How would young people like to be included in the services they use?

We asked six young people who use Nacro’s employment services what would make them feel more included in these services

“We want a more flexible criminal justice system,” said then justice minister Nick Herbert, introducing the criminal justice reform plans in July, “including extending opening hours for courts, maximising the use of technology – through virtual courts and prison to court video links – and we are looking at proposals to speed up cases where offenders plead guilty.”

‘Swift and Sure Justice: the Government’s Plans for Reform of Criminal Justice’ sets out a programme of reform to modernise criminal justice services. The riots of last summer provide the context for these reforms. The government wants to learn from the criminal justice system’s response to the riots – when police, prosecutors and courts worked together, and offenders were brought to justice very quickly. The aim is to normalise much of this response, so that justice is routinely swift and sure, and the criminal justice system is more flexible.

The government has two main intentions. Firstly, it wants to create a more efficient, swifter criminal justice system, by getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and delays. Secondly, it wants a surer criminal justice system, through increased transparency, accountability and public confidence.

In theory, it sounds positive. But how will the proposals affect young people with a communication difficulty or learning disability who come into the system? Research shows that up to 90% of offenders in custodial settings have poor communication skills, so it is vital that this group is considered.

The drive for efficiency must not come at the price of proper safeguarding. For example, moves towards an early guilty plea scheme, in ‘simple, straightforward and uncontested cases’, could potentially have damaging implications for people who do not fully understand the process. However, there could be developments that will benefit this group, such as a focus on restorative justice and the use of technology.

RYG discussed the issues with:

• John Fassenfelt (JF), chair of the Magistrates Association

• Vicki Helyar-Cardwell (VHC), director at the Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA)

• Frances Crook (FC), chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Has enough consideration been given to young offenders with a learning disability or communication difficulty?

FC: No. All the new contractors that the government is using are missing the issue. The only place where this is being considered is in prisons – money was spent working with people with a learning disability or communication difficulty on basic skills, such as literacy and numeracy, but this was not shared.

VHC: We’re worried that cases involving defendants with a learning disability or communication difficulty could be dealt with too swiftly.

Swift justice is a big focus of the paper – what effect could this have on vulnerable defendants?

VHC: While a swifter justice system is welcome, it’s essential that this is not pursued at the expense of justice itself. Young defendants with a learning disability or communication difficulty need to understand the court process, and the court must understand them. Trying to speed up the criminal justice system without safeguards is a false economy and will lead to a greater drain on resources.

JF: This is where magistrates come in, as the buffers. We are not employed by the criminal justice system. We are here to ensure sure justice – swift justice cannot overtake. Individuals must understand the case and have the right support.

What impact could proposals such as the early guilty plea scheme have?

VHC: When it comes to young defendants with a learning disability, there is always the concern that such schemes could encourage innocent individuals to admit to something they haven’t done – through undue influence, or because the court procedures have not been explained in a way that they understand. It’s imperative that mechanisms are put in place so this doesn’t happen.

FC: Good legal advice is essential – there should be money going into legal aid, to ensure vulnerable defendants get the right advice.

JF: The issue is training on learning disability, communication difficulty and mental heath. There is a gulf in the training when it comes to these areas. Magistrates need to be made aware of the implications of not recognising these issues.

What could the focus on restorative justice mean?

FC: I am a great fan of restorative justice. It is beneficial to the vulnerable, as long as it’s done carefully. If carried out correctly – by means of healing and not revenge work – it can work very well for the offender and victim. This restorative approach gives time and space to allow people to reflect.

VHC: Dealing with an offence through a more informal mechanism has the potential to ensure that vulnerable defendants better understand what is happening and allow them to be engaged with the process. However, we want to see all restorative justice undertaken by trained practitioners.

Would the integration of technology and more sharing of records mean better support?

JF: Quite simply yes. The gains outweigh the drawbacks, provided information is shared at all levels and accurately. I would be cautious about video evidence, as you cannot see the individual properly and make calls on their character.

FC: I am always suspicious of technology. I see it as a support tool and not an answer when dealing with people. Also technology often goes wrong.

VHC: If the integration of technology facilitates greater sharing of information, it has the potential to benefit vulnerable defendants. Too often, individuals are processed through the system without their needs being identified – even when they have been assessed – due to poor information exchange and difficulties with accessing paper files. But we cannot rely on technology alone.

What is the most important thing that the government must bear in mind?

VHC: It requires time to appropriately deal with vulnerable people in court, to gather the right background information, assess vulnerabilities and communicate in a way that means everyone understands the court process. It is important to identify vulnerabilities at the earliest, and most appropriate, point of contact with the system.

JF: They have to ensure defendants are understood, especially the young. I see it in court – blank faces when they don’t understand. Defendants with additional needs must be supported to understand.

FC: They must ensure everyone is treated with respect and care. If that’s right, everything flows from it.