The emergence and development of specialist courts : lessons for juvenile justice from the history of the children’s court in South Australia?

To illustrate how specialist courts have developed to manage juvenile offenders, this paper provides an overview of the history and development of the youth court in one jurisdiction, South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers, the paper seeks to highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court’s inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems. Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court’s guiding principles and how they impact on court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create difficulties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court. It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but are sometimes hindered by inadequate procedural, structural and resource-related factors – some of which exist externally to the Youth Court itself.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child : do they coexist?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides children and young people with over 40 substantive rights, the five outcomes of which are living a healthy lifestyle, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and economic wellbeing. Moreover, Article 3 dictates that all organizations concerned with children should work towards what is best of each child. It is not clear how these rights translate to the care of children and young people who come before the courts (particularly those who are subsequently incarcerated). A review of the literature suggests that while best practice guidelines for the treatment and rehabilitation of adult offenders has moved forward, there is little consensus about how this might be achieved for young people. Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) needs to extend beyond its current considerations of the rights of children and young people, and to expand its focus to the extent to which international human rights standards are complied with in the cases of juveniles in the criminal justice system. This presentation will (a) explore the extent to which current practices in juvenile justice are consistent with the UN's Convention and (b) whether the adoption a rehabilitative and treatment approach based on a TJ framework might serve to improve outcomes for young people and ensure their rights are not being violated.

Juvenile justice diversion in Victoria : a blank canvas?

Unlike many jurisdictions in Australia, Victoria has not adopted a legislative, court-based diversion scheme for addressing crime committed by children and young people. The state has also seen limited investment in diversionary programs and an over-reliance on discretionary police cautions. For young people in rural and regional areas, access to diversion programs and support services is especially limited. This article examines the limited diversionary options available in the current youth justice system, identifying strengths and opportunities. It concludes that legislated, court-based diversion schemes — assisted by community programs that provide appropriate intervention and support to those at risk of reoffending — are an essential means of addressing young people’s engagement in crime.

The children's court of South Australia

This chapter provides an overview of the history and development of the Youth Court in South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers and Court stakeholders, we highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court’s inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems.

Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court’s guiding principles and how they impact on Court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create dif fi culties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court.

It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but these approaches are sometimes hindered in practice by inadequate procedural, structural and resource- related factors. Limitations of the Court and its processes are often difficult to evaluate in isolation from the broader system in which the Court is positioned.