centre and is a leading US scholar on rural crime at Ohio State University.

Democracy, Crime and Justice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences

As a growing number of nations embark on a path to democracy, criminologists have become increasingly interested and engaged in the challenges, concerns, and questions connecting democracy with both crime and criminal justice. Rising levels of violence and street crime, white collar crime and corruption both in countries where democracy is securely in place and where it is struggling, have fuelled a deepening skepticism as to the capacity of democracy to deliver on its promise of security and justice for all citizens. What role does crime and criminal justice play in the future of democracy and for democratic political development on a global level? The editors of this special volume of The Annals realized the importance of collecting research from a broad spectrum of countries and covering a range of problems that affect citizens, politicians, and criminal justice officials. The articles here represent a solid balance between mature democracies like the U.S. and U.K. as well as emerging democracies around the globe – specifically in Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe. They are based on large and small cross-national samples, regional comparisons, and case studies. Each contribution addresses a seminal question for the future of democratic political development across the globe. What is the role of criminal justice in the process of building democracy and instilling confidence in its institutions? Is there a role for unions in democratizing police forces? What is the impact of widespread disenfranchisement of felons on democratic citizenship and the life of democratic institutions? Under what circumstances do mature democracies adopt punitive sentencing regimes? Addressing sensitive topics such as relations between police and the Muslim communities of Western Europe in the wake of terrorist attacks, this volume also sheds light on the effects of terrorism on mature democracies under increasing pressure to provide security for their citizens. By taking a broad vantage point, this collection of research delves into complex topics such as the relationship between the process of democratization and violent crime waves; the impact of rising crime rates on newly established as well as secure democracies; how crime may endanger the transition to democracy; and how existing practices of criminal justice in mature democracies affect their core values and institutions. The collection of these insightful articles not only begins to fill a gap in criminological research but also addresses issues of critical interest to political scientists as well as other social and behavioral scientists and scholars. Taking a fresh approach to the intersection of crime, criminal justice, and democracy, this volume of The Annals is a must-read for criminologists and political scientists and provides a solid foundation for further interdisciplinary research.

Roll the dice, rational agent : should extra-curial punishment mitigate an offender's sentence?

It was rugby league State of Origin night 2008 and a group of adults had descended upon a house in Eagleby, Brisbane to have some drinks and to celebrate the game. At 11pm that evening, Shane Thomas Davidson entered the bedroom of the homeowner’s 10-year-old son, TC. Davidson approached the bed and began to massage the boy’s penis under his clothing, which caused TC to wake. Davidson stated, ‘Show me how big your willy is and I’ll show you how big mine is’. TC refused the request and after a small period of time, left the bedroom and told his father what had happened...

Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee - Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

This submission addresses the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which has as its objectives (1) the introduction of a Boot Camp Order as an option instead of detention for young offenders and (2) the removal of the option of court referred youth justice conferencing for young offenders. As members of the QUT Faculty of Law Centre for Crime and Justice we welcome the invitation to participate in the discussion of these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

Indigeneity and the likelihood of imprisonment in Queensland’s adult and children’s courts

Australian research on Indigenous sentencing disparities of the standard of international work is somewhat recent. Contrary to expectations based on international research, Australian studies generally have not found Indigenous offenders to be treated substantively more harshly than non-Indigenous offenders in similar circumstances. However, this research has primarily focused on adult higher courts, with little attention to lower courts and children’s courts. In this article, we examine whether Indigeneity has a direct impact on the judicial decision to incarcerate for three courts (adult higher, adult lower, children’s higher court) in Queensland. We found no significant differences in the likelihood of a sentence of incarceration in the higher courts (adult and children’s). In contrast, in the lower courts, Indigenous defendants were more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous defendants when sentenced under statistically similar circumstances.

In defence of Victoria's Children's Court : its value and role in the child protection system

Australian child protection systems have been subject to sustained and significant criticism for many decades. As a central part of that system Children’s Courts have been implicated: three recent inquiries into the child protection system in Victoria all criticised the Family Division of the Children’s Court.1 In the resulting debate two diametrically opposed points of view surfaced about the Children’s Court and the role that legal procedures and professionals should play in child protection matters. On one side bodies like the Children’s Court of Victoria, Victoria Legal Aid (‘VLA’), the Law Institute of Victoria (‘LIV’), and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (‘FCLC’) argued that the Children’s Court plays a vital role in child protection and should continue to play that role.2 On the other side a coalition of human service and child protection agencies called for major change including the removal of the Children’s Court from the child protection system. Victoria’s Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) has been critical of the Court3 as have community sector organisations like Anglicare, Berry Street, MacKillop Family Services and the Salvation Army — all agencies the DHS funds to deliver child protection services.4 Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner has also called for major reform, publicly labelling the Court a ‘lawyers’ playground’ and recommending abolishing the Court’s involvement in child protection completely.

Arguing the Autopsy : mutual suspicion, jurisdictional confusion and the socially marginal

Vulnerable and marginalised populations are not only over-represented in the criminal justice system, but also in civil jurisdictions like the coronial system. Moreover, many of the personnel who deal with criminal matters, especially in rural and regional areas, are also those who manage the coronial death investigation. This movement back and forth between civil and criminal jurisdictions is difficult for the both professional personnel and the families, but especially for those families who may also have had dealings with these personnel in the criminal justice system, or who present as suspicious due to larger historical and global issues. While coronial legislation now allows families to raise cultural and religious concerns about the process, particularly to do with the autopsy of their loved one, this also requires them to identify themselves to police at the initial stage of the death investigation. This paper, part of a larger body of work on autopsy decision making, discusses the ways in which this information is gathered by police, how it is communicated through the system, the ways in which families are supported through the process, and the difficulties that ensue.