2017
Young Offenders’ Right to Integration post Human
Rights Act 1998: Work as punishment, rehabilitation and enabler.
Irene
Antonopoulos and Gavin Dingwall
(School of Law, De Montfort University, Leicester)
1. Introduction
A combination of international children’s rights instruments
and regional human rights protection framework has ensured the
protection of children in custody. Whilst the United Kingdom has
ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of the Child,
its provisions have not been implemented directly into domestic law.[1] Nevertheless, domestic legislation
providing for the safeguarding of young offenders in combination with
the Human Rights Act 1998 has ensured that their rights are safeguarded.[2] The recent election campaign brought once
again to the forefront, the debate over the relationship between the
European Court of Human Rights and the UK Parliament.[3] In this article, the authors seek to
ascertain whether the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 will
disadvantage young offenders and, specifically, whether it will
compromise their right to education and training whilst in custody,
which is designed to enable their rehabilitation and (re)integration
into society post-release.
2. Aims of the Juvenile Justice System
Two principles should guide how young offenders are sentenced
in England and Wales. The first is the child’s welfare. Section 44(1)
of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides at s.44(1) states
that:
Every court in dealing with a child or young person who is
brought before it, either as an offender or otherwise, shall have
regard to the welfare of the child or young person, and shall in a
proper case take steps for removing him from undesirable surroundings,
and for securing that proper provision is made for his education and
training.
This provision makes explicit reference not only to welfare
but to securing the child or young person’s educational and training
needs. Education and training are seen as central to providing welfare.
Section 44(1) co-exists with s.37(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998: ‘It shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to
prevent offending by children and young persons’.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduces a hierarchy by
prioritising the reduction of crime. However, a number of means could
be adopted if one sought to use punishment as a means to reduce future
offending. One could, for example, seek to impose a harsh punishment in
the hope that it would deter either the young offender or others
thinking of committing offences or, alternatively, one could imprison a
prolific offender. One justification for punishment effectively
combines both welfare and crime reduction goals. Rehabilitation seeks
to reduce offending by addressing the factors which have influenced
prior decisions to offend. Catering for the child or young person’s
educational and training needs could be vital in this regard.
Neither section states that the purpose of the youth justice
system is to punish the offender.[4]
A fuller list of objectives was provided in the Criminal Justice Act
2003 – and this did include punishment – but this has not been brought
into force.[5] However,
although retribution is not an official aim of youth justice, it will
be shown later that notions of offence-seriousness are taken into
account when determining a proportionate penalty, whether custodial or
non-custodial.
3. The Role(s) of Work in the Juvenile Justice System
The role and purpose of work in the penal system is complex
and has evolved. In the English context the policy and academic debate
has revolved around work-based sanctions and vocational provision for
adult offenders.[6] This
article represents the first scholarly attempt to theorise the role of
work in the juvenile justice system, particularly in a rights-based
context. Historically work was seen purely in terms of punishment;
there was no intrinsic value, indeed, the work was often designed to be
futile and physically demanding. The most obvious historical
development is that there has been a move, at least in the British
context, away from meaningless labour towards work which is either of a
personal benefit to the offender (say by increasing his vocational
skills) or to the community through work which is reparative in nature.
One of the reasons why there is a paucity of research on work and
juvenile offenders is that the bulk of work-related penalties are
imposed on adults. The next section shows the difficulties of imposing
work in the community for young offenders. By contrast, community
sentences for adults often contain a condition that the offender
undertakes unpaid work and adult prisoners sometimes have the
opportunity to gain valuable skills undertaking work or training in
prison.
This tension between work as punishment and work as
rehabilitation, or, as the authors prefer, work as enabler,
is also evident in youth justice. The stated aims of youth justice,
articulated in the previous section, would suggest that the suitability
of work should be determined with regards to the welfare of the young
person and the potential that the work would have in reducing crime.
There is no doubt that the provision of meaningful work could satisfy
these aims.
It will be recalled from the previous section that the
statutory basis for youth justice makes no specific mention of
punishment as a purpose. The next section will document that official
guidance contradicts this with regards to one work-based sanction where
it is stated that punishment is paramount and rehabilitation secondary.
This is concerning as it suggests that official policy is being
ignored. It possibly forgets (unintentionally) an important point of
penal theory: punishment, self-evidently, cannot justify punishment.
Retribution can potentially justify punishment as can rehabilitation
but that does not mask the fact that a sanction is being imposed as a
consequence that an individual has violated the criminal law. Even if
the purpose is to rehabilitate an offender (or, for that matter, to
deter him from future offending or to incapacitate him in order to
protect the public) the sanction is inherently punitive. For the
purposes of this article, when a sanction is justified on the basis of
punishment, it will be assumed that the penalty is to be justified on a
retributive basis.
3.1 Work as Punishment
In a non-custodial setting, work can form the basis of a
sentence imposed by a court, albeit in carefully and narrowly defined
circumstances. The name of the sentence would suggest a direct link
between work and rehabilitation. The Youth Rehabilitation Order
contains one or more of the following requirements:
· Supervision;
· Activity;
· Programme;
· Unpaid work;
· Curfew;
· Attendance centre;
· Education;
· Mental health treatment;
· Residence;
· Local authority residence;
· Drug treatment;
· Drug testing;
· Prohibited activity exclusion;
· Intensive supervision and surveillance.
Unpaid work can, therefore, constitute all or part of a
community-based penalty for a young person, however there are
additional requirements that must be satisfied. An Unpaid Work
requirement is only available for offenders aged 16 and 17 at the time
of their conviction. The number of hours which the offender is required
to work is specified in the order and must be for between 40 and 240
hours. Courts do not specify the exact work to be undertaken, this is
determined by a Youth Offending Team or the probation service. Finally,
an Unpaid Work requirement can only be imposed if the court is
satisfied that the young person is suitable to perform work and that
suitable work is available for the offender to undertake in the local
area.
The Unpaid Work requirement would appear aligned with the
overall aims of the youth justice system, particularly with regard to
ensuring the welfare of the child through the provision of education
and training.[7] It, therefore,
comes as a surprise that the Youth Justice Board see rehabilitation as
of secondary concern:
‘An Unpaid Work Requirement is a vehicle for repairing harm to
the young person’s community in a constructive and demanding way. It is
viewed first and foremost as a punishment, with the rehabilitation of
the young person a secondary, although important consideration.’[8]
Neither reparation nor punishment are to be found in the
statutory aims of youth justice. Both do feature in s.142A of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (amongst other aims) but this section is not
in force. Regardless, it is telling that the Youth Justice Board
perceive Unpaid Work as punishment. This emphasis changes when the
young person receives a custodial sentence.
3.2 Work as Rehabilitation
The position documented above shows a disjuncture between the
stated objectives of youth justice – namely the welfare of the young
person and the reduction of offending – and the idea that work should
be used primarily as a form of punishment. Young people sentenced to a
custodial sentence are also given education and, in some cases,
vocational training, but here the confinement associated with
imprisonment represents the punishment and the education and/or
vocational provision is designed specifically to enable the transition
from custody to a law-abiding future. The law governing when someone
aged under 18 can be sentenced to custody differs in material ways from
the way in which adults[9] and
those aged between 18 and 20 inclusive[10] can receive imprisonment. The primary means to imprison
someone aged under 18 is by imposing a detention and training order.
This is governed by the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
2000, s.100:
(1) Subject to sections 90 and 91 above, sections 226 and 226B
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and subsection (2) below, where –
(a) a child or young person (that is to say, any person aged
under 18) is convicted of an offence which is punishable with
imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over, and
(b) the court is of the opinion that subsection (2) of section
152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies or the case falls within
subsection (3) of that section, the sentence that the court is to pass
is a detention and training order.
(2) A court shall not make a detention and training order –
(a) in the case of an offender under the age of 15 at the time
of the conviction, unless it is of the opinion that he is a persistent
offender;
(b) in the case of an offender under the age of 12 at that
time, unless –
(i) it is of the opinion that only a custodial sentence would
be adequate to protect the public from further offending by him; and
(ii) the offence was committed on or after such date as the
Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(3) A detention and training order is an order that the
offender in respect of whom it is made shall be subject, for the term
specified in the order, to a period of detention and training followed
by a period of supervision.
There are several points to note here. First, the offence has
to be of sufficient gravity that a non-custodial option cannot be
justified. This is determined according to s.152 of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 which provides such a threshold for adult offenders.
Second, if the offender is under the age of 15, a detention and
training order can only be imposed if he is a persistent offender. It
follows that it cannot be imposed on a first-time offender aged under
15 even if he has committed a very serious offence. If the offender is
under the age of 12, the criteria are yet more stringent: a detention
and training order can only be imposed if ‘only a custodial sentence
would be adequate to protect the public from further offending by him’
and the offence has to have been committed on or after such date as the
Secretary of State may order. As no date has been ordered, it follows
that a detention and training order cannot be imposed on an offender
under the age of 12. What this means is that the sentence can only be
imposed for sufficiently serious offences and, if the offender is under
the age of 15, where the individual has offended before. Finally, the
criteria make no reference to the educational or vocational needs of
the young person, despite the word ‘training’ in the title of the order.
The courts have another means of imposing custody if the
offence is particularly serious. The Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000 provides at s.91:
(1) Subsection (3) below applies where a person aged under 18
is convicted on indictment of –
(a) an offence punishable in the case of a person aged 21 or
over with imprisonment for 14 years or more, not being an offence the
sentence for which is fixed by law; or [Various offences are listed in
s.1(b), (c), (d) and (e), s.1(A), s.1(B) and s.1(C)]
(2) [Repealed]
(3) If the court is of the opinion that neither a youth
rehabilitation order nor a detention and training order is suitable,
the court may sentence the offender to be detained for such period, not
exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment with which the offence is
punishable in the case of a person aged 21 or over, as may be specified
in the sentence.
(4) Subsection (3) above is subject to (in particular)
sections 152 and 153 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Long term detention can be imposed on any offender aged
between 10 and 17 inclusive provided the above criteria are satisfied.
Essentially this section allows for the imprisonment of those who
commit grave offences which would attract lengthy custodial sentences
if the offender was an adult. It is noticeable that there is no
requirement that an offender under the age of 15 has a persistent
pattern of offending, unlike the detention and training order. Case law
demonstrates this principle in action such as in one case where two
14-year-old boys who were convicted of robbery had their sentences of
15 months and 30 months’ detention upheld by the Court of Appeal, even
though neither had offended before.[11] Similarly there is no statutory requirement that the
young person poses a danger to the public, although cases suggest that
those who have received long term detention have often engaged in
conduct which severely threatens public safety such as causing the
death of a young child by dangerous driving (offender aged 14),[12] killing two people by setting fire to a
building in which they were sleeping (offender aged 13)[13] and dropping a block of masonry on to a
train, severely injuring the driver and making the train run out of
control (offender aged 17).[14]
Finally, courts must impose a sentence of detention at Her
Majesty’s pleasure for murder committed by an offender who was under 18
at the time of the offence.[15]
This is an indeterminate sentence: the offender will serve a tariff
period at which point he may, or may not, be granted parole based on
whether his risk can be safely managed in the community.
The vocational and educational needs of an offender are
irrelevant when determining whether a custodial sentence can be imposed
(regardless if that is a detention and training order, long term
detention or detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure), despite the welfare
of a young person being a paramount concern in youth justice.
Determining whether custody can be imposed with regards to the
seriousness of the offence though is essential if one wants to guard
against disproportionate punishment and ensure that custody is used as
a measure of last resort.
3.3 Work as Dignity
Work and dignity are closely linked in various human rights
instruments. Although the term 'dignity' of the person was formulated
and developed initially by philosophers and political theorists, it
made its way into human rights texts.[16] Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides:
‘1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection
against unemployment.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy
of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of
social protection.’ [emphasis added]
In relation to protecting the dignity of people in custody,
Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
states:
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person…
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of
prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and
social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from
adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal
status [emphasis added].
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights states:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the
right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity
to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will
take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present
Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include
technical and vocational guidance and training programmes,
policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural
development and full and productive employment under conditions
safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the
individual [emphasis added].
The key human rights instruments, taken together, set out the
positive and negative State obligations in relation to protecting the
right of prisoners and young offenders to rehabilitation. A combination
of civil and political rights and social, economic and cultural rights
provide for the rights of young offenders to receive vocational
training in order to assist their rehabilitation process, and
ultimately enjoy respect of their dignity, as a result of being
valuable members of society.
‘Dignity’ is subject to interpretation, and it is often seen
in civil and political rights instruments. But it is unsurprising that
it has found its place as a main element of protecting social, economic
and cultural rights.[17]
Providing both adult and young offenders with the skills to lead a
productive life upon release, should be at the centre of the
rehabilitation process. While this can be interpreted as providing for
education in custody, this can include the provision for vocational
training when this is more appropriate or desired. The combination of
the International and regional human rights frameworks, together with
soft law providing for the protection of the rights of young offenders,
has allowed the enforced protection of the right to education and work
for young offenders. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights
case law is interpreted as an enforced protection of the rights of
young offenders, although any mention of children in the European
Convention on Human Rights is very limited.
According to Sarkin and Koenig, 'Work provides individuals in
a society with an element of human dignity as key contributors to that
civilisation, while also providing remuneration, which might allow them
to secure an adequate standard of living'.[18] Therefore, acknowledging the human
rights implications of addressing work as a human right, would mean
that providing the means to pursue the fulfilment of an adequate
standard of living and ultimately being a productive member of the
society is pivotal.
Evidence suggests that education and training programmes
available to prisoners increases their opportunities of entering the
job market thereby reducing the rate of reoffending.[19] Unfortunately, according to the latest
report of the UK to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 69% of
released young offenders, reoffend within the first 12 months after
their release.[20] Enhancing
employability and educational attainment as a means of tackling
reoffending was central to the planned introduction of ‘Pathfinder
Secure College’ in 2017. Regrettably, this proposal was abandoned in
2015 due to alleged financial obstacles amidst great criticism over the
potential efficiency of such a prison for young offenders. Some of
these criticisms relate to the difficulty for the young prisoners of
maintaining local links if they were moved to one “Secure College”,
affecting one’s right to private and family life. According to the
official response of the Government there is no current plan to revive
'Pathfinder Secure College'.[21]
Nevertheless, in the most recent report of the UK to the Committee of
the Rights of the Child, the plans for the creation of the Secure
College was offered as a promise for addressing the reoffending rates
in the youth justice system. In the official response of the Government
on the reforms of the Youth Justice system it was highlighted that ‘We
must make sure it is a safe and secure environment that can equip young
offenders with the skills they need to lead law-abiding lives’, while
the same response suggests that two new secure schools will be created
and a new apprenticeship scheme will be developed.[22]
Currently, education and training programmes are available to
all young offenders in England, while educational and vocational
training is compulsory in Northern Ireland.[23] In addition, the White Paper
'Educational Excellence Everywhere' provides that schools will continue
to be responsible for providing education and for their results to the
children that have been permanently excluded.[24] This is a welcome development that will
assist pupils at risk of offending or reoffending to stay engaged with
education.[25]
Rule 50 of the European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject
to Sanctions or measures reads as follows:
Juveniles deprived of their liberty shall be guaranteed a
variety of meaningful activities and interventions according to an
individual overall plan that aims at progression through less
restrictive regimes and preparation for release and reintegration into
society. These activities and interventions shall foster their physical
and mental health, self-respect and sense of responsibility and develop
attitudes and skills that will prevent them from re-offending.
This together with the previous recognition that ‘If education
and employment are… not provided, children suffer a social injustice;
and some of them will seek rewards in socially undesirable ways’,[26] the matter of reintegration in society
through legitimate work becomes a right to dignity. Rehabilitation and
dignity are two themes that are closely linked while some countries
explicitly provide for the right to rehabilitation, while arguably
‘dignity’ is not embedded in UK law.[27]
Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
provides that:
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged
as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be
treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense
of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the
human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into
account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's
reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.
3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of
laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable
to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed
the penal law…
4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and
supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education
and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to
institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are
dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and
proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence [emphasis
added].
Ploch suggests that rehabilitation of young offenders is
pivotal in order to ‘reinforce the child’s respect for others and self’.[28] In addition, Article 28 the Convention
provides that: “States Parties recognise the right of the child to
education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on
the basis of equal opportunity”. The Beijing Rules are cited in the
Convention of the Rights of the Child, making several of its provisions
legally binding, and establishing that the protection of the interests
of young offenders is a human rights issue.
The European Convention on Human Rights, although it rarely
mentions children in its wording, has consistently held in favour of
the right of children to education, clarifying the State duties, and
has interpreted the right to work as a right relevant to the right to
respect family and private life (Article 8) and the right to life
(Article 2).
‘[A]s the case law demonstrates, the ECtHR is not only capable
of developing new standards of human rights protection from a child’s
perspective, it is equally willing to build on those that currently
exist, under the CRC and companion instruments.’[29]
Evidently the European Court of Human Rights has gone beyond
the Convention on the Rights of the Child in protecting children
through the ECHR’s provisions.[30]
More specifically, the European Court of Human Rights has provided for
the protection of procedural rights in protecting the rights of
children. That is the ideal relationship between the two instruments
since a combined approach to the protection of the rights of children
is the most efficient. Both are legally binding but where one rests on
the good will of States to report any issues of implementation, the
other allows individual complaints against States.
In relation to the latter, although the United Kingdom is a
signatory to the Convention, its provisions have not been implemented
into UK law. Nevertheless, the government has released a document on
how the UK legislation is being used to protect the rights of children
as provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[31] These key Parliamentary Acts make
education compulsory and legally provide for the offering of
alternative training opportunities to young people when appropriate.[32] Nevertheless, the same laws do not
regulate the education provided for detained children. The activities
of the involved agencies are regulated by The Apprenticeships, Skills,
Children and Learning Act 2009. In particular, the Act provides that
education and training provided for young offenders should be
equivalent to those provided in schools. It is encouraging that reports
by OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and
Skills) on the current state of education and provision of vocational
training in the Youth Secure Estate, do not raise any concern in
relation to a potential violation of the right to education by
documenting the vocational training options that are available.[33]
3.4 Right to Education
Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1951
provides that everyone has the right to work, free from discrimination,
allowing for ‘an existence worthy of human dignity’. The right is one
linked to the right to life and the right to development, while the
most convincing link comes from the right to respect.[34] Ploch suggests that the reasons for
providing education and training opportunities to people in custody can
be attributed to different reasons. One would be that engaging with
education while in custody will ultimately benefit society. Another is
the 'non-degradation of prisoners': prisoners should leave custody with
more skills than when they first entered custody.[35] Article 60(1) of the 1955 United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provides
that the difference between life in custody and life outside custody
should be minimal.
4. The repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998
The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights have
been implemented through the Human Rights Act 1998 in 2000. Through
Protocol 1 Article 2, the European Convention on Human Rights provides
that:
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the
exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and
to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure
such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and
philosophical convictions.
The Article entails that the right is both a negative and a
positive right. That would mean that the State should refrain from
interfering with a child’s right to education, while the State should
provide educational ‘possibilities’ when necessary.[36] These positive obligations do not
include the creation of ad hoc educational programmes for
prisoners.[37]
The United Kingdom signed the European Convention on Human
Rights in 1950 and ratified it in 1951 (the first European country to
do so) as part of the common drive in Europe for a uniform protection
of human rights. The later adoption of the Human Rights Act 1998
signified the implementation of the ECHR provisions into UK law. With
this adoption, individuals could pursue the protection of their human
rights as provided by the ECHR in UK national courts, while Parliament
should ensure that new laws are compatible with the provisions of the
ECHR.
The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for
an expressed protection of children’s rights, with two exceptions. In
relation to young offenders, Article 5 and 6 offer some protection. But
in relation to the offer of work opportunities while in detention as
part of enhancing the prospect of having a productive life upon
release, the Court has been vocal in establishing that the State does
not have a duty to create educational programmes but, when these are
available, the State has to ensure access to them. While we do not have
an explicit recognition of this for young offenders, the fact is that
Article 14 and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds
of age, would ensure that this is a protected right for young offenders
as well.
4.1 The British Bill of Rights and the day after its adoption
‘The Conservatives’ Proposals for Changing Britain’s Human
Rights Laws’ released in 2014 highlighted a growing fear that the
Strasbourg Court would overrule the decisions of the UK Parliament.[38] The reason for this concern partly
derived from the decisions of the Court on prisoners’ rights on issues
ranging from prisoners’ voting rights to sentencing. The proposal
suggests that the government would undertake the following reforms: The
European Court of Human Rights’ decisions would not bind the UK Supreme
Court and the European Court of Human Rights would not be able to
affect UK law and its role would only be advisory.[39] The Secretary of State said that human
rights had become associated with “unmeritorious individuals pursuing
through the courts claims that do not command public support or
sympathy.”’[40]
The Conservatives expressed the desire that the UK Supreme
Court will be independent of the decisions of the Strasbourg Court, and
that the precedent set in Strasbourg will not be binding on UK national
courts. Nevertheless, a post-repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 era
will not result in individuals not being able to pursue the protection
of their human rights before the Strasbourg Court. To this date, the
proposed draft Bill of Rights has not been released. The result of the
Brexit vote in June 2016, has created an urgency in making decisions
over the future of post-Brexit Britain. Therefore, the concern that the
human rights of vulnerable groups might be compromised in the process
is very much alive. According to Grieve:
‘The most obvious difference would be if Parliament declined
to legislate to give effect to a declaration of incompatibility by the
Supreme Court on a matter of primary legislation. There would then be
no mechanism for the matter to be taken further to get the opinion of
an international tribunal whose decision the UK had bound itself by
treaty to implement.’[41]
The constitutional consequences of the repeal of the Human
Rights Act 1998 have been discussed before; the creation of the new
British Bill of Rights will, allegedly, allow the UK not to be bound by
European Court of Human rights decisions. One should not forget that
the debate over this turbulent relationship included a discussion over
prisoners’ rights, most notably with regards to prisoners being refused
the right to vote. Nevertheless, the binding character of the decisions
and the general willingness of member states to implement them, has
ensured a uniformity in the protection of human rights in the area. In
addition, the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights of
the Convention provisions has been the primary source of development of
human rights in Europe.
In relation to the rights of young offenders, one would think
that the Convention on the protection of the rights of the child should
be enough. Nevertheless, the combined application of both Conventions
has ensured efficiency in protecting the rights of children. Does that
mean that removing ourselves from the jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights will mean that children's’ rights while in
detention would be endangered? The only certain scenario is that, upon
repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK will have to continue to
implement the Convention on the protection of the rights of the child,
whilst continuing to rely on the Beijing Rules.
5. Inhibitors to Rehabilitation
Regrettably, the need for robust human rights protection for
incarcerated children in England and Wales is acute. Any attempt to
diminish existing provision is, consequently, of grave concern. The
youth custody system faces endemic problems which challenge any
meaningful attempts at rehabilitation and raise profound human rights
issues. Even the Youth Justice Board, who have responsibility for youth
justice, admit fundamental failure:
‘The [Youth Justice Board] itself has acknowledged that the
[Youth Secure Estate] is not fit for the purpose of caring for or
rehabilitating children and young people. The [Youth Custody
Improvement Board] believe this is correct, and is an astonishing
analysis by the [Youth Justice Board], given that it has been in
operation for over a decade. This inevitably raises a question as to
why the [Youth Justice Board] and [the Ministry of Justice] have not
been able to intervene in the [Youth Secure Estate] to ensure that it
was fit for purpose and keeping children and staff safe.’[42]
Earlier this year, an independent body was charged with
inspecting 11 institutions in the Youth Secure Estate.[43] The Youth Justice Board admitted that
the secure estate was unable to fulfil even the basic requirement of
keeping children and staff safe, let alone provide suitable, effective
rehabilitation. The inspectors noted that:
‘Levels of violence have increased year on year and Her
Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Peter Clarke, in a recent report
to the Youth Justice Board (YJB), stated that in his survey of young
people in [Young Offending Institutions], 46% had felt unsafe at some
point in their time in custody – the highest figure ever recorded. The
fact is that the current arrangements and their quality of provision
are not anywhere near good enough; without significant change they will
not become so.’[44]
Inspections found considerable dissatisfaction from children
in custody about the education that they receive:
‘A view consistently expressed by young people was that
education was poor, repetitive, below the levels already achieved by a
young person and poorly resourced. The majority of classrooms the Board
saw contained bolted chairs facing a board at the front, were
uninspiring and the available equipment was poor.’[45]
Education was not perceived to be preparing them for
employment:
‘Concern was expressed almost universally at the restrictive
framework created by the current requirement of providing 30 hours of
education per week (or education and intervention in [Secure Training
Centres]) and the absence of a clear vocational offer was noted. Some
young people were voting with their feet and refusing to attend
education because they did not see it as useful or relevant.’[46]
Inspections of individual institutions are helpful as they
document the educational and vocational provision on offer. Rainsbrook
Secure Training Centre provided good quality teaching and made links to
employment skills.[47]
Work-related skills were also fostered through such activities as
‘taking a lead role in groups, formulating and presenting a case, or
coaching their peers in sports or gym activities’.[48] Occasionally, work experience was
offered in the kitchen but the report notes that other work experience
opportunities, for example in construction, were lacking.[49] Young people were also not receiving
the independent careers advice and guidance to which they were entitled.[50] The inspectors complimented those
responsible for resettling young people coming to the end of their
sentence:
‘The resettlement team works closely with their education
colleagues to identify and plan suitable education, training and
employment options that help young people prepare for their return to
the community. Mobility is used well in this respect. In the best
example, this has included work experience, education interviews and
visits to future placements, as well as the completion of community
payback and reparation work.’[51]
Work-based provision appears to vary considerably between
institutions. In Oakhill Secure Training Centre, a variety of options
were provided which were appreciated by the young people:
‘Increased emphasis is being placed upon developing young
people’s employability skills and aspirations in areas such as
catering, horticulture, hair and beauty and sport. As well as
bolstering the range of vocational courses, managers continue to
introduce relevant initiatives such as job application and CV writing
drop-in sessions, mock interviews conducted by staff from national
companies and mobility visits to construction sites. Young people
receive these well.’[52]
The inspection reports demonstrate that young people welcome
vocationally-focused training that will enhance their employability
after serving their sentence. Education that is seen as irrelevant, is
not received positively. The inspections do report some excellent
practice but it is evident that provision varies between institution
and that many young offenders do not receive the type of training that
they perceive as beneficial.
6. Conclusion
This reported surge in violence and fear, paradoxically,
coincided with a significant fall in the number of children
incarcerated. In 2007/2008, there were an average of 3,000 children in
secure institutions whereas in 2016/2017 the average number was 850.[53] The Youth Justice Board told inspectors
that the needs of those remaining were ‘more challenging and more
complex’ and this explained the rise in violence and poor behaviour.[54] Certainly the current profile of
children in custody has altered as a result of the fall in overall
numbers. First, the offenders tend to be older: 96% are now aged 15 to
17.[55] Secondly, a higher
proportion are serving sentences for violent or sexual offences: the
proportion in custody for violent offences, robbery and sexual offences
increased from 52% in the year ending March 2011 to 68% in the year
ending March 2016.[56] An
older, more violent population may well be more predisposed to
attacking other inmates and staff. A further possible explanation for
the rise in violence is that the funding available to the youth secure
estate has fallen in line with the reduction in number of children
incarcerated.[57] There is
far more that could be said about violence and the lack of safety in
institutions designed to hold child offenders. Our focus in this
article though is on the role work plays in enabling young offenders to
lead a law-abiding life once they have completed their sentence and on
the human rights obligations that should ensure children are not
discriminated against because they are in custody. A system where
violence is commonplace is not conducive to providing meaningful
educational and vocational training. Although welfare is a stated
statutory aim when courts deal with young people,[58] this aim is undermined if young people
are sent to institutions which cannot provide suitable surroundings for
rehabilitation.
Human rights instruments support the facilitation of the
rehabilitation process for all people in custody including young
offenders. This is based on the premise that no one should leave
custody in a more disadvantaged position than when they entered. This
is obviously linked to providing education and training opportunities,
but evidence of this surge of violence suggests that other human rights
are also affected, that need to be addressed in order to ensure the
smooth (re)integration into society.
[1] See Department of
Education, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
How legislation underpins implementation in England, March 2010
[2] ibid
[3] A. Travis, UK
would have to declare state of emergency to change human rights laws,
The Guardian, 7 June 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/07/uk-would-have-to-declare-state-of-emergency-to-change-human-rights-laws
[4] The purposes of
sentencing adult offenders are different and more factors are seen as
relevant. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.142(1) states that: ‘Any
court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have
regard to the following purposes of sentencing – (a) the punishment of
offenders, (b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by
deterrence), (c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, (d) the
protection of the public, and (e) the making of reparation by offenders
to persons affected by their offences.’
[5] Criminal Justice
Act 2003, s.142A.
[6] P. Raynor,
“Community Penalties, Probation, and Offender Management”, in M.
Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Criminology, Oxford, OUP, 2012, pp. 928-954; A. Worrall and R.
Canton, “Community Sentences and Offender Management for Adults” in C.
Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin and E. Wincup (eds.), Criminology,
Oxford, OUP, 2013, pp.493-512.
[7] Children and Young
Persons Act 1933, s.44(1).
[8] Youth Justice
Board (2010) The Youth Rehabilitation Order and other Youth Justice
Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – Practice
guidance for youth offending teams London: Youth Justice Board p.21.
[9] There are a
variety of ways in which a custodial sentence can be imposed on an
adult offender, but the most common test is found in the Criminal
Justice Act 2003, s.152(2): ‘The court must not pass a custodial
sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the
combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it,
was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can
be justified for the offence.’
[10] There are also
a variety of ways in which a custodial sentence can be imposed on an
offender aged 18 to 20 inclusive, but the most common test is found in
the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act, s.96(1): ‘Subject to
sections 90, 93 and 94 above, where – (a) a person aged at least 18 but
under 21 is convicted of an offence which is punishable with
imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over, and (b) the court
is of the opinion that either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
section 79(2) above apply or the case falls within section 79(3), the
sentence that the court is to pass is a sentence of detention in a
young offender institution.’
[11] S J-R and DG
[2001] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 377.
[12] Z
[2008] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 623.
[13] SP
[2010] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 186.
[14] Ratcliffe
[2008] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 441.
[15] Powers of
Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s.90.
[16] See C. McGrudden,
“Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights”, EJIL,
19, 2008, p 655
[17]J. Sarkin and M.
Koenig, “Developing the Right to Work: Intersecting and Dialoguing
Human Rights and Economic Policy”, Human Rights Quarterly, 33,
2011, p 1
[18] ibid 3
[19] A. Ploch, “Why
dignity matters: Dignity and the Right (or not) to Rehabilitation from
International and National Perspectives”, NYUJ Int’l L. & Pol., 44,
2011, 892
[20] Ministry of
Justice, Youth Justice Statistics 2015/16, England and Wales, 2017, 13
[21] Glen Parva Young
Offender Institution: Written question - HL2696, Answered by Lord Keen
of Elie, 9 November 2016
[22] Written statement
Ministry of Justice, Made by Lord Keen of Elie, The Lords Spokesperson,
Ministry of Justice,12 December 2016
[23] Fifth periodic
reports of States parties due in 2014, United Kingdom, Committee on the
Rights of the Child, 6 March 2015, CRC/C/GBR/5 paras 263-4
[24] Department of
Education, Education Excellence Everywhere, March 2016, 70
[25] C. Taylor, Review
of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales, Ministry of Justice,
December 2016, para 33
[26] Working paper
prepared by the Secretariat on “Juvenile Justice: Before and After the
Onset of Delinquency”, Sixth United Nations Congress, A/CONF.87/5.
[27] Ploch n 19, 891
[28] ibid
[29] U Kilkelly,
Protecting children’s rights under the ECHR: the role of positive
obligations, Protecting children’s rights under the ECHR, N. Ir.
Legal Q., 61, 2010, p 261
[30] Ibid p 255
[31] Department of
Education n 1, 114
[32] Education and
Skills Act 2008, s. 28.
[33] Houses of
Parliament: Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, Education
in Youth Custody, PostNote, Number 524, Mary 2016
[34] T. De George,
The right to Work: Law and Ideology, Val. U. L. Rev., 19, 2011,
p 18
[35] Ploch n 19, 898
[36] Partly
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, Tarantino and
Others v Italy App nos 25852/09, 29284/09 and 64090/09 (ECHR, 2
April 2013)
[37] Epistatu v
Romania App no 29343/10 (ECHR, 24 September 2013) para 62
[38] Conservatives,
Protecting Human Rights in the UK 3
[39] Ibid p 5
[40] Inquiry on The
Potential Impact on EU Law of Repealing Human Rights Act, Evidence
Session no. 8 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-justice-subcommittee/potential-impact-of-repealing-the-human-rights-act-on-eu-law/oral/28347.html
[41] D. Grieve QC MP,
“Can a Bill of Rights do better than the Human Rights Act?”, Public
Law, 2, 2016, p 4
[42] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 5
[43] They inspected
Ashfield, Cookham Wood, Feltham, Hindley, Parc, Warren Hill, Werrington
and Wetherby Youth Offending Institutions and Medway, Oakhill and
Rainsbrook Secure Training Centres. They did not inspect any Secure
Children’s Homes which typically house the youngest offenders and
female young offenders.
[44] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 3
[45] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 32
[46] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 33
[47] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Rainsbrook London: OFSTED para
59
[48] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Rainsbrook London: OFSTED para
52
[49] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Rainsbrook London: OFSTED para
60
[50] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Rainsbrook London: OFSTED para
63
[51] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Rainsbrook London: OFSTED para
78
[52] OFSTED (2016)
Inspections of Secure Training Centres: Oakhill London: OFSTED para 56
[53] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 21
[54] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 21
[55] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 3
[56] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 3
[57] Findings of the
Youth Custody Improvement Board (2017) para 12
[58] Children and
Young Persons Act 1933, s.44(1)