In Our Care - Promoting the Rights of Children in Custody 03/02 [NI]
Written by Dr Ursula Kilkelly, Dr Linda Moore and Ms Una Convery.
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is empowered to carry out investigations under section 69(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Commission has no concurrent powers to compel the disclosure of documents or testimony. In May 2000 the Human Rights Commission decided to conduct an investigation into the care of children in juvenile justice centres. The process of this investigation has demonstrated the inadequacy of the Commission’s powers.
The investigation involved a variety of methods including analysis of relevant international human rights standards; interviews with eleven children and twenty staff in juvenile justice centres; an examination of files; a focus group discussion with probation officers; analysis of legislation, documentation and statistical information relating to the centres; information gathering meetings with key people involved in the operation of the juvenile justice system.
Background
1.When this investigation commenced there were three juvenile justice centres (all former Training Schools) in operation:
• St Patrick’s situated in West Belfast, originally held only Catholic boys but latterly a small number of Protestant boys were detained there. St Patrick’s closed in November 2000 as part of Government rationalisation of the juvenile justice estate.
• Rathgael situated near Bangor accommodates boys and girls. Prior to the introduction of the CJCO, Rathgael accommodated ‘non Roman Catholic’ children but is now used for the detention of girls and a small number of younger or vulnerable boys.
• Both St Patrick’s and Rathgael were relatively open facilities but with some secure facilities.
• Lisnevin, in Millisle, is a secure centre built on the model of a Grade C prison. Lisnevin is currently resourced to accommodate 25-30 boys of any religion.
2.The physical environment at Lisnevin has been criticised by children’s and human rights campaigners and in March 2000 the Criminal Justice Review recommended that it should close. Government subsequently announced plans to rationalise the juvenile justice estate. These plans included closure of St Patrick’s (with immediate effect) and the closure of Lisnevin (still to take place). Northern Ireland is to have one, new-build juvenile justice centre on the Rathgael site, housing boys and girls. In the interim Lisnevin is to close and young people be detained in updated accommodation in Rathgael. This rationalisation will result in a decrease in the capacity of the system from 110 places to 40 places.
3.The Commission expressed its view to Government that the development of small, family sized units, based in local communities was more in keeping with international human rights standards than the building of a single centre.
4.The Commission has concerns about Government’s plans including:
• inadequate consultation with staff, children and their families about the proposals;
• plans to house a small number of girls along with a larger number of boys;
• the siting of the proposed centre in the predominantly Protestant area of Rathgael;
• the inaccessability of the proposed centre for families particularly from the north and west of Northern Ireland;
• an over-representation of Catholic children in the centres particularly from north and west Belfast; and
• an under-representation of Catholics amongst the staff in the centres.
5.International human rights standards identify three core principles children’s: the best interests of the child must be paramount (Article 3 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child); children have a right to be heard (Article 12); children have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis, for example, of race, religion or gender (Article 2).
These principles are inadequately reflected in law, policy and practice relating to children in custody and it is recommended that steps be taken to address this gap.
6.Juvenile justice centres are used for detention of children aged 10-16 who have been remanded or sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 (CJCO) or remanded under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE).
7.The Commission considers that the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years of age is too low and is in breach of international standards. It recommends that Government raise the age.
8.International human rights standards define children as all those under 18. The Commission considers that Government is in breach of this principle through its failure to include all 17 year olds in the ambit of the CJCO. Girls as young as 15 can be sent to the Young Offenders Centre at Maghaberry Prison in clear breach of international standards which state that children should not be detained with adults.
9.The Justice (NI) Bill (currently progressing through Parliament) fails to incorporate human rights standards in its proposed aims for the youth justice system. This legislation should be amended accordingly.
Findings
10.International standards state that children should be detained only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time. The Commission has concerns about a high level of remand under the CJCO for children are not subsequently given custodial sentences.
11.The Commission is concerned about detention in Lisnevin under PACE with the effect that Lisnevin is used predominantly as a holding centre rather than as a centre for rehabilitation.
12.There is an over-representation of children from care backgrounds in custody especially on remand, yet these children are not any more likely to receive custodial sentences than other young people.
13.Over-use of remand to custody results in a high turnover of young people and presents difficulties for staff working in the centres.
14.The Commission urges Government to monitor the use of remand; to develop a strategy with the Juvenile Justice Board and police service to reduce the levels of admission under PACE; and to review existing care provision with an emphasis on provision of specialist and differentiated care and to develop creative alternatives to custodial remand.
15.International standards stress that assessment of a child’s needs is the starting point in the rehabilitation process which must be followed by development and implementation of an individualised treatment plan. Although there has been some recent improvement the system for assessment, planning and review in the centres is not yet fully compliant with international standards.
16.Children’s rights in assessment and planning can only be achieved if sufficient resources are there to meet the needs identified and the investigation found that this was not the case in relation to education, health care and rehabilitation. There is a need for an improved multi-agency approach in assessing children and meeting their needs. It is recommended that a multi-agency assessment and review panel be established for this purpose.
17.International standards emphasise the need to prevent offending, divert young people from the formal court system and undertake rehabilitative work in the community. Children deprived of their liberty have a right to be guaranteed the benefit of meaningful activities and programmes aimed at developing their potential as members of society. The Justice (NI) Bill should be amended to include these standards within the stated aims of the system.
18.The lack of available information makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of work being carried out in the centres on children’s offending behaviour. All future programmes should be monitored and evaluated.
19.While the range of programmes on tackling young people’s offending has improved in both centres over recent years, some problems are outstanding. Measures to address this should include enhanced staff training on rehabilitative work; a review of the existing staff provision in Lisnevin; more resources for rehabilitative work; and increased contact between the centres and communities children will return to.
20.Multi-agency involvement is crucial to children’s rehabilitation and reintegration. Consideration should be given to the creation of a multi-disciplinary staff team to co-ordinate the custody and community phase of Juvenile Justice Centre Orders.
21.International human rights standards give children an absolute right to protection from harm. There has been longstanding concern that allegations made by boys of a child protection nature have not in the past been properly investigated.
22.Contrary to international standards there is no independent complaints mechanism for children in custody.
23.The child protection procedures currently in use in the centres are out of date.
24.Two recent official audits have been carried out of child protection cases emanating from both centres. The general findings from these audits should be published.
25.The current operation of the child protection process gives cause for concern. When boys from Lisnevin make allegations of a child protection nature these are not investigated by the police CARE team but delegated to uniformed officers. This results in inadequate measures for the protection of children. The Commission recommends that an independent expert investigation be established by the Juvenile Justice Board to review the child protection process including the roles of police and social services.
26.International human rights standards stress the need for regimes for young people deprived of their liberty to strike an appropriate balance between respecting the rights of young people and securing the safety of others, including staff.
27.The Juvenile Justice Centre Rules do not strike the right balance but are prison-like rather than care oriented. They should be rewritten and made accessible for children.
28.A code of conduct for staff in the centres should be developed in consultation with staff and young people and made available to young people in an accessible form.
29.The Scrabo isolation block in Lisnevin is still being used, although for more restricted periods. This practice should stop.
30.Staff training on the use of restraint has recently been carried out by Home Office approved trainers. All staff should also be given training in de-escalating situations. The Juvenile Justice Board should monitor and review incidents of the use of restraint to ensure compliance with international standards.
31.Children have a right to health and health care. Where possible, children in custody should access health care in the community but custodial centres should also be sufficiently equipped to deal with children’s health care needs.
32.Responsibility for the health care of children in custody does not fall within the Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) but is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). This results in inadequate health care access. NIO’s failure to date to consult with the DHSSPS about future plans for health care in the juvenile justice system is contrary to international standards which emphasise the need for a multi-agency approach.
33. Current levels of therapeutic provision (including psychological and psychiatric services) for children in custody are seriously inadequate. This potentially puts children’s mental health, and indeed their lives at risk. There is an urgent need for the Juvenile Justice Board and centre management to put in place both policy and staff provision to deal with young people’s psychological and emotional needs.
34. Health education and promotion is important for young people in custody and should be prioritised and supported through additional resources.
35. Children in custody have a right to private and family life. The siting of the current and proposed centres creates difficulties for contact between children and their families. If Government goes ahead with its plans for a single centre a strategy should be developed for ensuring that children’s contact with their families is maximised. Policies should be developed for working in partnership with families throughout the child’s sentence or period on remand.
36. The Juvenile Justice Centre Rules do not adequately protect children’s right to privacy.
37. Children have a right to an effective education. Education for children in custody should be suited to their needs and abilities and designed to prepare them for their return to society. Education in the centres is inadequately resourced especially in relation to children with learning disabilities.
38. NIO responsibility for education in the centres marginalises children from mainstream education and can deprive teachers of vital training and support. This responsibility should be passed to the Department of Education. In the interim, contact between NIO and the Department in respect of educating children in custody should be maximised.
The future
Most children entering custody present challenging behaviour. The responsibilities of management and staff are many and complex. These children are in the care of the state and there is an onus on all of society to contribute constructively to their well-being and reintegration. Human rights provide a framework for transforming the care of children in the youth justice system. The Human Rights Commission looks forward to working in partnership with others in meeting this challenge.
Published by Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, March 2002
ISBN 1 903681 26 X
Contact
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Temple Court
39 North Street
Belfast BT1 1NA
Tel: 028 9024 3987
Fax: 028 9024 7844
Email: nihrc@belfast.org.uk
Website: http://www.nihrc.org
