ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007
andRESOURCE MATERIALSERIES No. 75

UNAFEI
Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan

August 2008

Keiichi Aizawa
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
1-26 Harumi-cho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-0057, Japan
http://www.unafei.or.jp
unafei@moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007
Main Activities of UNAFEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 136TH
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE“Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders andtheir Reintegration into Society”
Visiting Experts’ Papers•

Reforming the Juvenile Justice System in South Africa: Policy, Law Reformand Parallel Developments
by Dr. Ann Skelton (South Africa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41•

Youth Justice in New Zealand: A Restorative Justice Approach to Youth Offendingby Judge Stephen O’Driscoll (New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55•

Advances in the Assessment and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
by Dr. Robert D. Hoge (Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Participants’ Papers•

Country Report - Cameroon
by Mr. Henry Asaah Ngu Ndama (Cameroon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105•

Country Report - Hong Kongby Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung (Hong Kong SAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113•

Country Report - Tonga
by Ms. Loupua Kuli (Tonga) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123•

Handling Juvenile Offenders Under Criminal Law in Vietnam
by Mr. Thanh Quang Chu (Vietnam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

iii

Reports of the Course•

Ensuring Due Process in the Juvenile Justice System and the Appropriate
Adjudication or Disposition of Juveniles
by Group 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136•

Effective Institutional Treatment of Juvenile Offenders for their Successful
Reintegration into Society
by Group 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140•

Effective Measures in the Community-Based Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
and Enhancement of the Juvenile’s Ability to Reintegrate into Society
by Group 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

iv

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community
Resource Material Series No. 75.
This volume contains the Annual Report for 2007 and the work product of the 136th
International Training Course that was conducted from 23 May to 28 June 2007. The main
theme of the 136th Course was “Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
and their Reintegration into Society”.
In view of the importance of the issue of juvenile justice, the United Nations has taken
action to establish standards for the administration of juvenile justice systems. At the United
Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice, held every five years since 1955,
the management of the treatment of juveniles and the prevention of juvenile delinquency andjuvenile crime has frequently been discussed, resulting in the United Nations Guidelines for
the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines) in 1985 and the United
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty in 1990. Furthermore,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, contains several provisions whichcall upon States Parties to ensure a juvenile justice system based on humanitarianism, theguarantee of due process and the expansion of diversion (particularly in Articles 37, 39 and 40).
Despite recognition of the necessity of improving juvenile justice systems in many parts of theworld, and continuing efforts in this regard, many countries are still faced with numerous
challenges in this task.
In tackling these challenges, ensuring due process in the juvenile justice system is the firstpriority. In some countries, international instruments are often disregarded. Such countries
often face a host of problems that impede their observance of international instruments andofficials often lack an awareness of the rights of juvenile offenders and/or are insufficiently
concerned about their well-being. Efficient management and treatment of juvenile offenders incorrectional institutions is another area requiring particular attention. Due to limited
alternative measures of disposition, insufficient management of diversion, the fear and concernof the general public and victims’ complaints of an excessively lenient juvenile justice system,
juveniles in many countries serve long periods in custody. Thirdly, society has become
increasingly concerned about the results of correctional treatment. The efficacy of correctional
treatment and education of juveniles is becoming increasingly important to the agencies
responsible for their treatment.
Furthermore, the importance of the provision of effective community-based treatment at allstages of the disposition of juvenile cases should be emphasized. The provision ofindividualized treatment based on the risks and needs of each juvenile is required at eachstage. In addition, investigation into the background and circumstances of the juvenile offender,
assessment of his or her risks and needs, proper record-keeping and systematic co-ordination
among stakeholders is necessary. It is important that community-based treatment andinstitutional treatment are continuous and consistent (“through-care”). Finally, there is muchdebate concerning the social reintegration of juveniles in conflict with the law, as well as someconcern about the lack of socialization of juvenile offenders who have served long periods incustody.
The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first
Century (A/CONF.187/4/Rev.3), adopted by the Tenth United Nations Congress, held in Viennav

in 2000, referred for the first time to the necessity of restorative justice polices, mainly insupport of victims of crime (para. 27 and 28). In addition, the Bangkok Declaration on
Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(A/CONF.203/18), adopted at the Eleventh United Nations Congress in Bangkok in 2005,
stressed the importance of further developing restorative justice policies, procedures andprogrammes to promote the interests of victims as well as the rehabilitation of offenders (para.
32). Such innovations include Victim Offender Mediation, Family Group Conferencing,
Restorative Community Service, and Victim Impact Panels, etc. and the Balanced andRestorative Justice Approach which attempts to give juvenile offenders greater support byproviding an educational and practical programme for rehabilitation which considers both
victims and the community.
Giving due consideration to the above, this International Training Course intended to
identify the recurrent and newly raised challenges within the area of juvenile justice, especiallythe issue of the treatment of juveniles and their reintegration into society, as well as the bestpractices to meet these challenges. By analysing the actual situation and problems, and sharing
experiences of types of treatment which have achieved a certain degree of success, it is hopedthat the participants arrived at the most effective measures for their countries.
In this issue, in regard to the 136th Course, papers contributed by visiting experts, selectedindividual presentation papers from among the participants, and the Reports of the Course are
published. I regret that not all the papers submitted by the Course participants could be
published.
I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the Government of Japan, particularly the
Ministry of Justice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation for providing indispensable and unwavering support to UNAFEI’sinternational training programmes.
Finally I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all who so unselfishly assisted in the
publication of this series; in particular, the editor of Resource Material Series No. 75,
Ms. Grace Lord.
August 2008

Keiichi Aizawa
Director of UNAFEI

vi

PART ONEANNUAL REPORTFOR 2007• Main Activities of UNAFEI• UNAFEI Work Programme for 2008
• Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2007 - 31 December 2007)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan in 1961 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in Asia and the Pacific region bypromoting regional co-operation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of criminal justice discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice by the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called "problem-solving through an integrated approach" is one of the chief characteristics
of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and one
international seminar (five weeks’ duration). One hundred and forty nine government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; an
independent administrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI training
programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively
senior positions in criminal justice fields.
During its 46 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 137 international training courses andseminars, in which approximately 3,332 criminal justice personnel have participated, representing 116
different countries. UNAFEI has also conducted a number of other specialized courses, both country andsubject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In theirrespective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and holding important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.

A. The 135th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 135th International Senior Seminar was held from 12 January to 16 February 2007. The main theme
was “Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using Effective Interventions with Offenders: An
Examination of Best Practices”. In this Seminar, eighteen overseas participants and seven Japaneseparticipants attended.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the current position regarding the role andfunction of criminal justice agencies in their countries in regard to the main theme. The participants werethen divided into three group workshops as follows:3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Group 1: The Use of Effective Interventions in Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Public Safety at
the Prosecution and Sentencing Stage
Group 2: Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using Effective Interventions with
Offenders Whilst Serving Their Sentences : An Examination of Best Practices
Group 3: The Use of Effective Interventions in Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Public Safety
after the Offender has Served His or Her Sentence
Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order tofacilitate the discussions. During group discussion the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations,lectures and so forth. Later, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group
Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meetings, drafts of theGroup Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Basedon these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports are
published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No 74.
3. Outcome Summary(i) The Use of Effective Interventions in Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Public Safety at theProsecution and Sentencing Stage
The common denominator in the discussions of Group 1 was that alternative intervention models that go
beyond the conventional criminal justice process of prosecution, sentencing and imprisonment, such as
diversion mechanisms at both the prosecution and sentencing stage and drug court programmes or otherschemes targeting specific categories of offenders, may well serve the objectives of preserving public safety
and order and rehabilitating the offenders with a view to controlling recidivism. In that sense, authorities andagencies involved in this area should establish an effective collaboration network to avoid fragmented actionand ensure that a holistic and integrated strategy to address the problems posed by recidivism is pursued
and effectively implemented.
The following recommendations were made.
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

4

Where necessary, legislative reform should be pursued and carried out as a first element andcomponent of strategies aiming at achieving better results in the treatment of offenders and thecontrol of recidivism;
There should be various options such as suspended sentences and other non-custodial measures
to be applied at the pre-trial and sentencing stages, and the rehabilitation of the offender should
always be considered in conjunction with other objectives of sanctioning policies to ensure thatthe interests of both the offender and the community are well served;
A more integrated approach should be followed to enable better co-ordination among national
and local agencies, as well as consistency of action and more effective case management inpreventing and controlling reoffending;
The designation of focal points in each authority or agency involved in intervention models withoffenders as well as the establishment of a communication network between them and theenhancement of information-sharing mechanisms should be prioritized as a means of boostingco-ordination and facilitating concerted action among the various stakeholders;
An integrated information system database on recidivist incidents and rates should be developed
to carry out an in depth evaluation and assessment of the extent and impact of the problem andto formulate appropriate policies and guidelines based on comprehensive, timely and reliabledata and information;
In order to ensure the operational success of intervention models with offenders, primaryconsideration should be given to establishing the appropriate infrastructure and making available
the necessary resources for supporting such infrastructure;
In order to address the lack of institutional capacity and experience in tackling the problems
posed by recidivism, high priority should be accorded to training programmes and activities andthe provision of technical assistance generally, aiming at enhancing the expertise and skills ofMAIN ACTIVITIES

law enforcement and prosecutorial and judicial authorities, as well as other staff involved incriminal justice affairs;
8. Effective mechanisms primarily aimed at monitoring and assessing the effectiveness ofintervention should be developed;
9. Partnerships with non-governmental organizations and other elements of civil society should bebuilt and further encouraged to allow for multi-stakeholder involvement in the implementationof intervention schemes;
10. In seeking alternative models of effective interventions with offenders and dealing withproblems of recidivism, the role of the community should be considered and restorative justiceapproaches can be considered as a response to crime problems, especially with regard to lessserious offences.

(ii) Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using Effective Interventions with Offenders
Whilst Serving Their Sentences : An Examination of Best Practices
It is agreed that mechanisms to enhance the opportunity for an offender to rehabilitate and re-entersociety are an essential part of any strategy to reduce recidivism. However, the issues are extremelycomplex. It is not safe to assume that the offender was well integrated in society prior to his or her
imprisonment. Worldwide evidence is that many prisoners were not well integrated, and in fact in many
countries, the "average" prisoner does not have good life skills, educational or trade qualifications, work
experience or stable housing. The group members, after taking into consideration the diverse social,economic, cultural, legal and geographical features existing in their respective countries, discussed possible
action to meet the challenges of rehabilitation. This advice can be adapted by individual countries in reducing
recidivism and promoting public safety whilst the offender is serving his or her sentence.
The following recommendations were made.
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

Implementation of comprehensive assessment methods to improve management of prison
systems. This should include measures such as:• Establishing databases;• Providing centres for research;• Ensuring classification of offenders is in keeping with the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules (UNSMR) for the Treatment of Prisoners.
Identification of the most important treatment target:• Ensuring that the highest risk offenders are given priority treatment;• Making optimal use of available budgets;• Maximizing the human resources available;• Enhancing community participation.
Identification of the most effective treatment methods by providing comprehensive treatment,
to include:• Motivational interviewing;• Cognitive behavioural therapy;• Education, work and social skills training;• Enhancing family and community participation;• Health, legal and religious assistance.
Revision and concentration of resources on target groups:• Preparation of an annual plan and budget;• Review assessment and classification of offenders.
Development and expansion of collaboration with other agencies:• Form teams to reflect diversification of professional staff roles, government and community
support;• Disseminate information through the development of public relations plans;• Establish a Memorandum of Understanding with all stakeholders.
Increase public awareness of the importance of family and community in the reintegration
process of ex-prisoners:• Encourage development of family relationships during an offender’s incarceration;• Implement strategies to keep families informed of the progress of prisoners;• Strengthen networks with potential employers and keep them updated of prisoners’
competences;

5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007•

Collaborate and maintain relations with welfare agencies.

(iii) The Use of Effective Interventions in Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Public Safety after the
Offender has Served His or Her Sentence
The Group considered the topic for discussion in detail, keeping in mind that rehabilitation of the offenderduring the period of sentence and after sentence is key to public safety. Reduction of recidivism is possible
only through rehabilitation of offenders as custodial or non-custodial sentences without rehabilitative
programmes are useless. The issues of detrimental societal attitudes and supervision of known habitual
offenders were discussed in detail and the following recommendations were made.
1.

Necessity of Aftercare Programmes• The group agreed on the general need for an aftercare programme when an offender completes
his or her sentence. It is advisable that the programmes are designed to make the offenders
useful and law abiding citizens who can rehabilitate and reintegrate and that the programme
objective is to reduce recidivism;• Such programmes should be based upon standard assessment of the offenders upon their entry
into prison. The programme should be based upon the risks, needs and responsiveness of each
offender. Specific programmes could address a wide variety of their criminogenic needs such assex offender therapy, drug addiction treatment and treatment for their criminal style of thinking(cognitive distortion) so that the chance of reoffending can be reduced;• Priority would have to be placed on programmes for high risk and high need offenders in orderto reduce the chances of reoffending and to effectively utilize limited resources.
(i) Gradual Reintegration• Upon release, high risk offenders should not be exposed to society directly. There should bea system of rehabilitation whereby the offender may be sent out for short periods prior torelease, depending upon his or her risk;• Where applicable, there should be halfway houses and parole systems, not only to provide
board and lodging, but to offer mental care, living skills guidance and job placement
services.
(ii) Good Staff: Recruitment, Training, Integrity and Motivation• Aftercare programmes should employ specialized staff such as psychologists, social workers
and psychiatrists. Staff should be of high integrity;• To raise the level of efficiency, the conditions of service of personnel involved in the
programme may have to be improved to motivate them and also to attract highly qualified
personnel;• There should be training for staff in new techniques for carrying out their tasks. Staff
should have access to institutions where they can acquire more knowledge and higher
qualifications;• The current strength of corrections officers should be enhanced to reduce the burden on
the existing officers.
(iii) Volunteers• Efforts have to be made to seek the involvement of volunteers with relevant competence toimplement specialized programmes at minimum cost. The Japanese Volunteer Probation
system could be a good model.

2.

Post Release Rehabilitation Programmes• For successful results of post release rehabilitative programmes, offenders should be given
treatment from the very first day of custodial and non-custodial sentences;• The standard classification/assessment system needs to be introduced to the custodial and noncustodial punishment system and used upon an offender's entry into the system. Assessment
should consider the motives and circumstances of the crime and the degree of the criminal
behaviour i.e. assessment on the basis of risk/need.
(i) Information Flow
• Management information systems may require improvement to maintain up-to-date records
of offenders. As far as practicable, computers should be utilized;

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES•In order to judge the success of the programme, assessments may be made regularly, duly
recognizing the risk of the offender.

(ii) Motivation of Offenders after Release• In order to attract the offenders to the aftercare programme, motivating factors should be
addressed carefully. Motivation can be formed externally or internally. In some culturalcontexts, motivation could take the form of incentive; e.g. provision of vocational training,
employment or the issuing of a good behaviour certificate. Offenders may even be coerced
into treatment by making an appropriate legal framework. However, offenders can also
motivate themselves to receive treatment in order to live a better life.
3.

Co-ordination among Related Organizations• Efforts to co-ordinate the work of not only related agencies such as prisons departments, paroleand probation departments, and police departments, but also private institutions like NGOs,
religious institutions and charitable institutions should be made to enhance the capabilities ofthese organizations;• The personnel in governmental organizations engaged in the delivery of programmes may
exchange information with each other freely to enhance better understanding of the offenders.

4.

Community Involvement (Public Awareness)• Societal attitudes may be changed by conducting seminars, workshops, media campaigns, walks
or rallies with the co-operation of non-governmental institutions, notables from all walks of life,
students and religious institutions to create or develop awareness of rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders and to reduce stigmatizing of offenders by society;• Informal organizations performing rehabilitative activities for reintegration of ex-offenders
should be encouraged by the government.

5.

Sustainability of Programmes (Political Support)• In designing programmes, factors such as consistency, adaptability, feasibility, suitability andaffordability ought to be given prime attention. Gaining political support by presenting theeffectiveness of such programmes is of vital importance.

6.

Supervision of Known Ex-Offenders(i) Supervision by Police and Other Related Agencies• In order to protect the public, it is necessary to monitor high risk known offenders.
Information regarding such offenders should be given to the police from correctional
institutions upon their release. The systems used in Japan and the UK could be used as amodel.
(ii) Vigilance Committees• Where applicable, a vigilance committee comprising notables of the respective area from allwalks of life including lawyers, doctors, educators, students and representatives of local
police may take responsibility for the supervision of known offenders.

B. The 136th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 136th International Training Course was held from 23 May to 28 June 2007. The main theme was“Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders and their Reintegration into Society”. In thisCourse, fourteen overseas participants, nine Japanese participants and two overseas observers and attended.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and Group
Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future
prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. The Group Workshops further
examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into threegroups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Group 1: Ensuring Due Process in the Juvenile Justice System and the Appropriate Adjudication or
Disposition of Juveniles
Group 2: Effective Institutional Treatment of Juvenile Offenders for their Successful Reintegration
into SocietyGroup 3: Effective Measures in the Community-Based Treatment of Juvenile Offenders andEnhancement of the Juvenile’s Ability to Reintegrate into Society
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. During the course, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop
reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meeting the drafts of the Group
Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based onthese discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports are publishedin full in this edition of the UNAFEI Resource Material Series.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Ensuring Due Process in the Juvenile Justice System and the Appropriate Adjudication or
Disposition of Juveniles
In regard to the above topic the following recommendations were made.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

A special court system competent to deal with juvenile offenders is necessary. The Family Court
in Japan, and also the model of the Criminal Child Court in South Africa as proposed in the Child
Justice Bill, or the model of the Barangay Court in the Philippines, are considered good models;The formulation of (or improvement of an existing) fundamental framework on arrest, detention,prosecution and trial, applicable to juvenile offenders, and based on United Nations standards,
norms and guidelines;
Judges must have proper information in the form of comprehensive reports to enable them tomake appropriate decisions;
Probation officers, as specialists of human sciences such as psychology, sociology and education,
should be involved in the process of decision-making. Their reports and recommendations
should have significant bearing on the final disposition;
The involvement of volunteer probation officers and social workers, etc. as community support
resources in dealing with juvenile offenders should be encouraged;
The competent authorities, in their determination, should, as a rule, give priority to the juvenile
offender rather than the offence;
Restorative justice, where the victim meets the juvenile offender to understand why the latter
committed the offence and for possible compensation to be agreed upon, should be encouraged;
Many participants emphasized the importance of recording, properly and methodically, statistics
on juvenile offenders.

(ii) Effective Institutional Treatment of Juvenile Offenders for their Successful Reintegration into
Society
The Group carefully considered the situation and practices in each participating country and agreed upon
the following recommendations.
1.
2.

3.
4.

8

To obtain more genuine and accurate information, the different aspects and characteristics ofjuveniles should be considered when conducting risk/needs assessment;
Treatment programmes should be updated regularly by inviting the opinion of experts andrelated parties. Consideration should be given to the ideas of participating staff members as wellas the juveniles. Programmes should be introduced in a step-by-step manner, and according toavailable resources;
Objective measurement methods should be used to assess the effectiveness of treatment
programmes, such as the rate of recidivism of participants;
Treatment programmes which consider victims and restitution of the harm caused to them

MAIN ACTIVITIES

should prepare juveniles to apologize before victim mediation programmes commence;
Before discharging juveniles, greater pre-release training and preparation should be provided.
For this purpose, parole board officers should be involved in treatment of the juvenile during his
or her stay in an institution;
6. For the juvenile to lead a stable life, employment is indispensable. Therefore, authorities shouldseek co-operation from private companies as well as the community through media contact;
7. Effective systems to monitor volunteers and NGOs are necessary;
8. In order for the juvenile to maintain his or her motivation to rehabilitate him or herself after
release, it is necessary to provide innovative and creative programmes;
9. Greater effort should be made to encourage the juvenile to build up trusting relationships withhis or her family members. This should begin upon the juvenile’s admission to an institution andbe continued after release on probation or during the supervision period;
10. Aftercare supervision with control and care elements significantly influences a juvenile’s reintegration into society. For this purpose, juveniles’ needs should be investigated before release.
11. Training and education for staff on the rationale and mission of rehabilitation of juveniles should
be strengthened. Some cultural change and motivational programmes could be good ways toenhance team spirit and levels of co-operation.
5.

(iii) Effective Measures in the Community-Based Treatment of Juvenile Offenders and Enhancement of
the Juvenile’s Ability to Reintegrate into Society
The Group agreed to conduct its discussion according to the following agenda:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The current situation and problems faced by organizations that treat juveniles;
Measures of assessing the individual characteristics, degree of risk and individual needs ofjuveniles and classification accordingly;
Development of an effective programme in accordance with risk and needs assessment;
Development of an effective treatment programme considering victims and/or restitution of theharm caused to victims;
Continuous collaboration and maintaining links with institutional treatment services and/or
related organizations for the effective treatment of juveniles and their rehabilitation (throughcare); andThe creation of an aftercare system which helps maintain the effect of correctional treatment,
reduces the risk of re-offending and enhances the juvenile’s ability to reintegrate into thecommunity.

The following recommendations were made.
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

Community-based correctional treatment must be in line with the needs of offenders. A
governmental institution may screen these programmes before allowing implementation byNGOs and other community organizations. By doing this, the government may also need to set
guidelines or regulations;
A treatment programme for the type of risk and need assessment should be developed by
specialists and stakeholders in co-operation with the police and departments of justice, social
welfare and corrections;
Considering the protection of the human rights of juveniles, governments must prioritize
financial support of treatment programmes and concerned organizations;
Aftercare agencies should co-operate and collaborate with all institutional organizations.
Communication and exchange of information and community resources between treatment
agencies and the community is crucial in increasing collaboration and co-operation between
them. This should take into consideration the juvenile’s right to privacy and should be in thejuvenile’s best interests. Identically formatted documents should be used by all agencies toenhance co-operation and collaboration among stakeholders;
The use of community resources such as religious and community leaders and police
community forums should be considered for community-based treatment;
Third parties are necessary for successful victim-offender meetings but they need to be chosencarefully, taking into account the desires and situations of both victims and offenders;Aftercare residences (halfway houses, etc.) should be established or increased to continue
effective treatment of the juvenile within the community;

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

8.
9.

Continuous supervision, assessment and treatment of juveniles, and supports to their parents
and families should be maintained;
Treatment programmes should provide juveniles with healthy distractions and hobbies in which
they have interest so as to reduce negative peer influence and recidivism.

C. The 137th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 137th International Training Course was held from 5 September to 11 October 2007. The main
theme was “Corporate Crime and the Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities”. Twelve overseas participants,
six Japanese participants and one overseas observer attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 137th Course endeavoured to explore the investigation, prosecution and trial of
corporate crime. This was accomplished primarily through a comparative analysis of the current situationand the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions enabled them to put forth effective
and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and the Group Workshop
sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future prospects of hisor her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate discussions, the participants weredivided into three groups.
Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth.
Group 1: Issues Concerning the Legal Framework on Corporate Crime, Corporate Liability andMisuse of Corporate Vehicles
Group 2: Issues Concerning the Investigation and Prosecution of Corporate Crime
Group 3: Issues Concerning Trial and Sentencing in Corporate Crime Cases
Plenary Meetings were later held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop reports and tooffer suggestions and comments. During the Plenary Meetings, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were
examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions, theGroups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Sessions, where they wereendorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports will be published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 76.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Issues Concerning the Legal Framework on Corporate Crime, Corporate Liability and Misuse of
Corporate Vehicles
In this globalized era, corporate activities have become transnational. Corporations can expand, creating
employment and investment opportunities. However, globalization is not free of negative impacts on society,such as the commission of economic crimes with highly sophisticated and complicated modi operandi. Facedwith this challenge, each segment of the criminal justice system is mandated to come up with effective
solutions to address the problem. Furthermore, the international community has to work hand in hand to
curb corporate crimes. Every participating country has taken some steps to prevent and detect corporate
crimes and misuse of corporate vehicles and to impose sanctions on corporate entities that commit crimes.
Although the legal systems of participant countries regarding liability of legal persons vary, the Group
concluded that it is important to punish legal persons effectively and appropriately and made the following
recommendations.

10

MAIN ACTIVITIES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Raise awareness among the public and the law enforcement authorities in regard to charging
legal persons;
In order for the competent authorities to impose adequate sanctions against legal persons it isimportant to have a variety of sanctions available as options, which may be criminal,
administrative and/or civil, in accordance with the legal system of each country;
In order to prevent, deter, and combat corporate crimes, effective and adequate legal sanctions
should be imposed on legal persons, regardless of sanctions against natural persons;
Proceeds of corporate crime should be taken from legal persons and offenders. To serve thispurpose, laws on confiscation or forfeiture should be strengthened and fully implemented;
Corporate crime is a global problem. Therefore, international co-operation, in terms ofinternational agreements as well as co-operation and co-ordination through formal and informal
channels, is important and should be strengthened;
Sharing of technical investigative know-how pertaining to corporate crime, including by meansof training, should be enhanced among the international community;
Legal measures that may contribute to the prevention and detection of misuse of corporate
vehicles and corporate crime, such as registration systems for companies and obligations offinancial institutions (customer identification, record keeping and suspicious transaction
reporting) should be strengthened. Company and bank information kept by relevant authorities
or institutions should be accessible to the competent authorities in a timely manner.

(ii) Issues Concerning the Investigation and Prosecution of Corporate Crime
Regarding the above topic, the Group made the following recommendations.
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

Development of a basic guideline document in the investigation of financial, commercial or
economic crimes involving corporate entities which have a serious impact on the economic andsocial stability of their countries that should include: i) the legal study of the elements of thecrime; ii) the identification of the sources of information; iii) the techniques of investigation that
could be applied; iv) methods of interrogation; v) collection of material or evidence that can beused to prove the elements of the crime; etc;
Development of interrogative techniques for victims, witnesses and suspects;
Establishment or strengthening of co-operation between prosecutors or police officers and theadministrative investigative authorities at state level who have power to conduct administrative
investigations in relation to corporate crime;
Strengthening of co-ordination between police officers and the prosecutors from the beginningof the investigation;
Establishment or strengthening of co-operation with foreign countries to develop joint
investigations between law enforcement agencies of different countries. This would ensure aclose working relationship to fight corporate crime and enforce mutual legal assistancemeasures to share information and collect evidence. It would also help in the identification andlocation of the profits or proceeds of the crime with the purpose of seizing or freezing them andlater on, confiscation of same;
Enhancement of the expertise of the administrative investigative authorities, police officers andprosecutors in investigation of corporate crime and the strengthening of the financial resources
for investigative authorities to train them in order to acquire or improve their specialized
knowledge.

In addition to the above mentioned recommendations, it become clear that the majority of the participating
countries do not provide for special investigative techniques to investigate corporate crime and suchmechanisms and any changes to the existing systems would require extensive discussion and agreement
between various state agencies in accordance with the domestic laws in respective countries. Therefore theGroup suggests the following:
1.
2.

An investigation or a study to assess whether special investigative techniques, in accordancewith the domestic law, could be applicable in the field of corporate crimes; andA comparative study of the legal framework in various countries as an aid to determining themost appropriate legal tools to support investigators in carrying out their work.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007(iii) Issues Concerning Trial and Sentencing in Corporate Crime Cases
After a lengthy discussion on all the above topics the Group members agreed upon the following
recommendations:
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

There is no need to establish or create special courts in respective countries to deal withcorporate crime cases. The procedure currently followed in dealing with such cases is appropriate.
However, it is useful to establish specialized departments to deal with corporate crime cases
like tax evasion in order to ensure speedy and fair trials;
Every country should have legislation to provide for the use of electronic evidence to avoid such
evidence being challenged in court. The legislation will make its use in court unequivocallybinding;
As much as possible, countries should use original documents as evidence in courts. Copied
documents must be used with strict conditions to avoid the use of tampered evidence;
Preparation before the actual trial is vital in all countries where clarifications of disputes anddisclosure of evidence are required. The preparation will speed up the trial process by cutting
unnecessary objections which may arise during the trial;
The court should maintain a list of qualified forensic analysts and experts who can be called togive testimony, rather than the parties calling their own analysts and experts; this would avoid
possible conflicts of interest between opposing experts. The list would be prepared by the court
in consultation with relevant bodies. However, the parties should not be bound to use only the
analysts and experts on the list;
Countries must have adequate numbers of jurists and legal personnel who handle corporate
crime cases in order to ensure fair and speedy trials. Countries should strive to have, as muchas possible, a continuous trial process without adjournments;
Judgment and sentencing should be rendered within a reasonable time after the trial. Preferably,
the judgment and sentence should be delivered together at the end of the trial;
In order to avoid disparities in sentences and to speed up the trial, it is useful to establish
sentencing guidelines in respective countries. However, judges are not bound by the guidelines
in determining the sentence;
In order to combat corporate crimes, there should be a balance amongst criminal (penal), civil,
and administrative sanctions being imposed on both corporate entities and the individuals
concerned.

D. Special Seminars and Courses
1. The Third Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Third Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 26 February to 17 March 2007.
The main theme was “Effective Measures and Enhancement of Treatment for Drug Abusers in the Criminal
Justice Process”. Thirteen criminal justice officials from Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) attended.
2. The Twelfth Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China
The Twelfth Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China washeld from 5 to 23 March 2007. The main theme was “Globalization of Crimes and International Criminal
Justice Co-operation”. Thirteen senior criminal justice officials from China attended.
3. The Second Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines
The Second Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines was held from 17 to 26 April 2007. Eleven Parole and Probation Officers and one
Volunteer Probation Aide from the Philippines discussed measures to improve communication and feedback,and measures to promote Volunteer Probation Aide Associations.
4. The Eighth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya
The Eighth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya was held from 15
October to 9 November 2007. Eleven participants from Kenya reviewed their progress in regard to
improving the treatment of juveniles in correctional institutions and in the community and the progress they
have made in establishing a Volunteer Children’s Officers programme.

12MAIN ACTIVITIES

5. The Tenth International Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice
The Tenth International Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice was held from 24
October to 21 November 2007. In this Course, thirteen overseas and five Japanese officials engaged incorruption control comparatively analysed the current situation of corruption, methods of combating
corruption, and measures to enhance international co-operation.
6. The First Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The First Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, jointly hosted by
UNAFEI, the Office of the Attorney General of Thailand and the UNODC Regional Centre for East Asia andthe Pacific, was held from 17 to 23 December 2007 in Bangkok, Thailand. The main theme was “Corruption
Control in the Judiciary and Prosecutorial Authorities”. Approximately thirty participants from eight
countries, comprising judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials attended.

III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors were dispatched to Kenya, from 28 July to 1 September 2007, to assist theChildren’s Department of the Vice President and Ministry of Home Affairs in a project to develop nationwide
standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders and vulnerable children.
2. Short-Term Experts in Latin America
Two UNAFEI faculty members visited Argentina and Costa Rica from 8 to 27 July 2007. In Argentina
they held a follow-up Seminar, focusing on the specific situation in Argentina. In Costa Rica, they jointly
hosted, with ILANUD, a course on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which ten countries wererepresented.
3. Short-Term Experts in the Philippines
A UNAFEI professor was dispatched from 22 September to 2 October 2007 to Baguio, the Philippines, toattend and present lectures at the In-Country Training Programme of the Philippines PPA.

B. First Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
UNAFEI, the Office of the Attorney General of Thailand and the UNODC Regional Centre for East Asiaand the Pacific held the First Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries in
Bangkok, Thailand from 17 to 23 December 2007. Approximately thirty participants from eight countries
attended the Seminar. The main theme of the Seminar was “Corruption Control in the Judiciary andProsecutorial Authorities”.
IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, and makes
use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Service of theInstitute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies,
governmental organizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2007, the 71st, 72nd and 73rd editionsof the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 122 to 124 (from the 135th Seminar to
the 137th Course respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which included a brief report oneach course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are also available on UNAFEI’s
website http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 2 February 2007, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference Hall of the
Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the 135 thInternational Senior Seminar participants. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. This year, Mr. Peter
Wheelhouse from the United Kingdom Home Office and Dr. Brian A. Grant from Correctional Services
Canada were invited as speakers to the programme. They presented papers on “The Impacts of the Prolificand other Priority Offenders Programme and its Significance” and “Reducing Recidivism by Applying thePrinciples of Risk, Need and Responsivity”, respectively.

B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.
C. Overseas Missions
Ms. Megumi Uryu (Professor) visited Helsinki, Finland from 21 to 26 January 2007 to attend the HEUNI
25th Anniversary Symposium and made a presentation on Technical Activities in the Traditional Areas of
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Ms. Tae Sugiyama (Professor) and Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) visited Manila, the Philippines to attend
the In-Country Training Programme of the Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines,
sponsored by JICA. Mr. Yamada delivered the Director’s remarks. Mr. Yamada attended from 15 to 18
January 2007 and Ms. Sugiyama attended from 17 to 20 January 2007.
Director Keiichi Aizawa and Ms. Kayo Ishihara (Professor) visited Vienna, Austria from 21 to 29 April
2007 to attend the 16th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The Director
made a presentation and a statement and Ms. Ishihara made a statement to the Commission.
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) and Ms. Yoko Hosoe (Staff) visited Bangkok, Thailand from 3 to 9 June to
make preparations for the First Regional Seminar on Good Governance, held in December 2007. While in
Bangkok, they had meetings with personnel from the Office of the Attorney General, Thailand and the
UNODC Regional Centre, Bangkok.
Ms. Kayo Ishihara (Professor) visited Guangzhou, China from 16 to 27 June 2007 to attend the first
IAACA Seminar. Ms. Ishihara gave a presentation on “Anti-Corruption Measures in Japan”.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Vientiane, Laos from 25 to 28 June 2007 to attend the Fourth and
Fifth ASEAN Senior Officials Meetings on Transnational Crime (SOMTC).
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Bangkok, Thailand from 29 June to 4 July 2007 to prepare for theFirst Regional Seminar on Good Governance, held in December 2007.
Ms. Kayo Ishihara (Professor) and Mr. Jun Oshino (Professor) visited Argentina and Costa Rica from 8 to
27 July 2007. In Argentina they held a follow-up Seminar, focusing on the specific situation in Argentina. In
Costa Rica, they jointly hosted with ILANUD the International Training Course on Criminal Justice System
Reforms in Latin America in which ten countries were represented.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited China from 22 to 26 July to meet with personnel from various
criminal justice organizations and to prepare for the 2008 Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice
Officials of the People’s Republic of China.

14

MAIN ACTIVITIES

Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor) and Ms. Tae Sugiyama (Professor) visited the Republic of Kenya from 28
July to 25 August 2007 and 4 August to 1 September 2007, respectively. The purpose of the trip was toobserve children’s institutions, observe the conditions of the treatment of children and the activities ofvolunteers, exchange ideas and provide advice to the staff of the Department of Children’s Services. The
professors also gave lectures at training seminars.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Vietnam from 27 to 1 September 2007 to present lectures on theJapanese criminal justice system at the Vietnamese Supreme People’s Procuracy.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Hong Kong from 16 to 21 September 2007 to attend and serve as apanellist at the meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors.
Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) visited Manila and Baguio, the Philippines from 22 September to 2 October2007 to attend the In-Country Training Programme for the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aidesystem for the Philippines. Mr. Yamada gave lectures on the Japanese criminal justice system, focusing on
the role of Volunteer Probation Officers, and attended group workshop sessions.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya (Professor) visited Bangkok, Thailand from 20 to 27 October 2007 to attend the Annual
General Meeting of the International Corrections and Prisons Association.
Director Keiichi Aizawa visited Saudi Arabia from 9 to 14 November 2007 to attend and contribute to thediscussion of the PNI Co-ordination Meeting.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto, Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) and Mr. Ikuo Kosaka (Staff) visited
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan from 13 to 28 November 2007 to conduct research on the criminal
justice systems of Central Asia.
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor) and Mr. Atsushi Takagi (Staff) visited Hanoi, Vietnam from 25 November
to 2 December 2007 to attend the Asian Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators.
Director Keiichi Aizawa, Deputy Director Takeshi Seto, Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor), Mr. Jun Oshino(Professor), Ms. Yoko Hosoe (Staff) and Mr. Etsuya Iwagami (Staff) visited Bangkok from 11 to 23 December
2007 to attend the First Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, which
UNAFEI co-hosted with the Office of the Attorney General of Thailand and the UNODC Regional Centre for
East Asia and the Pacific.

D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI co-operates and corroborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of the
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.
VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running theInstitute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among publicprosecutors, the judiciary, corrections officers, probation officers and the police. UNAFEI also hasapproximately 15 administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Governmentof Japan, and a linguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad toeach training course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts,
volunteers and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty Changes
Mr. Keisuke Senta, formerly Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Senior Legal
Expert in Terrorism Prevention (Asia and the Pacific), Terrorism Prevention Branch, UNODC on 22
February 2007.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Mr. Hiroyuki Shinkai, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Principal
Programme Supervisor, Education Division, Fuchu Prison, on 1 April 2007.
Ms. Megumi Uryu, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Professor of Nihon
University Law School and Shinshu University School of Law on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Ichiro Sakata, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Judge of Sapporo
District/Family Court on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Masato Uchida, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Principal Programme
Officer, Classification Division, Chiba Prison on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Takeshi Seto, formerly Senior Attorney for International Affairs, Criminal Affairs Bureau wasappointed Deputy Director of UNAFEI on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya, formerly Chief Specialist for the Observation and Treatment Unit, Chiba Juvenile
Classification Home, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Jun Oshino, formerly Judge of Ichinomiya Branch, Nagoya District/Family Court, joined UNAFEI as a
Professor on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano, formerly Chief of the Case Review and Assessment Section, Nagano Juvenile
Classification Home, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Simon Cornell, Linguistic Adviser of UNAFEI, resigned on 19 October 2007.
Ms. Grace Lord, from Ireland, joined UNAFEI as Linguistic Adviser on 22 October 2007.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute's budget. The total amount of the UNAFEI
budget is approximately ¥272 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for theInstitute’s international training courses and seminars.

16UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2008
I. TRAINING
A. The 138th International Senior Seminar
The 138th International Senior Seminar was held from 17 January to 15 February 2007. The main themeof the Seminar was “Effective Legal and Practical Measures for Combating Corruption: A Criminal Justice
Response”. Fifteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
B. 139th International Training Course
The 139th International Training Course was held from 19 May to 29 June 2008. The main theme of the
Course was “Profiles and Effective Treatments of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders”. Seventeen
overseas participants and five Japanese participants attended.
C. 140th International Training Course
The 140th International Training Course is scheduled for 1 September to 9 October 2008. The main
theme of the Course is “The Criminal Justice Response to Cybercrime”. Twelve overseas participants andfive Japanese participants will attend.
D. The Fourth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Fourth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 25 February to 14 March 2008.
The main theme of the Seminar was “Countermeasures for Drug Offences and Related Crimes and Treatment
for Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process”. Fifteen participants from five Central Asian countries,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, attended.
E. The 13th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China
The 13th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China was heldfrom 3 to 21 March 2008. The main theme of the Seminar was “Reform of the Criminal Justice System:
Introducing the Views of Crime Victims and Improving Offender Treatment, Taking into Account the Risks
and Needs of Offenders”. Ten participants and two Course Counsellors attended.
F. The Third Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines
The Third Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines was held from 15 to 26 April 2008. The number of participants, who were Paroleand Probation Officers and Volunteer Probation Aides, was twelve. They discussed measures to improve theprobation system and the promotion of Volunteer Probation Aides.
G. The Eleventh International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
The Eleventh International Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice is tentatively
scheduled for 16 October to 14 November 2008. In this Course, Japanese and overseas officials engaged incorruption control will comparatively analyse the current situation of corruption, methods of combating
corruption and measures to enhance international co-operation.
H. The Ninth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya
The Ninth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya is tentatively
scheduled for 4 to 28 November 2008. Participants from Kenya will review their progress in regard to
improving the treatment of juveniles in correctional institutions and in the community and the progress they
have made in establishing a Volunteer Children’s Officers programme.
II. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Latin America
Two faculty members visited Costa Rica and Argentina in August 2008. In Costa Rica they jointly hosted,with ILANUD, a course on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which several countries wererepresented. In Argentina, they held a follow-up seminar on the specific situation in that country.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

2. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors were dispatched to Kenya in July and August 2008. The professors assisted theDepartment of Children’s Services of the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development in a project todevelop nationwide standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders and vulnerable children.
3. Short-Term Experts in the Philippines
A UNAFEI professor will be dispatched to Baguio, the Philippines in September 2008, to attend the InCountry Training Programme of the Philippines PPA.

B. Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance was held from 23 to 25 July 2008, in Bangkok. The
main theme of the Seminar was “Corruption Control in Public Procurement”. Approximately 25 participantsfrom Southeast Asian countries attended.

18

APPENDIX
MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Takeshi Seto

Director
Deputy Director

Faculty
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Ikuo Kamano
Ms. Tae Sugiyama
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya
Mr. Koji Yamada
Ms. Kayo Ishihara
Mr. Shintaro Naito
Ms. Grace Lord

Professor
Professor
Chief of Information & Library Service Division,
Professor
Chief of Research Division, Professor
Chief of Training Division, Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat
Mr. Sakumi Fujii
Mr. Kazuyuki Kawabe
Mr. Hitoshi Nakasuga
Mr. Hideshi Ohashi
Mr. Seiji Yamagami
Mr. Yuichi Kitada

Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Chief of General and Financial Affairs Section
Chief of Training and Hostel Management Affairs
SectionChief of International Research Affairs Section

AS OF DECEMBER 2007

19

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

2007 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Dr. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä

Director
National Research Institute of Legal Policy,
Finland

Dr. Peter J.P. Tak

Professor of Law
Radboud University of Nijmegen,
The Netherlands

Mr. Peter Wheelhouse

Programme Director
Drug Interventions Programme& Prolific and other Priority
Offenders Programme,
Home Office,United Kingdom

Dr. Brian A. Grant

Director
Addictions Research Center,
Correctional Service,
CanadaMr. Kwok Leung-ming

Commissioner
Correctional Services Department,
The Government of Hong Kong,
Special Administrative Region,
People’s Republic of China

Dr. William L. Marshall

Director
Rockwood Psychological Services,
CanadaTHE 136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE

20Dr. Ann Skelton

Litigation Project Director
Centre for Child Law,
Faculty of Law,
University of Pretoria,
South Africa

Mr. Stephen O’Driscoll

Judge
Dunedin District Court,
New Zealand

Dr. Robert Hoge

Emeritus Professor of Psychology,
Distinguished Research Professor,
Carleton University,
CanadaAPPENDIX

THE 137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Paul PelletierPrincipal Deputy Chief for Litigation
Fraud Section,
Criminal Division,
US Department of Justice,USA

Mr. Johan Vlogeart

Head of Unit
Investigations and Operations I,
External Aid,
Investigations and Operations,
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),
European Commission,
Belgium

Mr. Lawrence Ang

Principal Senior State Counsel (PSSC)
Criminal Justice Division,
Attorney General’s Chambers,
Singapore21

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

2007 AD HOC LECTURERS
THE 135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Ms. Jennie Amison

Executive Director
Gemeinschaft Home,
Virginia,
United States

THE 136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Masanobu Fukuda

Director of Juvenile Protection Office
Juvenile Division,Community Safety Bureau,
National Police Agency,
Japan

Dr. Kei Someda

Senior Researcher
Research and Training Institute,
Ministry of Justice,Japan

Prof. Kenji Hirose

Professor of Law
Rikkyo Law School,Japan

Ms. Yukiko Yamada

President
Victim-Offender Dialogue ProgrammeManagement Centre,(Incorporated Non-profit Organization)
Japan

Prof. Emeritus Kei Maeda

Emeritus Professor
Japan Lutheran Theological College,Japan

THE 137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE

22Mr. Hiroyuki Yagi

Director
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,Special Investigation Department,Japan

Mr. Yoshifumi Asayama

JudgeTokyo District Court,
Criminal Affairs Department,
Eighth Division,
Japan

Mr. Kiyotaka Sasaki

Director for Strategy and Policy Coordination
Securities and Exchange SurveillanceCommission,
Coordination Division,JapanAPPENDIX

2007 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 135TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Mr. Rodgrigo Bonach Batista Pires

Police Chief/Deputy Director of theFederal District Penitentiary
Civil Police of Federal District,
Federal District Penitentiary,
BrazilMr. Tongzhi Yu

Judge
Beijing High People’s Court,
China

Mr. Boketshu Mike Mbongo

Central Director
Frontier Service,
Immigration Department,
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Ms. Maria Magdalena Rodriguez
Valdivieso

Director
Ilopango Readaption Centre for Women,
El Slavador

Mr. Getachew Erena Negera

Head
Planning and Research Department,
Ethiopian Federal Police,
Ethiopia

Mr. Javier Francisco Leiva Gamoneda

Instructor
National Police Academy,
HondurasMs. Diah Aya Noorsinta Hidayati

Staff
Directorate of Narcotics Affairs,
Directorate General of Correction,
Ministry of Law and Human Rights,
Indonesia

Ms. Marcia Angela Reid

Deputy Superintendent of Police
Community Relations Branch,
Jamaica Constabulary Force,
Jamaica

Mr. Raja Shahrom bin Raja Abdullah

Deputy Head of Criminal Investigation Department,
Johor Police Contingent,
Royal Malaysia Police,
Malaysia

Mr. Bin Sulong Nor Afifi

Director
Alor Star Prison,
Malaysia

23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Mr. Abdul Baaree Yoosuf

Judge
Criminal Court,
Maldives

Mr. Ko Ko Chit

Director (Planning)
Correctional Department,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
MyanmarMr. Syed Waseem Raza Jaffery

Additional Secretary
Public Prosecution Department,
Government of the Punjab,
Pakistan

Mr. Sukit Chua-Intra

Judge
Dusit Municipal Court,
Thailand

Mr. Somphop Rujjanavet

Director
Academic Group of Correctional Studies,
Department of Corrections,Thailand

Mr. Daniel Manuel Zambrano Jovez

Academy Director
Autonomous Institute Chacao Police Department,
Caracas,Venezuela

Mr. Young-Hoon Ha

Director
Industries and Vocational Training Division,
Gyong-ju Correctional Institution,
Korea

Mr. Demostenes Chryssikos

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
Criminal Conventions Section,
Division for Treaty Affairs,
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Japanese Participants

24

Mr. Toshitaka Ito

Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Toshiaki Kataoka

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Kenichi Oguri

Deputy Director
Research Department,
Research and Training Institute,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Ken Ogushi

Head
Grievance Review and Investigation Unit,
Tokyo Regional Correction Headquarters

Ms. Toshiko Suganuma

Director
General Affairs Division,
Chugoku Regional Parole BoardAPPENDIX

Mr. Goro Udo

Director
Rehabilitation Research and Liaison Office,Kanto Regional Parole Board

Mr. Kazuki Ueda

Research and Development Officer
Naniwa Juvenile Training School

THE 136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Karma Sonam

Officer-in-Charge
Royal Bhutan Police,
Division III,
BhutanMs. Iacy Montiero Braga Caracelli

Special Agent
Civil Police of the Federal District,Brasilia,
BrazilMr. Henry Asaah Ngu Ndama

Administrator of Prisons
Service Head for Probation and Training,
Department of Penitentiary Administration,
Ministry of Justice,
Cameroon

Mr. Cesar Alexis Ruiz Rodriguez

Criminal Police Inspector
Criminal Investigations General Directorate,
Honduras

Mr. Abdelkhoder Mahdi Al-Taher

Deputy Minister of Interior for Southern Iraq
Ministry of Interior,
Iraq

Mr. Min Than Kyaw

Deputy Director
Prison Department,
Director General’s Office,MyanmarMr. William Antonio Parodi Pugliese

Lawyer
General Prosecutor’s Office,Public Ministry,
PanamaMr. Agustin Esperanza Senot

Police Superintendent
Chief of Firepower Section,
Directorate for Logistics,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Mr. Braam Paul Korff

Superintendent
Division of Training Research and Development,
South Africa Police Service,
South Africa

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Mr. Herath Mudiyanselage T. N.
Upuldeniya

Assistant Superintendent of Prisons
Kegalle Remand Prison,
Department of Prisons,
Sri Lanka

Mr. Kapila Mudantha Waidyaratne

Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney General’s Department,
Sri Lanka

Ms. Loupua Kuli

Probation Officer
Officer in Charge of the Probation andYouth Justice Division,
Ministry of Justice,
Tonga

Mr. Thanh Quang Chu

Legal Specialist
The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam,
VietnamMr. Joseph Makwakwa

Principal Law Officer(Public Prosecutor)
Legal and Parliamentary Affairs,
Attorney General’s Office,Ministry of Justice,Zimbabwe

Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung

Chief Officer
Correctional Services Department,
Hong Kong SAR

Mr. Hee-Ho Park

Chief Inspector
Correction Bureau,
Ministry of Justice,
Korea

Japanese Participants

26

Ms. Suwa Imai

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Satoshi Imamura

Probation Officer
Hiroshima Probation Office Fukuyama Branch

Ms. Ayumi Ishikawa

Probation Officer
Kanto Regional Parole Board

Mr. Hisami Katsuda

Family Court Probation Officer
Osaka Family Court

Mr. Masaru Kiuchi

Assistant Chief Programme Supervisor
Nagoya Prison

Mr. Kenji Nagaike

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Masaomi Nakazawa

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors OfficeAPPENDIX

THE 137TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Tsaone Chris Mokone

Head of Criminal Intelligence Bureau
Criminal Investigation Department Headquarters,
Botswana Police Service,
Botswana

Ms. Mabel Alves de Faria Correa

Police Chief/
Department of Internal Affairs Adviser
Civil Police of the Federal District,BrazilMr. Trimulyono Hendradi

Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecution Office of Tangerang,
Indonesia

Mr. Agung Purnomo Soenarto

Head of Sub Division
for Evaluation and Monitoring
Attorney General's Office,Indonesia

Mr. McSyd Hubert Chalunda

Senior Investigations Officer
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
MalawiMr. Francisco Montes de Oca Penaloza

General Coordinator
Special Investigation Unit for Trespassers,
Trafficking of Minorities and Organs,
Organized Delinquency Investigation Unit,
MexicoMr. Mohammed Ahmed Abani

Acting Deputy Prosecutor
Special High Instance Court of Niamey,
Ministry of Justice,
Niger

Mr. Maximo Armando Navarro

Senior Detective
Judicial Technical Police,
Criminal Investigation Department,
PanamaMr. Alex Manolito Canedo Labador

Chief
Law Enforcement Division,
Directorate for Operations,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Ms. Sadhana Singh

Senior Superintendent
Partnership Policing,
South African Police Service,
South Africa

Mr. Jayantha Chandrasiri Jayasuriya

Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney General’s Department,
Sri Lanka

27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

Ms. Bhornthip Sudti-autasilp

Judge
The Civil Court,
Office of the Judiciary,
Thailand

Ms. Sitang Tangsiri

Provincial Public Prosecutor
Assistant Secretary to the Inspector General,
Department of Inspector General,
Office of the Attorney General,
ThailandJapanese Participants

28

Mr. Takeshi Hashimoto

Assistant Judge
Osaka District Court

Mr. Hiromitsu Iizuka

Chief Examination Expert
Examination Department,
First Examination Section,
Fair Trade Commission

Mr. Mikio Matsuoka

Judge
Nagoya High Court

Mr. Hideaki Nakamoto

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Noboru Shimizu

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,Hachioji Branch

Mr. Yukitoshi Yokoyama

Public Prosecutor
Saitama District Public Prosecutors OfficeAPPENDIX

THIRD SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Mr. Sabyrzhan Kappassov

Head of Division
Law Department,
Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning,
Kazakhstan

Mr. Azamat Achubayev

Senior Investigator
Drug Control Agency,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Marat Turgunbaevich Djamankulov

Head of Department of Penal Reform
Ministry of Justice,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Baktybek Suiumbaev

Senior Investigator
Drug Control Agency,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Az-zaybek Urustemov

Head of Department
Main Department Fighting Crime
Committed by Public Officials,
The Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Habibullo Saifulloevich Aliev

Deputy Chairman of Court
City Court of Tursun-Zadeh,
Tajikistan

Ms. Muhabbat Abdukahorovna Azizova

Chairman
Khatlon Region Court,
Tajikistan

Ms. Basbi Mizoevna Holova

Judge
Supreme Court,
Tajikistan

Mr. Anvarzhon Ibrogimovich Yusupov

ChairmanMatcho District Court of Sogd
Region,Tajikistan

Mr. Yorkin Abdullaev

Prosecutor of the Department
General Prosecutors Office,Uzbekistan

Mr. Fakhriddin Shamsitdinovich Djamolov

Senior Prosecutor of the Department
General Prosecutors Office,Uzbekistan

Mr. Bahtiyorjon Satvoldievich Nizamov

Judge
The Criminal Court of Andijan Region,
Uzbekistan

Mr. Doniyor Bahtiyarovich Tashkhodjaev

Deputy Head
Anti Corruption Unit,
The Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Uzbekistan

29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

TWELFTH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICEOFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

30

Mr. Dong Kaijun

Director General
Judicial Research Institute of the Ministry of Justice

Ms. Li Jing

Vice Director of Education and Correction
Bureau of Prison Administration,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Lei Jianbin

Deputy Director
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Xu Yongan

Section Chief
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Wu Wenhe

Judge
The Criminal Trial Division,
Fourth Division,
Supreme People’s Court of the PR of China

Mr. Sun Jiang

Judge
The Third Criminal Division,
Supreme People’s Court of the PR of China

Mr. Qi Zhanzhou

Vice Section Chief of Letter Section
Procuratorial Department for Accusation,
Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the PR of China

Mr. Zhang Xiaojin

Vice-Director of Lodging Protest Section
Public Prosecution Department ofSupreme People’s Procuratorate

Mr. Xiang Dang

Professor, Vice Dean
Chinese People’s Public Security University

Mr. Yin Yuanfang

Associate Professor
Chinese People’s Public Security University

Mr. Sun Yong

Division Director
Department of Mutual Legal Assistanceand Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Justice

Ms. Zhang Pingying

Division Deputy Director
Bureau of Education through Labour,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Han Xiutao

Division Director
Research Office,Ministry of JusticeAPPENDIXTHE SECOND COUNTRY SPECIFIC TRAINING COURSE ON
THE REVITALIZATION OF THE VOLUNTEER PROBATIONAIDE SYSTEM FOR THE PHILIPPINES
Mr. Rosalio De Guzman Balane

Deputy Administrator
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Arturo Ortega Gabrieles

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,Region VIII

Mr. Jose Lino Matias Vibar

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,
Cordillera Administrative Region

Mr. Leo Sarte Carrillo

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,Region XI

Mr. Angelito Aviguetero Ilano

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Manila Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 6,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Neneitte Lopez Eugenio

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Community Services Division,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Maria Lourdes Santos Guangco

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Zamboanga Sibugay Parole and Probation Office,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Edgardo JR Geronimo Acuna

Probation and Parole Officer II
Bulacan Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Lloyd Daria Barrion

Probation and Parole Officer II
Davao City Parole and Probation Office,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Olivita Agton Alvaro

Volunteer Probation Aide
Office of the Barangay Council,
Davao City

31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

32

Ms. Olivia Angobung Sales

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Isabela City Parole and Probation Office,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Corzena Taray Gentindatu

Supervising Probation and Parole Officer
Davao City Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of JusticeAPPENDIXEIGHTH COUNTRY FOCUSED TRAINING COURSE ON
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR KENYA
Ms. Margaret Wangui Basigwa

Deputy Director
Department of Children’s Services,
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Grace Wanjiru Mburu

Volunteer Children’s Officer

Mr. Stephen Musomba Kivuva

Chief Probation Officer
Probation Training Institute

Mr. Danstan Omari Mogaka

District Children’s Officer(Chief Children’s Officer)

Ms. Esther Wanjiru Solomon

Superintendent-in-Charge
Shimo La Tewa Borstal Institution

Mr. Paul Kipchumba Leting

Senior Superintendent
Diplomatic Police Unit,
Police Department,
Office of the President

Mr. Davelyne Nkonge Mundi

Manager (Senior Children’s Officer)
Wamumu Rehabilitation School

Mr. Bakala Wambani

Provincial Children’s Officer(Assistant Director,
Department of Children’s Services)

Ms. Salome Ndunge Muthama

District Children’s Officer(Chief Children’s Officer)

Mr. Githinji Stephen Murugu

Principal Magistrate
Narok Law Courts

Ms. Wilbrodah Awino Juma

Chief Magistrate
Kitale Law Courts

33

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

TENTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON
CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE34

Ms. Mary Ndayikunda

Public Prosecutor
Anti-Corruption Court,
BurundiMs. Fonachu née Fang Helen Ike

Deputy Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office of the Court of Appeal,
Judge, Military Tribunal
Cameroon

Mr. Dado Achmad Ekroni

Public Prosecutor
Legal Bureau of Attorney General,
Indonesia

Ms. Ivy Kamanga

JudgeHigh Court of Malawi,
MalawiMr. Mwangupiri Samuel Ngosi

Team Leader
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
MalawiMr. Amadou Bocar Touré

Magistrate
Court of the First Instance ofCommune Three of Bamako,
Ministry of Justice,Mali

Ms. Oxana Bologan

Superior Inspector
Center for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption,
Republic of Moldova

Mr. Sharada Bhakta Ranjit

Deputy Inspector General of Police
Office of Inspector General’s Secretariat,
Nepal Police Headquarters,
Nepal

Mr. Froilan Legaspi Cabarios

Public Attorney
Public Attorney's Office,Philippines

Mr. Dejan Milenkovic@

Investigator (Inspector)
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Sector of the Internal Control of the Police,
SerbiaMr. Supakit Yampracha

Judge
Nakhon Panom Provincial Court,
ThailandAPPENDIX

Ms. Santanee Ditsayabut

Public Prosecutor
International Affairs Department,
Office of the Attorney General,
ThailandMr. Marito Magno

Director of Good Governance
The Ombudsman for Human Rights and Justice,
Timor-Leste

35

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007

DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND COUNTRY(1st International Training Course / Seminar – 137th International Training Course / Seminar)
Professional
Background
Country/Area

Judicial and
Other
Administration

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
BhutanBrunei
Myanmar
China
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
JordanCambodia
Oman
Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Nepal
Pakistan
Palestine
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
TaiwanTajikistan
ThailandTurkeyUnited Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen

7
21

PublicProsecutors

PoliceOfficials

9
13

6

4
12
8

1
5

1
5

Judge

4
7
13
15
15
23
5
6

10
22
11
3

1

2

13
1
10
21
1
1
29
20
1
18
5
10
21
12
1
24
2
1

3

1
1
53

6
2
3

7
7
1

13
10

11
2

9

23

18
20
4

5
15
2

4
10
11
52
25
8
5
4
7
3
6
1
10
46
1
2
31
37
1
36
6
12
20
2

39
1

39
1

12
1

5

A S I A
Algeria
Botswana
Cameroon
Cote d’Ivoire
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
GambiaGhana
GuineaKenya
LesothoLiberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
MoroccoMozambique
Namibia
Niger
NigeriaSouth Africa
Seychelles
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tunisia
ZambiaUgandaZimbabwe

321

209
3

AFRICA

26

36

31
8
3

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)5

Probation
ParoleOfficers

FamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

4

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training&
Research
Officers

5

Others

2

2
1
27
7
14
6
5

3
1

9
1
3

1

3
2
6

8
1
6

5

2
2

25

4

3

35

8

3

8

1

9
3
10
20
1

3

2
1
11

3
1

10
11

16
2

18

9

11

2

7
1

1

224
2

390

198

4
1
1

1

1

3

5

1

1
7

1

3
3

1

3

1

2

3
1

5
1
1

6
1
1
1

8

5
1

1
1

4

1

47

41

25

3

1

1

1
4
1
1
3

66

4

4

4
1
2

1

3

3
2
2
5
3
12
1

1
6

38

4

1
1
1

1
7

7
2

2
1

1
1
1
1
1

4
1

1
1

1
1
1

2
4

5
3

1
3

5
4
3
13
2
7
1
6
5
8

19

93

20

1
3
1
1

1
18

4

1
1

1

1
1

2

2

1
0

10

0

0

1

9

4

Total

26
62
8
6
14
41
70
98
125
41
29
4
12
4
107
2
33
132
6
3
87
83
4
131
16
73
113
21
1
171
8
1
1
32
2
1,567
5
5
5
3
1
11
5
2
8
4
39
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
12
9
4
19
2
20
2
7
7
12
200

APPENDIX

Professional
Background
Country/Area
Australia
VanuatuFiji
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
New Zealand
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Western Samoa
THE PACIFIC
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados
BelizeBolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GrenadaGuatemala
GuyanaHaiti
Honduras
Jamaica
MexicoNicaragua
PanamaParaguay
Peru
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela
U.S.A.(Hawaii)
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
Albania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Hungary
Macedonia
PolandLithuania
EUROPE

Judicial and
Other
Administration

PublicProsecutors

Judge

PoliceOfficials

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

1
6
1
1

1

9

1
10
3
2
1
25

1

3

2

2

4
1

1
15

FamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

1
3
21
4
1
1
1
1
16
2
7
2
59

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training&
Research
Officers

1

1

1
10

4

3
31

0

2
1
9
1

1

2
1

0

0

3

1

1

1

1
3

1
4

2
4
1

1

1

1
3
1

20
4
3

2
1
1

1
4
2
1
1
1
8
1
1

1
2

1
1

1

1

1

1

1

4

10

4
1
4
1

3
9
2
1

1

1
1
1

1

2

1
2

1

1

1
24
1

1
20

22

1
12
82
2
1

1
8

2

2

1
1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

91
348

82
122

194
281

63
68

38
44

2
54

48
102

2

1

3

9

0
1
69
111

1
1
1

3

0

1

1
1
5

114
513

168
418

265
546

96
725

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

JAPAN
TOTAL

1
3

1

1
2
1
3
3

Others

1

17

2
1
2

1

Probation
ParoleOfficers

Total

3
3
55
1
5
2
1
2
2
48
6
16
5
149
1
6
2
3
2
27
7
11
14
1
6
6
1
2
1
1
9
5
2
1
8
11
24
2
2
2
2
1
15
1
176
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
1,230
3,332

37

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
NO. 75Work Product of the 136th International Training Course“EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE
OFFENDERS AND THEIR REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY”

UNAFEIVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
REFORMING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA:
POLICY, LAW REFORM AND PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS
Dr. Anne Skelton*

I. A NEW APPROACH: POLICY DEVELOPMENTS FROM 1992 TO 1996
The death of Neville Snyman in 1992 was a watershed moment for the movement working towards
reform of South Africa’s juvenile justice system. Neville was just 13 years old when he and a group of friends
broke into the local shop in Robertson and stole sweets and cold drinks. Neville was detained in police cellswith other offenders under the age of 21. He was beaten to death by his cellmates. Non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) had been raising the issue of children in the criminal justice system and calling for law
reform (Community Law Centre et al. 1992). Until this time, however, their calls had fallen on deaf ears.
Neville’s tragic death led to a public outcry, and the government took action by setting up a national working
committee on children in detention.
In the meanwhile, NGOs redoubled their efforts. Lawyers for Human Rights ran a campaign called “Freea Child for Christmas”, which resulted in the release of 260 children by Christmas 1992. The NGOs alsodecided that legislative reform was necessary, and in 1993, they set about drafting proposals for a newjuvenile justice system. The proposals were published in 1994 and were based on restorative justiceprinciples, centred on the procedure of family group conferencing (Juvenile Justice Drafting Consultancy1994). This was drawn from the New Zealand model (Pinnock et al. 1994). Although the proposals did nothave any official status, they did influence future developments, in particular the rights-based approach andthe principle of restorative justice.
In 1994 a new government came to power, and President Nelson Mandela made a promise during his first
address to Parliament that the issue of children in prison would be dealt with and that in the future thecriminal justice system would be the last resort when dealing with juvenile offenders.
The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by the South African
government in 1995 set the scene for broad-reaching policy and legislative change. The South African
Constitution embodies a section protecting children’s rights and includes the statement that children havethe right not to be detained, except as a measure of last resort, and then for the shortest appropriate periodof time, separate from adults and in conditions that take account of their age. One of the earliest cases tocome before the new Constitutional Court was S v Williams 1995 (3) SA 632 (CC), which dealt with thesentence of corporal punishment, until then a sentence commonly used for the punishment of children by
the courts. The court struck down corporal punishment on the grounds that it was cruel, inhuman anddegrading treatment.
The government did act with urgency on the issue of children in prison, as President Nelson Mandela hadpromised it would. In this regard, however, the country learned that the practice of proceeding with toomuch haste can create problems of its own. An amendment to an existing law, which was intended to outlaw
entirely the imprisonment of children during the pre-trial phase, led to chaos when it was suddenly
promulgated. Inadequate consultation between the relevant government departments, as well as a lack ofalternative residential facilities for children, caused the application of the new law to be fraught with practicalproblems. So serious were the consequences of this that within a year the government had to amend the law
again, this time allowing children charged with certain offences to be detained in prison awaiting trial. The
debacle also had some positive results, however. It led directly to the setting up of a structure called theInterministerial Committee on Young People at Risk (IMC), which became an important agency for policymaking in the field of child and youth care, including the management of children who come into conflict with
* Litigation Project Director, Centre for Child Law, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

the law. The IMC set up a number of pilot projects to try out its new policy recommendations, and some ofthese were important incubators for the development of new ways of dealing with children. Of particular
relevance to children accused of crimes were projects that dealt with the management of offenders
immediately following arrest, and family group conferencing in which young offenders were brought into a
restorative justice process together with the victims of crime.

II. FROM POLICY TO LAW REFORM: 1997 TO THE PRESENTThe law-making process began when the Minister of Justice requested the South African Law
Commission to include an investigation into juvenile justice in its programme. The Juvenile Justice Project
Committee of the South African Law Commission commenced its work in 1997 and a discussion paper witha draft Bill was published for comment in 1999. The project committee followed a consultative approach,holding workshops and receiving written submissions from a range of criminal justice role-players. Children
were also consulted on the Bill while it was being developed (Community Law Centre 2000). The final
report of the Commission was completed and handed to the Minister of Justice in August 2000 (SALC 2000).
The Child Justice Bill was approved by Cabinet in November 2001 for introduction into Parliament, and wasintroduced into Parliament in August 2002 as Bill No. B49 of 2002. However there have been significant
delays in the passing of the Bill, and at the time of writing (2007), the Bill has still not become law. It is
important that the reader should verify the current status of the Bill, and also check that the details
described below are still features of the Act, as changes may occur during the legislative process.
The Child Justice Bill aims to establish a criminal justice process for children accused of committing
offences that protects the rights of children as entrenched in the Constitution and as provided for ininternational instruments. The objectives clause of the Bill focuses on the promotion of ubuntu in the childjustice system through the fostering of children’s sense of dignity and worth, and reinforcing their respect
for the human rights of others. The clause also stresses the importance of restorative justice concepts suchas accountability and reconciliation, and the involvement of victims, families and communities.
The Bill applies to any person under the age of 18 years who is alleged to have committed an offence. It
is proposed that the minimum age of criminal capacity will be raised from seven to 10 years. It is presumed
that children aged 10-14 years lack criminal capacity, but the state may prove such capacity beyond
reasonable doubt.
In order to keep children out of police cells and prisons, the Bill encourages the release of young
offenders into the care of their parents and entrenches the constitutional injunction that imprisonment
should be a measure of last resort for a child. A probation officer will assess every child before the childappears at a preliminary inquiry. A preliminary inquiry is held in respect of every child within 48 hours ofarrest and is presided over by a magistrate, referred to as the “inquiry magistrate”. Decisions to divert thechild away from the formal court procedure to a suitable programme may be taken at the preliminary inquiry
stage, if the prosecutor indicates that the matter may be diverted.
If a child is not diverted, the matter will proceed to plea and trial. Any court before which a child appears
for plea or trial is regarded as a child justice court. Provisions have also been proposed in the Bill for theestablishment of one-stop child justice centres. The Bill provides a wide range of sentencing options forchildren as alternatives to prison sentences. Children who are 14 years or older may nevertheless besentenced to imprisonment in certain specified circumstances.
The Bill also proposes monitoring mechanisms for ensuring the effective operation of this legislation, andpromotes co-operation between all government departments and other organizations and agencies involved
in implementing an effective child justice system.
The Bill, when introduced to Parliament, was accompanied by a budget and implementation plan. The
juvenile justice project committee had, with a great deal of foresight, predicted that the Bill would not
succeed if questions about implementation could not be answered effectively. Consequently, the projectcommittee made history at the South African Law Reform Commission by being the first project committee
to undertake a costing of their proposals (Barberton and Stuart, 1999). Following the handover of the South
African Law Commission Report on Juvenile Justice to the Minister of Justice in August 2000, work on

42

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

implementation planning began. The Child Justice Project, a United Nations technical assistance project of
the government of South Africa, followed up on the costing work already done by assisting the government
to produce a comprehensive budget and implementation strategy for the Child Justice Bill. This is an intersectoral budget developed with the involvement of the Treasury, and linked to the government’s medium
term expenditure framework. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has described
it as a model according to which all future Bills should be costed and planned for.
Sloth Nielsen (2003), in her innovative article entitled “The Business of Child Justice” undertakes an indepth analysis of the pragmatic approach which was followed by the project committee and by government.
She concedes that children’s rights and restorative justice were important influencing factors in thedevelopment of the Child Justice Bill, but she makes the following observation: “The article has describedand explained how, in the child justice sphere, a growing realism about the transition South Africa is facing
resulted in a measurable shift in emphasis from human rights values (as philosophical constructs), and froma stance based on the righteousness derived from the worthiness of the cause. The increasing reliance forboth law reformers and government’s technical advisers on arguments and practices related to economic
modelling and cost efficiency have been illustrated here in support of the contention that, while providing a
useful backdrop, children’s rights and restorative justice ideology have been eclipsed by business-speak.
This could give the impression that an efficiency model, along corporatist lines, has supplanted the idealismof the endeavour.” (Sloth-Nielsen, 2003 at p. 192).
Sloth Nielsen, a well-known South African children’s rights advocate and academic, is no doubt being alittle provocative in this statement. In the closing remarks of her article she concludes that children’s rights
ideology and pragmatic management philosophy are not competing discourses if we want to ensure that we
provide a system that can actually deliver rights to children.

III. PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS IN PRACTICE
A. Introduction
The system proposed by the Child Justice Bill is not a completely new one. It incorporates and builds onsome sections in existing laws that have in the past provided sporadic, unco-ordinated protection for children
accused of crimes. The new system has been in a process of organic development for a number of years.
This development has grown through the introduction of reforms and pilot projects by NGOs andgovernment departments, often working in partnership. The implementation of the new child justicelegislation will be made easier by the fact that there is an existing infrastructure on which to build.
B. Probation Services
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Probation work consists of a body of occupation-specific knowledge and skills (Department of Social
Development 2002a). Probation officers are currently all social workers who carry out work in the fields ofcrime prevention, treatment of offenders, and the care and treatment of victims of crime, as well as working
with families and communities.
Over the past decade in South Africa, the importance of probation officers as agents in an integrated
criminal justice system has grown. The Department has accordingly strengthened probation services
through increasing the number of probation officers and through widespread training. The University ofCape Town was the pioneer of post-graduate specialized training for probation officers, being the first
university in the country to offer a social science honours degree in probation practice. The Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, Rhodes University, the University of Johannesburg and the University of Fort Hareare all now offering honours degrees in probation practice. Probation practice is drawn from a number ofdisciplines including social work, criminology, penology, criminal law, psychology and sociology.
Probation work is currently carried out in terms of the Probation Services Act 116 of 1991, which
provides for the establishment and implementation of programmes to combat crime and for rendering
assistance to and treatment of both victims and offenders. An amendment to the Act in 2002 (Probation
Services Amendment Act 35 of 2002) inserted certain definitions for terms such as “diversion” and“restorative justice”, provided for compulsory assessment of all arrested children within 24 hours of arrest,and introduced home-based supervision as an alternative to detention – both in the pre-trial phase and as a

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

sentence. Pursuant to the amendments, assistant probation officers can now be appointed and be
empowered to carry out certain functions under the Act. Assistant probation officers are not required tohave third level education, and this is a very practical way of extending the services that the probation
services department can carry out. However, statutory services remain the sole preserve of probation
officers. The Department of Social Development has undertaken an intensive drive to appoint new assistantprobation officers since the end of 2005.
The Annual Report of the Department of Social Development (2005/2006 Financial Year) points out thatwhilst there are only 780 probation officers, 940 young assistant probation officers have recently embarked
on an 18 month training course (the curriculum developed by the University of Cape Town). The report goeson to say the following: “This complemented efforts to improve the quality of learning in the probation
services environment that, during the period under review, saw the Standards Generating Body (SGB)
Board for Probation Services come into being in April 2005, with the added result of a Probation Work
Certificate Course at NQF Level 4 being registered with the South African Qualifications Authority(SAQA).” (Annual Report 2005/2006: 100)
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill provides for a more central role for probation officers. They will carry out
assessments of every child who comes into conflict with the law, and make recommendations about theprospects for diversion, as well as the release or placement of the child. They will also be required to attend
the preliminary inquiry, render pre-sentence reports, and carry out supervision of children in thecommunity. In addition, probation services must ensure that there are sufficient programmes in place tosupport diversion and alternative sentencing.

C. Assessment
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
The Interim Policy Recommendations for the Transformation of the Child and Youth Care Systemstressed the importance of an individual assessment of every child (IMC 1996). The Department of Social
Development has adopted a model of developmental, strengths-based assessment, and many probation
officers have been trained in the use of this method.
The assessment of children by probation officers during the first 24 hours after arrest and prior to thefirst court appearance is already the general practice in a number of urban centres. This has now become
part of statutory law with the passing of the amendment to the Probation Services Amendment Act.
2. Future Prospects
With regard to the availability of probation officers to carry out these assessments within 24 hours, themajor urban areas are reasonably well served. There are some smaller towns and rural areas that may nothave sufficient staff to undertake these assessments, and some probation officers are required to cover alarge geographical area. The purchasing of such services by contracting on a fee-for-service basis withtrained personnel in the private or non-government sector is part of the plan envisaged by the Department
of Social Development to ensure the availability of probation services to meet the assessment requirementsthat the forthcoming legislation will set (Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice 2002).

D. Diversion
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Diversion is the channelling of children away from the formal court system into reintegrative
programmes. If a child acknowledges responsibility for the wrongdoing, he or she can be “diverted” to sucha programme, thereby avoiding the stigmatizing, and even brutalizing, effects of the criminal justice system.
Diversion gives children a chance to avoid a criminal record, while at the same time, the programmes are
aimed at teaching them to take responsibility for their actions and to avoid getting into trouble again.
Current law does not specifically provide for diversion practised in South Africa. Experiments withdiversion of young offenders have been pioneered by NICRO (an NGO partially subsidized by thegovernment) since 1992, with the co-operation of public prosecutors and probation officers (Muntingh &Shapiro 1997).

44

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Although diversion is currently not mentioned in the statutes, it has recently been recognized andpronounced upon by the courts in S v D 1997 (2) SACR 673 (C), S v Z en vier andere sake 1999 (1) SACR
427 (E), and M v The Senior Public Prosecutor, Randburg and another (Case 3284/00 WLD, unreported).
Diversion can thus be said to be officially recognized by South African law.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) issued a national policy manual in 1999, Chapter 7 of which
deals with diversion. It was tabled and approved by Parliament in November 1999. The manual defines
diversion, how it should be implemented, the selection criteria, and the processes to be followed. In addition,
training manuals on Child Law have been developed by the Justice College for both prosecutors andmagistrates, and each of the manuals contains detailed information about diversion.
In 2000, the NPA conducted a national audit on diversion programmes. The audit revealed that access todiversion was uneven, with children in rural areas receiving few opportunities. The NPA (with theassistance of NICRO and the Department of Social Development) has carried out training throughout thecountry since that time. Data collection remains weak in this area. The NPA reports that from July 1999 to
December 2005, a total of 115,582 matters were diverted. However, a major shortcoming is that the figures
do not indicate the kinds of offences and the ages of the children diverted (Tserere 2006: 38).
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill will make diversion part of the law, instead of being solely dependent on thediscretion of a prosecutor, as it is in the current system. The Department of Social Development hasdeveloped minimum standards for diversion. These are aimed at ensuring that diversion services will, in the
future, be offered by accredited service providers. The quality of the programmes will be subject toevaluation, using the minimum standards as an evaluative benchmark.

E. Restorative Justice
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Restorative Justice is recognized as being closely linked to African traditional justice systems. This
traditional form of justice preceded colonization and still exists in South Africa today, more commonly inrural areas. Modern restorative justice practice has its roots in victim-offender mediation, which became
popular in the Western world during the 1970s. The term “restorative justice” began to be applied to suchpractices during the 1980s, and was first comprehensively presented as a theorized model in 1990 with
Zehr’s Changing Lenses. South Africa’s participation in the modern international movement of restorative
justice began in 1992. The first initiatives were taken by a non-governmental organization, the National
Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), in 1992 to establish and later
evaluate South Africa’s first victim-offender mediation project. A person was employed to get the project
going, and he undertook a study visit to the United States. The visit was hosted by the Mennonite Central
Committee and included time at a training conference in San Francisco, Los Angeles to observe a victimoffender mediation project, and then on to Elkhart, Indiana to observe the victim-offender programme there.
NICRO’s first victim-offender mediation project was established in Cape Town. The results of the project
were published in a report that describes Zehr’s model of restorative justice as the theoretical framework forthe project, and gives several examples of victim-offender mediation projects in North America and Europe
as well as a brief description of the Japanese legal system, with reference to a parallel mediation track(Muntingh 2003). The project targeted referrals at both the pre-trial and pre-sentence stages. The report
indicated that prosecutors had been reluctant to refer serious cases to the project, and had referred amajority of juvenile offenders, as opposed to adults.
In 1995 an Interministerial Committee for Young People at Risk was established. Restorative justice wasadopted as a “practice principle” for the transformation of the child and youth care system. A study tour to
New Zealand was authorized by the IMC in 1996 and four South Africans travelled there to consider theapplicability of the New Zealand youth justice system to South Africa. Following the study tour to New
Zealand, the IMC established a pilot project on family group conferencing in Pretoria that handled 42 cases in
1997, some of which dealt with relatively serious offences. The project was evaluated and the findings were
published in a document that is both a practice research study and an implementation manual (Branken andBatley 1998).

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

The Restorative Justice Centre was established in Pretoria in 1998. From the outset the organization
aimed not only to offer victim-offender conferencing as an alternative to the criminal justice system, but also
to build capacity within South Africa for the delivery of restorative justice programmes. The Centre has
forged links with other organizations in a consortium called the Restorative Justice Initiative.
Several training initiatives have also played an important role in helping to establish restorative justice inSouth Africa. Since it began to function in 2000, the Restorative Justice Centre has offered a three-day
workshop in the theory of restorative justice as well as conferencing skills. This package was adapted forprobation officers, first for the North West province in 2001, and later for the whole country as a project of
the National Department of Social Development funded by the Royal Netherlands Embassy in 2003. During
2005 and 2006 there has been a rapid growth in training on restorative justice, with the Department ofJustice, magistrates’ organizations and the National Prosecuting Authority all commissioning training fortheir officials.
A recent audit by Skelton and Batley entitled “Mapping Progress, Charting the Future: Restorative
Justice in South Africa” (2006) has found that there are restorative justice initiatives in all nine provinces inSouth Africa. The probation sector appears to be the most active, which is probably due to the fact that this
sector was the first to receive training. The role of the NGOs has been very important, but government
departments are definitely coming on board. Victim-support service involvement has not been very active,
which given that restorative justice is a victim-centred process, is disappointing, but it may be due to general
weaknesses and lack of funding in that sector.
Very recently, a fledgling jurisprudence has begun to emerge from the superior courts. Justice
Bertelsman, in a High Court judgment called S v Joyce Maluleke (an as yet unreported case no. CC 83/04
Transvaal Provincial Division, handed down on 13 June 2006) has set the groundwork.
Drawing on other judgments, one from Zimbabwe, S v Shariwa [2003] JOL 11015 (ZH) and another fromthe Transvaal Provincial Division, S v Shilubane 2005 [JOL 15671(T)], the judge opened the door in an
explicit way to the use of restorative justice in sentencing. He remarked as follows: “In addition, restorative
justice, seen in the context of an innovative approach to sentencing, may become an important tool inreconciling the victim and the offender and the community and the offender. It may provide a whole range ofsupple alternatives to imprisonment.”
This judgment was mentioned in one of the dissenting judgments in the recent constitutional case ofDavid Dikoko v Thupi Zacharia Mohkatla CCT 62/05, an as yet unreported judgment delivered on 3 August
2006 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. This case dealt, interestingly enough, not with a criminal
matter but a civil claim for damages arising from defamation. Whilst the majority awarded a hefty claim offinancial damages, the two separate but concurring minority judgments, by Justices Mokgoro and Sachs,
focused instead on a restorative justice approach, making the point that dignity could not be restored
through disproportionate punitive monetary claims, and that apology would have been a more powerful tool,
more in keeping with African notions of ubuntu and our constitutional commitment to dignity.
2. Future Prospects
The development of standards for restorative justice practice are currently being developed, led by thenon-government sector, but with active participation by government department officials and consultation
with pracititioners. The National Prosecuting Authority has announced that it plans to roll out a restorative
justice pilot project to numerous courts around the country, in which child offenders will benefit fromdiversion and alternative sentencing options.

F. Assessment Centres and One-Stop Child Justice Centres
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Over the past decade, service arrangements have been developed at grass-roots level in an attempt tostreamline pre-trial services to children. Some of these are called assessment centres, others are named
arrest, reception and referral centres. These centres, usually based at the magistrate’s court, are staffed byprobation officers. They are service hubs, designed to streamline the process of children who have beenarrested by police being transferred as swiftly as possible to a probation officer for assessment prior to theirfirst appearance (IMC 1998).
46

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

A more complex and developed model of a service centre is the One-Stop Child Justice Centre, which has
a range of services involving several departments housed under one roof. This model has been operating at“Stepping Stones” in Port Elizabeth since 1996 (IMC 1998). The project has now been incorporated as partof the normal services rendered, with permanently appointed staff. A second One-Stop Child Justice Centre
has been established at Mangaung, in Bloemfontein. Although initially these centres were co-ordinated by
the Department of Social Development, there have been moves for the Department of Justice andConstitutional Development to take a more active lead in the promotion of such centres. This is in line with
the Child Justice Bill, which empowers the Minister to establish such centres in the future system, in
consultation with Ministers of other relevant departments. The Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development has been leading a process to develop a blueprint for the establishment and maintenance of
One-Stop Child Justice Centres.
2. Future Prospects
Assessment and referral centres, and One-Stop Child Justice Centres, are very useful as service hubs
(different services are inter-related and form a hub), which enhance efficient service delivery. However, it is
not essential that such centres be universally in place for the implementation of the Child Justice Bill.
Rather, such centres can be progressively realized and promoted, in an organic manner that suits the specificneeds of that particular district or region. In their report on costing and implementation of the Child Justice
Bill, Barberton and Stuart (1999) recommended that the distribution of One-Stop Child Justice Centres
should seek to maximize impact by being established across metropolitan and certain large urban areas.
They proposed that the establishment of 19 such centres would serve at least 30% of the country’s arrested
children, or possibly more, given the metropolitan and urban bias in child crime rates (Barberton & Stuart
1999). The Department of Justice budgeted R31 million between 2003 and 2005 to be spent on
infrastructural costs for One-Stop Child Justice Centres (Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice 2002).

G. Children Awaiting Trial in Detention
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
The South African Constitution, in section 28(1)(g), gives every child the right not to be detained except
as a measure of last resort, in which case he or she may be detained only for the shortest period of time.
Despite this provision and numerous ad hoc efforts on the part of the legislature to limit pre-trial detentionof children, South Africa has had an ongoing battle with the problem of too many children being detained inprison. The concerted efforts of government to reduce the numbers has paid off, however, and theDepartment of Social Development reports a 40% reduction of children in prison during the period 2004 to2006 (Department of Social Development 2006: 97). The annual report issued by the Office of the Inspecting
Judge of prisons reports that in December 2005 there were 1,217 children in prison awaiting trial. Dissel(2006: 116) attributes this to the Interim National Protocol for the Management of Children Awaiting Trial
which was issued by the Intersectoral Committee for Child Justice in June 2001. This is an intersectoral
document that clearly sets out procedures to be followed after the arrest of a child. It emphasizes measures
to get children released into the care of a parent or guardian, failing which, to have them placed in the least
restrictive residential option available.
In addition to children detained in prison, there are also children awaiting trial in facilities run by theprovincial Departments of Social Development. In 1998, the Department of Social Development commenced aprogramme to support the establishment of secure care facilities and funds have been made available by theTreasury for this purpose. The number of children accommodated in these facilities has risen over recent
years, which is to be expected as children who were previously in prison may be held in secure care. However,the facilities are still not fully utilized. The Department had provided 2,199 secure care beds by February 2006,
but reported that only 71% of these were being occupied on 28 February 2006 (Dissel 2006: 114).
A national workshop on secure care was held in March 2001 in Bloemfontein to consider thedevelopment of a protocol for secure care, uniformity of secure care practice and the development of aprogramme for document quality assurance (DQA); to establish a forum for secure care; to consult on theregulations for secure care; and to finalize an audit of all facilities accommodating children awaiting trial.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

2. Future Prospects
The forthcoming legislation, while continuing to allow older children charged with serious offences to beheld in prison to await trial, does aim to limit the number by removing the discretionary clause andincorporates as part of law the principle that imprisonment should always be used as a measure of lastresort. It is predicted that as a result the total number of children awaiting trial in prison will not rise and islikely, in fact, to be reduced.
A further consideration is the fact that, due to crowded court rolls in the current system, trials are taking
longer to complete and this backlog tends to keep detention figures high. The Child Justice Bill encourages
the completion of trials within a six-month period from the taking of the plea, as children will not be able tobe detained for longer than this (unless they are charged with murder, rape, car hijacking or aggravatedrobbery). This provision will hopefully speed up trials where children are the accused.
In addition to increasing the number of beds available in residential facilities, the Department of Social
Development is committed to providing community-based alternatives to pre-trial detention. The
Department, in partnership with the Western Cape Provincial Department, started a home-based
supervision project during September 1998. The arrested child is placed in the care of his or her parents
under the supervision of a probation officer. The child is then monitored by an assistant probation officer. It
is recorded that from September 1998 until February 2002, a total of 379 children were in this programme.
An interesting observation is that out of all these cases of children in this programme 188 cases were
eventually withdrawn from court. This means that at least that many children could have been in prison
awaiting trial for up to a year or longer, their young lives totally disrupted and their schooling interrupted,
only to have the charges ultimately withdrawn. It is also noted that such programmes are highly costeffective when compared with the expensive option of residential care.
In the Annual Report of the Department of Social Development 2005/2006 Financial Year it is reported
that a blueprint for secure care is being developed to regulate norms and standards in secure care. Securecare is a component of residential care, and the running of such facilities will in future be governed by theChildren’s Act 35 of 2005, expected to become operational in 2008.

H. Pre-Sentence Reports
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Although current statutory law in South Africa does not make pre-sentence reports by a probation officer
compulsory, a series of recent High Court judgments have created precedents for the requirement of presentence reports, at least in cases where children are likely to be sent to reform school or prison. S v Z envier andere sake 1999 (1) SACR 427 (E) sent a clear message that due to the importance of understanding
the personality and personal circumstances of the child offender, a pre-sentence report is vital. The approach
was also followed in S v Kwalase 2000 (2) SACR 135 (C), which also stressed the importance of anindividualized approach. In the case of S v J and others 2000 (2) SACR 384 (C) a 16 year old offender had
been sentenced on the basis of an “assessment record” instead of a proper probation officer’s pre-sentence
report. The court found that the form was inadequate for purposes of sentencing. The role of the probation
officer was fully discussed in the Supreme Court of Appeal in S v Petersen en ‘n Ander 2001 (1) SACR 16(SCA). In that the case the Director of Social Services had submitted a letter saying that probation officers
do not undertake home visits to gang infested areas in Port Elizabeth. The Appeal court firmly stated thatthe magistrate had misdirected himself when he accepted this excuse, and that he should not havesentenced a young offender without the benefit of a probation officer’s report. This case was cited andfollowed in S v M and another 2005 (1) SACR 481 (E). In the same year, the case of S v N and Another 2005
(1) SACR 201 (CkH) dealt with the fact that it is preferable for a probation officer to be called to give
evidence, rather than just hand in a written report.
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill provides that pre-sentence reports should be requested in every case, and that thismay only be dispensed with if the matter is a petty offence or if the pre-sentence report would cause a delaythat would prejudice the child. However, no sentence involving “a residential element” can be imposed
unless a pre-sentence report has been presented to, and considered by, the court. It seems likely that the48

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

new system may require the provision of more pre-sentence reports than are required in the current
system, and the Bill also requires that a report be completed within one calendar month from the date on
which it is requested. However, the fact that a probation officer will have already completed a pre-trial
assessment will shorten the process of the preparation of the pre-sentence report. Probation officers are
already dealing with pre-sentence reports in the majority of serious matters.

I. Community-Based Sentences
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
A range of non-custodial sentences are available to the courts for the sentencing of convicted children. It
is possible to postpone the passing of sentence conditionally or unconditionally. In the case of unconditional
postponement, the court does not pass sentence but warns that the offender may have to appear again
before the court if called upon to do so. The postponement may be made conditional to compensation,
rendering of a benefit or service to the victim, community service, instruction or treatment, supervision, or
attendance at a centre for a specified purpose. Postponement of sentence is used regularly by the courts,
particularly for non-violent offences. Also available under the current law is the option of correctional
supervision. This provides for an offender to be placed under correctional supervision which takes the formof house arrest, combined with a set period of community service and attendance at a relevant course. Thiscan either be completed as a wholly community-based sentence, or a person can spend a portion of thesentence in prison, and then be released to carry out the rest of the sentence under correctional
supervision. Correctional supervision is not designed for child offenders specifically and is not used as
frequently as it could be.
In the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu Natal v P 2006(1) SACR 243 (SCA), theSupreme Court of Appeal reviewed a sentence of correctional supervision for a girl who had been 12 years
old at the time of the commission of murder. Although the court set the sentence aside, it did not interferewith the correctional supervision part of the sentence, but replaced the postponed sentence to a whollysuspended sentence of imprisonment.
2. Future Prospects
While the courts have for many years had the power to use community-based sentences, they have often
opted for less imaginative options from the list available to them, such as postponed sentences (Skelton, in
Robinson 1997:174). The Child Justice Bill offers a comprehensive range of options for diversion. In thecommunity-based sentencing section it refers back to the options for diversion, indicating that any of thesecan also be used as a sentence, or be linked to a sentence, through postponement or suspension.
Probation services will play an important role in ensuring and brokering the availability of programmes
for sentences (which in most cases will be the same programmes used for diversion). Probation officers need
to be thoroughly trained in this field.
With regard to correctional supervision, the content of this sentencing option should be reconsidered toensure that it is suitable for the needs of child offenders, and it should then be promoted as a sentencing
option. The availability of correctional officials to supervise these sentences also needs to be considered andplanned for.

J. Reform School
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
In the current system, children may be sentenced to reform schools (managed by the Department of
Education), which are compulsory residential facilities offering academic and technical education. In 1996,
there was a Cabinet-requested investigation into the availability and suitability of such facilities and it was
found that there were nine reform schools in South Africa, seven for boys and two for girls. Since then,however, the Western Cape facilities have been “rationalized” and a reform school in KwaZulu-Natal has
been closed.
Currently, there are only four facilities receiving sentenced children, namely Ethokomala Reform School(for boys) and Faure Youth Centre (for boys and girls) in Mpumalanga, Ottery Youth Centre (for boys only) in
the Western Cape, and Denovo in the Western Cape, which is still being developed. The total number of49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

beds for sentenced children in these facilities is 420. Due to the fact that these facilities are not evenly
spread throughout the country, numerous children who have already been sentenced to reform school haveto await designation to such a facility in prison. The situation has been commented upon with concern by theHigh Court in a series of cases, notably S v M 2001 (2) SACR 316 (T); S v Z and 23 similar cases 2004 (4)BCLR 410 (E) and S v Z and 23 similar cases 2004 (1) SACR 400 (E). In these reported cases, and otherunreported ones, the courts have expressed grave concern about the situation where issues relating toprovisioning, transport and other practical concerns are leading to a serious violation of the rights of children
sentenced to reform school.
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill is moving away from the terminology of “reform school” and is instead allowing forchildren to be sentenced to a “residential facility”. The definition of the latter is broad enough to include
facilities run by either the Department of Education or the Department of Social Development. This will
mean that the former department will be able to consider utilizing schools of industry for the accommodationof sentenced children, and also that currently existing and planned secure care facilities can be utilized for
sentenced children and not just for children awaiting trial, as is currently the case. Reform schools will in
future fall under the administration of the Children’s Act 35 of 2005, which is expected to become
operational by 2008.

K. Prison Sentences
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Children can be sentenced to imprisonment and under the current law there is no limit regarding aminimum age for imprisonment of sentenced children. In practice, children under the age of 14 are not often
sentenced to imprisonment, but the fact that it happens at all remains a concern. According to the annual
report issued by the Office of the Inspecting Judge of Prisons (2005/2006), of the 2,354 children in prison(awaiting trial and sentenced) 12 are under the age of 14 years.
The statistics relating to children being sentenced to imprisonment indicate that the number of children
being sentenced to imprisonment is decreasing, but the length of their sentences is increasing on average.
According to the annual report issued by the Office of the Inspecting Judge of Prisons (2005/2006), thenumber of persons serving sentences of imprisonment in December 2005 was 1,137.
The minimum sentences introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act No 105 of 1997 may haveaffected the length of sentences because some courts initially applied the legislation to 16 and 17 year olds.
The legal uncertainty on this issue was resolved when the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in the case of
Brandt v S [2005] 2 All SA 1 (SCA) that minimum sentences do not apply to persons who were below theage of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence.
South Africa remains one of only a few countries in the world that retains life imprisonment as a sentence
for children, with 32 such prisoners having been identified. In South Africa, a person sentenced to life
imprisonment must serve 25 years in prison before he or she can be considered for parole (Du Toit 2006: 13).
2. Future Prospects
The fact that any children under the age of 14 years are being sentenced to imprisonment is cause forconcern, and the proposed new legislation seeks to remove the possibility of sentences to imprisonment forchildren under this age, although other forms of secure residential care will remain available.
With regard to children of 14 years and older, it is not predicted that the Child Justice Bill will bring about
any increase in the number of children being sentenced to imprisonment. Hopefully, there will be a reductionin the number of such sentences, especially in those categories of children sentenced to less than two years.
Community-based alternatives are being developed and promoted, and may be appropriately used in thesematters. The Bill as introduced into parliament included a clause outlawing the use of life imprisonment.

50

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

L. Legal Representation
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Children have a right to legal assistance in South Africa in cases where a substantial injustice would
otherwise occur, and where a child’s family cannot afford to pay for the services of a lawyer. State-funded
legal representation can be obtained through the Legal Aid Board (Zaal & Skelton 1998:520). Although thepercentage of children being legally represented has increased in recent years, it is still estimated to be lessthan half of all cases appearing in court (Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice 2002). A large number ofchildren who are offered state-funded legal aid decline these services, which indicates a need for theeducation of children who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. There has previously
been little or no specialization amongst lawyers regarding the legal representation of children.
The Legal Aid Board has committed itself to providing legal representation for children. The Board has
appointed legal representatives for children – both in child justice and children’s court matters – in several of
their justice centres.
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill provides for access to state-funded legal representation when the child is remanded
in detention, when there is a likelihood that a sentence involving a residential requirement is to be imposed,
and when the child is at least ten years old but not yet 14 years and the matter is to be tried in court. The
children in these categories may not waive legal representation.
The idea of non-waiver may appear to be a provision that will cause a large increase in the number ofcases that will have to be taken on by the Legal Aid Board. The Legal Aid Board agrees, however, that thesecategories correspond with the constitutional test of whether a substantial injustice would otherwise occur(Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice 2002). It is also likely that the Child Justice Bill, with its focus ondiversion of cases, will result in fewer cases going to trial overall, although the number of serious cases
going to trial will probably remain much the same. These serious cases tend to be the ones in which children
do have legal representation in the current system.
Planning for legal representation will be done primarily through making the legal aid officers as well as
legal aid justice centre managers and staff aware of the requirements of the Bill, and through the training of
relevant justice centre staff. Further, efforts to provide some specialization in legal representation of children
will be supported.

M. Monitoring
1. Current Practice and Recent Developments
Since its inception in 2000, the government-led Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice has attempted
to set up structures and systems to monitor the situation of children in the criminal justice system, althoughthese have focused mainly on pre-trial detention. By 2006 all provinces had set up some form of monitoring
structure. However, data collection remains incomplete.
There is a general monitoring system for all prisoners, the “independent prison vsitors” model thatprovides for each prison to have a paid prison visitor, and this nationwide structure is overseen by a judicial
inspectorate of prisons. Children have benefited from this system, although the quality of the services does
differ from prison to prison. The Office of the Inspecting Judge has taken an interest in children in prison,and does include specific details about them in its annual reports.
The process of automatic appeal in certain cases is also a useful part of the monitoring process. A numberof High Court judgments have picked up irregularities and injustices relating to cases involving children in
the criminal justice system. This helps to monitor what is happening in the courts and also contributes tolaw reform and improvement in practice.
2. Future Prospects
The Child Justice Bill does include a section on monitoring. Much of the detail on monitoring that was
included in the draft Child Justice Bill, itself included in the Law Commission Report on Juvenile Justice, has

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

been removed, and the Child Justice Bill as introduced into Parliament includes only a simple framework formonitoring. The detailed provisions are likely to appear in the regulations to the Act.

IV. CONCLUSION
The issue of child justice is very fluid in South Africa, which is why it is necessary to describe a systemin the making, as this chapter has aimed to do. It is necessary for the reader to check the current status of
the law when using this text, since changes to the Child Justice Bill may occur during the parliamentary
process, and the Act that emerges may be different from the Bill as it is described in this paper. To check thestatus of the law, visit the following website: www.childjustice.org.za .

52

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Barberton, C. & Stuart, J. (1999). Costing the implementation of the Child Justice Bill: A scenario
analysis. Research monograph. Cape Town: AFReC.
Branken, N. and Batley, M. (1998) Family Group Conferences: Putting the Wrong Right. Pretoria: InterMinisterial Committee on Young People at Risk.
Child Justice Project. (2001). Indaba report: Programmes to support the child justice system. Pretoria:
Child Justice Project.
Community Law Centre. (2000). What the children said. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.
Community Law Centre, National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders(NICRO) & Lawyers for Human Rights. (1992). Justice for the children: No child should be caged. Cape
Town: University of the Western Cape.
Department of Social Development. (2002a). Background for the Portfolio Committee for the briefing on
the Probation Services Amendment Bill (B18B 2002). Unpublished paper. Pretoria: Department of Social
Development.
Department of Social Development. (2002b). Progress report: Children awaiting trial. Presentation to thePortfolio Committee on Social Development, Cape Town, 11 September.
Department of Social Development (2006). The Annual Report of the Department of Social Development(2005/2006 Financial Year).
Dissel, A. “Children in detention pending trial and sentence” in J. Gallinetti, D. Kassan and L. Ehlers(eds) Child Justice in South Africa: Children’s rights under construction. The Report of a conference held in
Pretoria on 1-2 August 2006.
Du Toit, C. (2006). SA Crime Quarterly no 17. Institute for Security Studies.
Interministerial Committee for Young People at Risk (IMC). (1996). Interim policy recommendations forthe transformation of the child and youth care system. Pretoria: Department of Social Development.
Interministerial Committee for Young People at Risk (IMC). (1998). Report on the pilot projects.
Pretoria: Department of Social Development.
Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice. (2002). Budget and implementation plan for the Child JusticeBill. Pretoria: Department of Justice.
Juvenile Justice Drafting Consultancy. (1994). Juvenile justice: Proposals for policy and legislativechange. Cape Town: Allies Printers.
Muntingh, L. (1993). The Development of a Victim-Offender Mediation Project. Pretoria: Human
Sciences Research Council.
Muntingh, L. (2002). Sentenced children admitted to prison 1999-2001. Unpublished paper. Cape Town:
National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders.
Muntingh, L. & Shapiro, R. (1997). NICRO diversions: An introduction to diversion from the criminal
justice system. Cape Town: National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders.
Office of the Inspecting Judge (2005/2006). Annual Report: Prisoners and Prisons.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Pinnock, D., Skelton, A. & Shapiro R. (1994). New juvenile justice legislation for South Africa: Giving
children a chance. SACJ, 3: 338.
Skelton, A. “Developing a Juvenile Justice System for South Africa: International Instruments andRestorative Justice” 1996 Acta Juridica 180-196.
Skelton, A. (1997) in J.A. Robinson (ed) The law of children and young persons in South Africa. Durban:
Butterworths.
Skelton, A. (1998). “International Trends in the Re-emergence of traditional systems” in Petty C. and
Brown M. (eds) Justice for Children: Challenges for Policy and Practice in Sub-Saharan Africa (1998)
London: Save the Children.
Skelton, A. “Restorative Justice as a Framework for Juvenile Justice Reform: A South African
Perspective” 2002 British Journal of Criminology 496-513.
Skelton, A. (2004). “For the Next Generations: Remaking South Africa’s Juvenile Justice System” in
Doxtader, E. and Villa-Vicencio, C. (eds) To Repair the Irreparable: Reparation and Reconstruction in South
Africa 211-223, Claremont: David Philip.
Skelton, A. and Frank, C. (2001). “Conferencing in South Africa: Returning to our Future” in Morris andMaxwell (eds) Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles 103-120 Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
Sloth-Nielsen, J. & Muntingh, L. (2001). Juvenile Justice Review 1999-2000. SACJ, 3: 384-405.
Sloth-Nielsen, J. (2000). “Child Justice and Law Reform” in C.J. Davel (ed) Introduction to Child Law inSouth Africa. Landsdowne: Juta.
Sloth-Nielsen, J. (2003). “The Business of Child Justice” Acta Juridica 175-193.
South African Law Commission (SALC). (2000). Report on juvenile justice. Pretoria: SALC.
Tserere, M. (2006). “The Development of Diversion within the National Prosecuting Authority” in J.
Gallinetti, D. Kassan and L. Ehlers (eds) Child Justice in South Africa: Children’s rights under construction.
The Report of a conference held in Pretoria on 1-2 August 2006.
Zaal, F.N. & Skelton, A. (1998). Providing effective legal representation for children in a new
constitutional era: Lawyers in the criminal and children’s courts. SAJHR, 14: 519.

54

YOUTH JUSTICE IN NEW ZEALAND: A RESTORATIVE JUSTICEAPPROACH TO REDUCE YOUTH OFFENDING
Stephen J. O’Driscoll*

I. INTRODUCTION
New Zealand, a small country in the south-west Pacific, is located approximately 2,000 kilometres east ofAustralia and over 8,000 kilometres from Japan with a land area of 268,000 square kilometres (about twothirds of the land area of Japan). New Zealand has a population of just over four million people with one
quarter of those people under 17 years of age. Although New Zealand has a distinctly bicultural heritage,
M aoriand Pakeha- (of European descent), it is developing an increasingly multicultural identity, throughimmigration mainly from the Pacific Islands and from Asia. It is a member of the Commonwealth and its legal
system basically follows the traditional common law British model.
The New Zealand criminal court structure is comprised of the District Court, the High Court, the Courtof Appeal, and the Supreme Court (New Zealand’s highest appellant Court). The District Court, in its very
wide criminal jurisdiction, presides over all criminal offences except for the most serious, such as murder,
manslaughter and high end drug offences. There are presently 120 District Court Judges based in 17 urban
centres throughout New Zealand, although many of these 120 Judges travel between the 65 different
locations where the District Court sits. All District Court Judges have what is known as a general warrant
that gives them general jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. In addition to a general warrant, a District
Court Judge may also hold a Jury Trial warrant, a Youth Court warrant and/or a Family Court warrant. The
Youth Court and the Family Court are divisions of the District Courts and are considered specialist Courts.
While children and young persons sometimes engage in behaviour that gives rise to the same criminal
offences that adults are charged with, the New Zealand Youth Justice system recognizes that the maturity
and cognitive levels of children mean that their offending should be dealt with in a manner distinct from thatcurrently applying to adult offenders. Young people develop at different rates and will be at different levels of
maturity at any given age. The ability to understand the wrongfulness of criminal acts develops gradually.
Offending by children and young persons can be symptomatic of wider care and protection issues, which if
dealt with through a traditionally adversarial criminal justice approach will most often be destructive. The
New Zealand Youth Justice system recognizes and upholds the rights of children and young people as a
distinct group, and provides an individual response to youth offending.
This paper is designed to give the reader a brief outline of the New Zealand youth justice system. Many
readers will be unfamiliar with New Zealand’s emphasis on diversion and may be surprised to learn that onlya small percentage of youth offenders end up in the Youth Court. Most readers will also be unfamiliar withthe family group conference [FGC] where offenders, victims, the police, Child Youth and Family Services,
youth advocates and community representatives get together. This is for the purpose of attempting to find aconsensual approach to deal with the young person in an attempt to reduce the risk of their reoffending. The
approach is restorative in nature rather than punitive. This is how we do things in New Zealand! Hopefully
other jurisdictions might see there are some strengths and advantages in the New Zealand system and adapt
some of those to their own system of dealing with youth offenders.

II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR YOUTH JUSTICE IN NEW ZEALAND
A. Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act
In New Zealand the primary legislation governing youth justice in the District Court is the Children,* Youth Court Judge, Dunedin District Court, New Zealand. Thanks are extended to Megan Anderson, Research Counsel,
Dunedin District Court, for her assistance in the preparation of this paper. This paper draws on previous presentations in thearea of youth justice in New Zealand.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (CYPF Act), which establishes the procedures governing State
intervention in the lives of children, young people and their families. The Act can be seen as a response to
the principles enunciated in international instruments relating to youth justice.1 The Act has two distinct
operational components, providing for a jurisdictional separation or division of function between the Family
Court and the Youth Court which are two Courts of specialist jurisdiction, both divisions of the District
Court. Simply stated, the Family Court deals with care and protection matters while the Youth Court has
jurisdiction in matters of youth offending.
The CYPF Act provides for an innovative system of youth justice, introducing a hybrid justice/welfare
system where young people, their families, victims, the community and the State are involved in taking
responsibility for offending and its consequences. Maxwell and Morris observe the following innovative
strategies that are incorporated into the New Zealand system of youth justice:
•
•
•
•
•

the rights and needs of indigenous people are to be taken into account;families are to be central to all the decision-making processes involving their children and young
people;young people are themselves to have a say in how their offending is to be responded to;victims are to be given a role in negotiations over possible penalties;
the model of decision-making advocated is to be group consensus.2

These strategies are achieved through changes to police and court procedures and practice and throughthe introduction of the Family Group Conference (FGC), a decision-making forum that enables offenders,
victims, families, community and professionals to recommend an appropriate penalty to the Court. In thevast majority of cases Youth Court Judges, who are not present at FGCs, accept and adopt therecommendations arrived at by the participants of the FGC.
Guiding all decisions made under the CYPF Act, but subject in respect of care and protection issues tothe welfare and best interests of the child or young person, are the following principles:3(a) Wherever possible, a child’s or young person’s family, wh anau
, hapu, iwi, and family group should
participate in the making of decisions affecting that child or young person, and accordingly that,
wherever possible, regard should be had to the views of that family, wh anau
, hapu, iwi, and familygroup;,(b) Wherever possible, the relationship between a child or young person and his or her family, wh anau
hapu, iwi, and family group should be maintained and strengthened;(c) Consideration must always be given to how a decision affecting a child or young person will affect—(i)
The welfare of that child or young person; and, hapu, iwi, and family group;(ii)
The stability of that child’s or young person’s family, wh anau(d) Consideration should be given to the wishes of the child or young person, so far as those wishes canreasonably be ascertained, and that those wishes should be given such weight as is appropriate in thecircumstances, having regard to the age, maturity, and culture of the child or young person;(e) Endeavours should be made to obtain the support of—(i)
The parents or guardians or other persons having the care of a child or young person; and(ii)
The child or young person himself or herself—
1 See 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCROC”), United Nations Guidelines for the Preventionof Juvenile Delinquency (“The Riyadh Guidelines”), G.A. res. 45/112, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 201, U.N. Doc.
A/45/49 (1990), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”),
G.A. res. 40/33, annex, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985), United Nations Rules for theProtection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, G.A. res. 45/113, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 205, U.N. Doc.
A/45/49 (1990)
2 G. Maxwell and A. Morris “Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in Practice?” Journal of Social Issues, 2006,
62(2) 239-358.
3 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 5.

56

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

to the exercise or proposed exercise, in relation to that child or young person, of any power
conferred by or under this Act;(f) Decisions affecting a child or young person should, wherever practicable, be made and implemented
within a time-frame appropriate to the child’s or young person’s sense of time.
The CYPF Act provides the following statutory protections for the rights of children and young people
subject to its youth justice provisions:
•
•
•
•
•

Children and young people must be informed of their rights in language and in a manner that they
can understand;
Police powers of arrest are strictly limited;
A nominated person must be present at any interview;
Children and young people may decline to make a statement; andThere is an entitlement to legal representation.

There is an emphasis on accountability in the CYPF Act and a separation of welfare and justice matters.
Young people are to be held accountable but must also be dealt with in a way that acknowledges their needs
and gives them opportunities to develop “in responsible, beneficial, and socially acceptable ways.” 4
The New Zealand Youth Justice system deals with all children (aged 10 to 13 years old inclusive) andyoung persons (aged 14 to 17 years old inclusive) whose behaviour leads the police to have reason to believe
they have committed a criminal offence. The Youth Court, however, only has jurisdiction in respect of young
persons. Whether a person is a child or a young person for the purposes of the Act is determined by the age
he or she was at the time of the offending.
There is an ongoing debate in New Zealand as to when ‘children’ ought to be considered old enough toface the consequences of criminal offending entirely on their own. A private Members Bill is currently
before the New Zealand Parliament which proposes a legal change allowing children as young as ten to facecharges for all serious offences.5 His Honour Judge Andrew Becroft, Principal Youth Court Judge, in an
address to the XVII World Congress of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges andMagistrates in Belfast 2006 entitled “Children and Young People in Conflict with the Law: Asking the Hard
Questions” noted that
“Youth justice can all too easily become a societal and political football. Youth justice is also a victim of
fashion in that the pendulum swings from “get tough” to “welfare” approaches over time - often in response
to a particular crime being highlighted in the media. Shocking crimes by children may lead to calls for thelegal system to get tough on young offenders and knee-jerk responses are likely to be inevitable.”
Currently, in New Zealand, the age of criminal liability is 10 and no person can be convicted of an offence
by reason of any act done or omitted by him when under the age of 10 years.6 The only criminal offenceswith which a child (aged 10 years or over but less than 14 years) can be charged are murder andmanslaughter.7 When a child or young person faces charges for murder or manslaughter the charge is laid,
and the preliminary hearing held, in the Youth Court. If the Youth Court finds there is sufficient evidence to
4 Dr G. Maxwell, Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Implications of New Research for Principles, Policy andPractice, Paper presented at AIC Conference, Sydney, December 2003.
5 Ron Mark Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill available at <www.nzfirst.org.nz> (last accessed 11 May 2007).
6 Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 21.
7 In all other cases of child offending (not manslaughter or murder), the matter must be dealt with by the Family Court under

the care and protection provisions of the CYPF Act by way of FGCs. This reflects the philosophical assumption that children
who offend are not capable of appearing in Court as autonomous, responsible individuals in their own right. Their offending
must be viewed in the context of their family environment and should be dealt with on the basis that care and protection issues
are the primary cause of their offending. The Family Court, in dealing with child offenders, has a wide array of orders andresponses it can make. For instance, the Family Court (but not the Youth Court) has power to make custody and guardianshiporders, and also counselling orders, in respect of parents, guardians and any person who is made the subject of a restraining
order in respect of a child.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

proceed to a full trial, the matter is transferred to the High Court.8
Youth Justice under the CYPF Act is governed by the following set of statutorily expressed principles
that guide the exercise of any power conferred under the youth justice provisions in the Act: 9(a) Unless the public interest requires otherwise, criminal proceedings should not be instituted against achild or young person if there is an alternative means of dealing with the matter;(b) Criminal proceedings should not be instituted against a child or young person solely in order toprovide any assistance or services needed to advance the welfare of the child or young person, or hisor her family, wh anau
, or family group;(c) Any measures for dealing with offending by children or young persons should be designed—, hapu, iwi, and family group of the child or young person(i)
To strengthen the family, wh anau
concerned; and(ii)
To foster the ability of families, wh anau
, hapu, iwi, and family groups to develop their own
means of dealing with offending by their children and young persons;(d) A child or young person who commits an offence should be kept in the community so far as that ispracticable and consonant with the need to ensure the safety of the public;(e) A child’s or young person’s age is a mitigating factor in determining—(i)
Whether or not to impose sanctions in respect of offending by a child or young person; and(ii)
The nature of any such sanctions;(f) Any sanctions imposed on a child or young person who commits an offence should—(i)Take the form most likely to maintain and promote the development of the child or young, hapu, and family group; andperson within his or her family, wh anau(ii)
Take the least restrictive form that is appropriate in the circumstances;(g) Any measures for dealing with offending by children or young persons should have due regard to theinterests of any victims of that offending;(h) The vulnerability of children and young persons entitles a child or young person to special protection
during any investigation relating to the commission or possible commission of an offence by thatchild or young person.
The CYPF Act provides a legislative emphasis for addressing the needs and reintegration of youth
offenders into their communities and promoting the active participation of young people and their families inmatters affecting them. The CYPF Act also provides for a comprehensive statutory diversion scheme as
evidenced by the guiding principle of the Act in relation to youth justice which states that criminal
proceedings should not be instituted against a child or young person if there is an alternative means ofdealing with the matter and unless the public interest otherwise requires.10

B. Diversionary Emphasis
Diversion away from the formal criminal justice system is a key mechanism of the Youth Justice System
in New Zealand.11 Diversion has been described as the avoidance of harmful interventions but also includes
the minimization of negative impacts in circumstances where more harmful interventions cannot be
avoided.12 Diversion can result in the avoidance of formal court proceedings in favour of informal action or in
8 The doctrine of doli incapax applies in New Zealand to children charged with manslaughter or murder. This means that theprosecution must prove, in addition to the proving the essential elements of the offence, that the child understood their act oromission to be wrong or contrary to law in order for a child to be found criminally liable for manslaughter or murder: see
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ), s 22.
9 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 208.
10 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 208.
11 The steps in the Youth Justice and Youth Court process are set out at pp 43-44 of this paper.
12 M. Doolan, “The Youth Justice – Legislation and Practice” in B.J. Brown and F.W.M. McElrea (eds), The Youth Court in
New Zealand: A New Model of Justice (1993).

58

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

the least serious of matters it may be that no action is taken at all, although this is unlikely where behaviour
suggests some risk of criminal offending. A further practical outcome of diversion is the avoidance ofcustodial sanctions in favour of community-based sanctions.
Diversion recognizes that charging young people and bringing them before the Court increases theiropportunity to mix with other young offenders and to become familiarized with the Court procedures to suchan extent that it then becomes difficult to deal with them in any way other than through the Court-basedformal process of the criminal justice system. Diversion also recognizes that most offenders can beconsidered low risk and hence there is no need for Court-based intervention.
The Youth Justice process under the CYPF Act takes effect from when the police detect behaviour by achild or young person that is suggestive of criminal offending. The following responses, depending primarily
on how serious the alleged offending is, are available to the police:••••

Warnings: often given by the attending police officer and followed up by a letter from the Youth Aid
Officer acknowledging the warning;
Alternative Action: a diversion plan put in place by a specialist Youth Aid Officer that may include anapology, reparation and/or community work;
Family Group Conference: after referral to a Youth Justice Co-ordinator, for offending that cannot be
dealt with by way of warning or diversion and where police intend to lay a charge and there has been
no arrest (an ‘intention to charge’ FGC);13 andArrest: in restricted circumstances (as discussed further below).

44%
32%

16%
8%

Warnings

Alternative action

Referral to YJC

Arrest

1. Warnings
For relatively minor offending by first time offenders the most common action taken by the police isusually to give an immediate warning to the child or young person concerned. Police deal with 44% of youth
offending by issuing an immediate formal warning and then releasing the young person. This is in keepingwith the principle that young offenders should be diverted from the formal justice system wherever possible.
In some instances a conditional warning is given. This could occur where the police officer who detects
the alleged offending has no prior knowledge of the young person, or is not sure of his or her history ofoffending. A conditional warning is given and the young person is told that the matter will be referred to theYouth Aid Division to decide whether further action is necessary. Depending on the result of that referralnothing further may occur, alternative action may be required, a referral may be made to a Youth Justice Coordinator or the police may decide to arrest the young person.

2. Alternative Action
If a warning is considered insufficient or inappropriate the police must consider the appropriateness of analternative action programme. Youth Aid, a specialist division of the New Zealand Police dealing primarily
13 About one third of the 8,000 FGCs held annually are of this type.

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

with youth offending, has responsibility in this regard.14 Factors taken into account include whether thenature of the offending is more serious than minor, or whether the police have dealt with the offender onprior occasions involving some form of offending. The Youth Aid Division must also bear in mind that theemphasis in the CYPF Act is on not instituting criminal proceedings. About 32% of all offences are dealt withthrough alternative action initiatives.
The CYPF Act does not expressly limit what may be used as a form of alternative action but initiatives
should emphasize restoration and rehabilitation and further emphasize that accountability for actions shouldbe achieved in ways that are offence related.15 The Youth Aid Division aims to work in partnership withother agencies, organizations, community groups and families to prevent youth offending. Youth Aid officers
will often spend considerable time and effort creatively tailoring solutions that satisfy victims, prevent reoffending and reintegrate young people into their communities which can result in very creative plans orprogrammes directly responding to local youth offending. For this reason, amongst others, alternative action
initiatives are usually locally based, involving members of the community and drawing on community
strengths.
The aim of alternative action is to divert young people away from the Courts and initiatives are limited inscope only by the practicalities surrounding any given set of circumstances relevant to the offender, theoffending and the victim. The goal is to achieve solutions, tailored to the individual circumstances of theyoung person, which satisfy victims, prevent reoffending and integrate or reintegrate young people into theircommunities. Alternative action might include an informal meeting with the young person and his or her
family during which a contract is drawn up for the young person to fulfil. Common outcomes of alternative
action include apologies to the victim(s) of the offending in writing or in person, payment of reparation forany damage caused and some form of community work. The Police Youth Aid Division oversees thecompletion of the decided upon tasks. If the agreed upon alternative action is successfully completed thepolice will not lay charges and the matter will go no further.
The decision on whether to institute alternative action or to refer the matter to a Youth Justice Coordinator in respect of any particular young person is discretionary. Youth Aid officers in New Zealand reportthat they base their decision as to the most appropriate level of intervention on factors such as thecircumstances of the offence, the attitude of the offender, the amount and seriousness of the offending andthe attitude of the victim and the offender’s family.16 Officers must also consider the importance of holding
the child accountable for his or her offending,17 the view of the victim,18 and the position of the family andwhether the family can deal with the offending.19
Warnings and alternative action recognizes that many young people who offend while growing up willdevelop into responsible adults and go on to make a positive contribution to society. The availability of thismore informal type of diversion enables young people to accept responsibility for their actions and, where
alternative action initiatives are carried out, to alleviate the harm caused by the offending. It also allows
young people to avoid formal involvement in the criminal justice system and to enter adult life without acriminal record. Warnings and alternative action accounts for approximately 76% of all youth offending.

(i) Outcome of an Alternative Action Plan
The following is written by a young person who was referred to a Youth Aid Officer after being reported
to the police for doing ‘burn-outs’ in his car.20 It represents an example of how one young person saw thejustice system.
14 The diversion system relies on Youth Aid Officers who are trained to deal with the complex needs of young offenders.
15 Inspector C. Graveson, Police Involvement in Juvenile Crime Prevention and Diversion – Australia and New Zealand, Paper

presented to the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, 26-31 October 2002, 4.
16 G. Maxwell, J. Robertson, T. Anderson, Police Youth Diversion – Final Report, Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria

University of Wellington, Prepared for New Zealand Police and Ministry of Justice, January 2002, 88.
17 Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 4.
18 Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 208(g).
19 Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 5(a), s 5(b), s 5(e).
20 “Court in the Act” December 2006 No. 26.

60

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS“My wheels were spinning. Rubber smoke pouring out from the wheels as I was gradually sacrificed tothe merciless heat that was being produced from the massive friction. Me and my friend were laughing yet
choking at the same time from the smoke. It was awesome!
After sitting in the police car with the policeman for a good 15 minutes, discussing the matter with him
and generally getting belittled for my “stupid” actions, I walked out of the police car with a ticket in my hand.
It stated that I had been charged with sustained loss of traction, to which I would be contacted by the traffic
officer to attend court to discuss my punishment. I was pondering how to break the news to my parents. But
to my surprise, the [police] had already rung them. My parents were very disappointed in me, making me
feel ashamed and regretful for what I’d done, and I still had to go to court!
If you drive a car in an illegal race, accelerate in an unnecessary way on a road, if you do wheel spins,
donuts, or drive a car on the road in a way that causes it to lose traction, you are in breach of many laws. The
punishments for these acts include three months’ imprisonment, fines up to $4,500, losing your license forat least six months, or community service ranging from 20 to 500 hours, and the police may impound yourcar for 28 days at your expense. Fortunately for me, I was 16 when I performed this burnout, meaning that I
could go to Youth Aid instead of court, which is just sitting in a room with a police officer and your parents,
and bringing forth a sentence from this conference.
The punishment from my parents was that I wasn’t allowed to drive at all until my court case had been
resolved. I found this hard as I had to get to rugby trainings, rugby games, and parties when they were on.
After my session with the Youth Aid Officer, I walked out with 20 hours community service, and a promise to
do a defensive driving course within three months, a very light sentence, probably because of my very goodpresentation.
I have been doing my community service at my very own former primary school, doing gardening,
sweeping bark, sweeping the turf, pulling staples out of classroom walls, and more gardening. I have now
almost fulfilled my contract to do 20 hours, I just need to get on to the defensive driving course. This has
been a very steep learning curve for me, but in the long run, a good one. Because it has helped me to realizethat driving is a privilege, and shouldn’t be abused. And just remember, it may feel awesome at the time,
kicking back, choking in the smoke, but think about the consequences. Pulling staples out of walls andwatering gardens is definitely NOT awesome. Fast cars can mean big trouble for teens.”
3. Referral to Youth Justice Co-ordinator
Where there has not been an arrest but the police indicate an intention to lay charges (on the basis thatneither a warning nor alternative action is the appropriate response) a Youth Aid officer will refer the matterto a Youth Justice Co-ordinator to convene an FGC. This occurs in 8% of cases. If the participants in theensuing ‘intention to charge’ FGC all agree, the matter will be resolved as decided by the FGC and will not
require Youth Court intervention unless the agreed upon actions are not carried out. Most often the police
decide not to proceed with their initial intention to lay charges against a young person after participation inan ‘intention to charge’ FGC.21
4. Arrest
In the remaining 16% of cases, the young person is arrested and a charge is laid in the Youth Court. As
already noted, diversionary mechanisms operate to keep young people away from the Youth Court except incases of serious or persistent offending. This is achieved, in part, because of the stringent restrictions on theright of the police to arrest a young person. The CYPF Act strictly limits arrest and in most cases a young
person cannot be arrested unless it is necessary, and a summons is considered not sufficient to:••prevent further offending or prevent the loss or destruction of evidence or witness interference;
ensure appearance before the Court, for example in circumstances where the young person refuses
to provide his or her name and address to the police.22

21 ‘Intention to charge’ FGCs will be discussed in greater depth later in this paper.
22 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 214.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

These restrictions do not apply where an offence is purely indictable (a very serious offence such as
aggravated robbery or sexual offending) and the arresting officer considers arrest is required in the public
interest. Before arresting any young person the police must always have good cause to suspect the young
person has committed a criminal offence.
Upon arrest, the police may:•••

Release the young person without charge and refer the matter to a Youth Justice Co-ordinator who
will convene an ‘intention to charge’ FGC if the police intend to lay charges; orCharge the young person, in which case he or she may be released with or without conditions toappear later in the Youth Court; or in some situations
Charge and detain the young person in custody for longer than the standard 24 hour maximum, inwhich case he or she must be brought before the Court as soon as practicable.

III. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES: A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FRAMEWORKFamily Group Conferences underpin the New Zealand Youth Justice system and were innovatively
introduced in New Zealand by the CYPF Act in 1989. One of the most significant features of the Youth
Justice system in New Zealand is the way that the statutory framework of the CYPF Act enables restorative
justice principles to be implemented. The restorative justice model is not mandated by, or even specificallyreferred to, in the CYPF Act but has been adopted in practice through FGCs. The CYPF Act ensures
supervision of the restorative justice approach by the Courts, an approach that is available to all young
persons who come within the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. Family Group Conferences are used as adiversionary mechanism as much as is possible in the circumstances of both the young person and theoffence. The CYPF Act also provides an alternative system of pleading which activates, where applicable,
the necessity for an FGC. A significant feature of FGCs is the widespread use of community-based solutions
to offending, with the corollary that numbers of incarcerations for young persons are reduced. The Youth
Justice model in New Zealand therefore emphasizes both diversion and de-carceration.
His Honour Judge Fred McElrea, a leading judicial writer on the New Zealand Youth Court system,
proposed the following three principal structural feathers of the Youth Court which underpin a restorative
justice approach as being:23
1.
2.
3.

Transfer of power from the State, principally the Courts’ power, to the community;
Family Group Conferences as a mechanism for producing a negotiated, community response; andInvolvement of victims as key participants, making possible a healing process for both offender andvictim.

Family Group Conferences are organized by a Youth Justice Co-ordinator whose task is to ensure that as
many key participants as possible are able to attend the FGC. There is an expectation that during FGCs
Youth Justice Co-ordinators will facilitate, and achieve whenever possible, active participation by the young
offender and his or her family in discussions about how best to deal with the offending.
The participation of young people in FGCs is expected, including any young person who is detained incustody unless it is impracticable for him or her to do so, and participation extends beyond simply being
present.
Young offenders (primarily at ‘intention to charge’ FGCs or Court ordered FGCs where the charges havenot been denied) are given the opportunity to:• Discuss the offence and accept responsibility for it;• Discuss possible causes of the offending;• Participate in the formulation of a plan to rectify the causes of the offending and repair the harmcaused by it;• Present the plan to other FGC participants;
23 Judge F.W.M. McElrea New Zealand Youth Court: A Model for Development in other Courts? National Conference ofDistrict Court Judges Rotorua, New Zealand 6-9 April 1994.

62

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•••

Apologize and express remorse to the victim;
Answer any questions posed by the victim; andWhere relevant, present the plan to the Judge when the matter returns to the Youth Court.

A. Types of Family Group Conferences
1. Child Offender Care and Protection Conference
If the police believe, after inquiry, that an alleged child offender is in need of care and protection, thismust be reported to a Youth Justice Co-ordinator. The YJC and police must consult, after which, if the police
believe an application for a declaration of care and protection is necessary in the public interest, an FGC
must be held24 to address the child’s offending. At a care and protection FGC, the group must determine
whether the offence is admitted, and, if so, what steps should be taken, including whether a declaration thatthe child is in need of care or protection should be filed in the Family Court.25
2. ‘Intention to Charge’ FGC
This is required whenever a young person is alleged to have committed an offence and has not beenarrested (or has been earlier arrested and released) and the police intend to lay charges. The police mustfirst consult a Youth Justice Co-ordinator. If, after consultation, the police still wish to charge the young
person, an FGC must be convened.26 This is the second most common type of FGC, and accounts for
between one third and one half of all FGCs annually. At an ‘intention to charge’ FGC, the participants must
determine whether the charge is admitted and, if so, decide what should be done. This may include
completion of an agreed plan or a decision that a charge should be laid in Court.27 If the charge is not
admitted, the ‘intention to charge’ FGC will be concluded and the matter will proceed to a defended hearing.
If an ‘intention to charge’ FGC results in a formal plan being devised and the young person successfullycompletes his or her responsibilities under the plan, he or she will not be charged. If no consensus as to theplan can be reached the matter must be considered in the Youth Court.
3. Custody FGC
Where a young person denies a charge, but, pending its resolution, the Youth Court orders the young
person be placed in CYFS or police custody, an FGC must be convened.28 At custody FGCs, the group must
decide whether detention in a CYFS secure residence should continue and where the young person shouldbe placed pending resolution of the case.29
4. Court Directed FGC: “not denied”
Where a (non-purely indictable) charge is not denied by the young person in the Youth Court, the Court
must direct that an FGC be held.30 “Not denied” is a somewhat odd, but very useful, mechanism. It triggers
an FGC without the need for an absolute admission of guilt. It may indicate the young person’s acceptancethat he or she is guilty of something, although not necessarily the charge as laid. Invariably, in such cases,
the details can be resolved at the FGC. This is the most common type of FGC and accounts for at least halfof all FGCs. At a Court ordered FGC, the group must determine whether the young person admits theoffence, and, if so, what action and/or penalties should result.31
5. FGC on the Orders of the Youth Court
Where a charge is admitted or proved in the Youth Court and there has been no previous opportunity toconsider the appropriate way to deal with the young offender an FGC must be held.32 The participants must
decide what action and/or penalties should result from a finding that a charge is proved or admitted.33
24 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 18(3).
25 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 258(a), s 259(1).
26 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 245.
27 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 258(b), s 259(1).
28 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 247(d).
29 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 258(c).
30 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 246.
31 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 258(d), s 259(1).
32 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 281.
33 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 258(e).

63RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

6. FGC at Youth Court Discretion
A Youth Court may direct that an FGC be convened at any stage in the proceedings if it appears
necessary or desirable to do so.34 An example of where this might happen would be where a young person
indicates a desire to plead guilty to a purely indictable charge and there is a possibility that Youth Court
jurisdiction will be offered. An FGC would then be ordered to consider whether such an offer should be
made. If the FGC recommends that jurisdiction should be offered, it will usually also recommend how theYouth Court should dispose of the matter. When the Youth Court exercises its discretion to order an FGC, it
may also make directions as to the decisions to be made there.

B. Key Participants in Family Group Conferences
The following key participants are integral to the restorative justice approach adopted through the FGC
mechanism mandated in the CYPF Act.
1. Young Persons
The CYPF Act recognizes that young people are developmentally different from adult offenders andrecognizes that there is an imbalance of power between young people and adult professionals in the criminal
justice system. Young people often have difficulty in understanding the operation of the legal system andoften assume that the professionals within the system, because of their greater familiarity with andknowledge of the decision-making process, will and sometimes should, make the decisions. The Act
recognizes that young people have a different perspective of their own identities, as individuals and as agroup, which includes using different language to give meaning to their experiences and to represent theirneeds. Judges must communicate their decisions to young people in a manner and language that they canunderstand and judges must encourage the participation of young people in the proceedings.
The CYPF Act expressly requires that young offenders are involved in making decisions that affect themand must be allowed to express their views and have these taken into account. The key formal mechanisms
for this are FGCs and the right of a young person to make representations in the Youth Court. Children andyoung persons are expected to actively participate in FGCs, to apologize to the victim where it is possible to
do so, to raise possible courses of action, and to agree to and promise to carry out specified activities
designed to address their offending.
The young person is involved in the sanctioning process of his or her own free will.35 At an FGC a young
person is given the autonomy to participate in a decision-making process and the freedom to accept or rejecta particular decision. Allowing the young person to have some control over sanctioning procedures can beempowering rather than shaming. Importantly, it offers a sense of ownership in the outcome and engenders
respect not only for the outcome itself but also for the parties who have worked together to achieve aresolution.36
One of the aims of FGCs is to facilitate an expression of genuine remorse by the young person. Accepting
responsibility for the offence and acknowledging the harm caused provides the first steps towards theintegration/reintegration of a young person within his or her community.37
Family Group Conferences allow a young person to participate in the fundamental questions anddecisions that face the prosecuting authorities and the Court as a result of the young person’s behaviour.
The type of decision to be made depends, naturally, on the reason for convening the FGC and the type of
FGC being held. All decisions made by an FGC are still subject to the Court’s scrutiny and control. In
summary, the issues and decisions in which the young person is able to participate are:

34 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 281B.
35 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 251(1)(a), outlines an entitlement to attend a Family Group

Conference, not a requirement.
36 Erik Luna, Restorative Justice, NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000

<http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/51/19/200007051755.74daa57b.html> (last accessed 13 May 2007).
37 Erik Luna, Restorative Justice, NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000

<http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/51/19/200007051755.74daa57b.html> (last accessed 13 May 2007).

64

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

1.

In respect of an alleged child offender, whether the offences have been committed and what steps
should be taken as a result, including whether a declaration that the child is in need of care orprotection should be filed in the Family Court.

2.

In respect of an ‘intention to charge’ conference, whether the offence was committed, what should
be done as a result, and if a charge should be laid in Court.

3.

In respect of a custody conference, where the young person should be placed pending resolution of
the case.

4.

In respect of a charge before the Youth Court that is not denied, whether the offence was committed,
and what action and/or penalties should result.

5.

In respect of a charge that has been proved before the Youth Court after a defended hearing, what
action and/or penalties should result.

6.

In the case of “purely indictable” charges, whether Youth Court jurisdiction should be offered and, if
so, whether the offence has been committed and what should be the result.

2. Victims
Governing the Youth Justice provisions of the CYPF Act is the principle that “any measure for dealing
with offending by children or young persons should have due regard to the interests of the victims of theoffending”.38 This principle is given effect through consultation with victims by the police and by Youth
Justice Co-ordinators and, where it occurs, by victim participation at FGCs.
A key feature of FGCs is the opportunity they may afford a victim to confront a young person with theimpact of what he or she has done. A face-to-face meeting with the victim(s) means that the young person
must confront the effects of his or her conduct in human terms. This is a significant aspect of the FGC inthat the young person is able to both see and hear from their victim about the consequences of theiroffending and the impact the offending has had on the victim.
Victims, and their support persons, are entitled to attend FGCs but are not obliged to. In some cases a
victim may ask a representative to attend the FGC on his or her behalf. Where they do attend, it can be aninvaluable aid to the rehabilitation of a young person for them to see and speak with the person they
offended against, and to understand the effect of their offending. Thus, victims are central to the process andare given a meaningful opportunity to express their views and contribute to outcomes involving the young
person. Victims (where there is a clearly identifiable victim39) participate in 51% of FGCs.40 This low figure
is unfortunately a weakness in the current system and many of those involved in the youth justice process
would like to see an increase in the number of victims attending FGCs.
When the victim does not attend it is more difficult, if at all possible, to achieve a direct, honest accountof the effects of offending, and the consequent remorse of the young person. It is understandable that highproportions of victims41 do not attend FGCs, having already suffered the effects of a traumatic incident.
While in some cases victims may not attend due to lack of encouragement from overloaded Youth Justice Coordinators, other barriers include fear of further victimization, lack of confidence in the system, and public
perceptions about the effectiveness of FGCs. In some cases a victim may simply not be able to take time offwork to attend the FGC.
In some cases it might be possible to substitute a victim’s representative or a letter from the victim to beread out by the Youth Justice Co-ordinator. Most (approximately 80%) of the victims that do attend find the
38 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 208(g).
39 For example, in cases of drug offending, there may be no immediately or clearly identifiable victim.
40 Source: Neil Cleaver, National Manager FGC Co-ordinators, New Zealand.
41 Of a 100-person sample, 42 victims chose not to attend the FGC, Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson and Morris Achieving Effective
Outcomes in Youth Justice: Draft Final Report to the Ministry of Social Development (Unpublished, 2002) 141.

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

process cathartic, positive and helpful.42 However, for a small number,43 meeting with the offender is anegative experience that leaves them feeling worse: depressed, fearful, distressed and angry, most often
because they do not feel the offender is truly sorry.
It is noted that despite the statutory directive to have due regard to the interests of victims, the Act does
not include victims in the list of persons entitled to attend Youth Court hearings. Victims and their family
members require leave of the judge to be present, however, in almost all cases leave to attend will beroutinely granted to victims, their family members and legitimate close friends and supporters of the victim.
Youth Court judges are required to balance the effect on victims and their families who are present at Youth
Court proceedings and the focus on young people and their families. It is necessary for Youth Court judges
to ensure that effect is given to the exigencies of the Act to strengthen families and rehabilitate young
offenders and to ensure that victims’ interests are both being taken into account and being seen by victims
to be taken into account.
3. Families
One of the key principles of the CYPF Act, and a major shift in the Youth Justice system brought about bythat legislation, is that families are to be involved in decision-making to address criminal behaviour by young
people.44 The Act offers an expansive definition of ‘family group’, which brings members of the young
person’s extended family into the Youth Justice system.
The key mechanism by which the principle that families should be involved in decision-making (and theirviews taken into account) is the FGC. Any parent, guardian, or member of a child or young person’s family,
wh anau, hapu, iwi or family group is entitled to attend an FGC.
During the FGC, the family’s role is to encourage a young person’s participation, and, in many cases, totake some responsibility for the young person’s actions and for making amends to the victim. Sometimes
families can be very harsh on young people at FGCs, and the police or other participants may be required tointervene on the young person’s behalf. The family is entitled to deliberate in private during the FGC
process. Usually, it is expected that suggestions for resolving matters will originate from the family. “Familygroups have proved capable of taking prime responsibility for their own young people despite initial
scepticism about this.”45
In memos issued in 1997 and 1998, former Principal Youth Court Judge Carruthers, made the following
remark about FGCs:“where the only people present ... [are] ... the young person, one parent (usually the mother) andprofessionals, usually a co-ordinator, Police Youth Aid, and sometimes the Youth Advocate. In my view this is
not a Family Group Conference. There is no real opportunity for accessing the strengths of the family or for
confronting the young person with their wrong-doing and obtaining some concept of damage done to victims
and remorse.
...
In future, I do not intend to accept such attendance as complying with the spirit of a Family Group
Conference and I will be redirecting Conferences unless there is a good explanation why this should not
happen.”[17 November 1997]“I have recently finished sitting on circuit in Auckland and on several occasions have directed that Family
42 Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson and Morris Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Draft Final Report to the Ministry ofSocial Development (Unpublished, 2002) 141.
43 Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson and Morris Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Draft Final Report to the Ministry ofSocial Development (Unpublished, 2002) 141.
44 Four of the six general principles governing the Act are focused on involving families in decision-making and making
provision for dealing with young people within a strong family framework: see s 5 of the Children, Young Persons and Their
Families Act 1989 (NZ) as discussed above.
45 M. Doolan, Working with Young People who Offend, Paper presented in Glasgow, Scotland, 2001, 2.

66

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Group Conferences be reconvened when the only participants were the young person, a mother, or evenboth parents and a Police Youth Aid Officer, Co-ordinator and a Youth Advocate.
Unless there is a very good explanation I intend to continue to redirect Family Group Conferences when
they are so badly attended. Sometimes there are good reasons for this. Sometimes however it is simply poor
practice and I do not believe that it is a proper Family Group Conference when there is such a dismal
gathering of family and no victim.”
The intention of the FGC model is that a young person’s family, in the broadest sense, should be involved
in resolving the consequences of the offending and in providing solutions. In some cases, a young person
may simply have no extended family members who participate in his or her life who could attend. Other
factors which inhibit family attendance are ‘FGC burnout’, particularly with repeat offenders, and the factthat the FGC often comes some way down the track after police alternative action and hence families havelost interest or run out of ideas. However, where the absence of extended family is due to a lack of time oreffort on the part of the YJC, the Youth Court will order that an FGC be reconvened to allow for better
efforts to be made.
4. Youth Justice Co-ordinators
Youth Justice Co-ordinators are employees of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Services(CYFS), the government department that administers the CYPF Act, and are often qualified social
workers.46 Youth Justice Co-ordinators have the following responsibilities under the Act:
•
•
•
•
•
•

receive police referrals in relation to children whom the police believe to be in need of care andprotection because the nature, number or magnitude of offences committed by the child give police
serious concern for his or her wellbeing;
where a child or young person is alleged to have committed an offence, explore with the police thepossibility of dealing with the matter other than by criminal proceedings;
convene FGCs under the Youth Justice provisions of the Act;
record the decisions, recommendations and plans of any FGC convened under the Youth Justiceprovisions of the Act;
notify interested parties47 of such decisions, recommendations and plans; andperform any other duties prescribed elsewhere by legislation.

Youth Justice Co-ordinators are responsible for convening and facilitating all FGCs. In doing so, Youth
Justice Co-ordinators are obligated to make all reasonable endeavours, as relevant, to consult with the young
person’s family (including the extended family), the victim, the informant (usually the police), and if there
are care and protection issues, to make a care and protection declaration. Consultation must concern thetime, place and date for the FGC, who should attend the FGC and what procedure should be adopted at the
FGC.
As a facilitator at the FGC, the Youth Justice Co-ordinator has no decision-making power, but ensuresthat the FGC follows as closely as possible the procedure adopted by the group. The Youth Justice Coordinator must ascertain the views of those entitled to, but unable to attend the FGC, and ensure thoseviews are voiced.
The Youth Justice Co-ordinator must make all reasonable endeavours to ensure that all information andadvice required by the conference to carry out its functions are made available to the participants of the
FGC. This may include arranging for people other than conference participants (for example, psychologists
or individuals willing to offer community work placements) to attend. Specific factual information provided
through reports by social workers or by prominent members of the young person’s community and reports
addressed to the specific issues faced by the young person (for example an assessment of his or her drug or
alcohol problem) can be invaluable.
46 A person will only be appointed as a Youth Justice Co-ordinator where, by reason of his or her personality, training andexperience, he or she is suitably qualified to exercise or perform the functions, duties and powers required of a Youth JusticeCo-ordinator under the CYPF Act.
47 Listed in s 265 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ).

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

The Youth Justice Co-ordinator also has to record any decisions, recommendations or plans made at an
FGC and must inform any person who will be directly involved in implementing any decision,
recommendation or plan of that outcome and get their agreement to it.
5. Youth Aid Officers
At FGCs the attending Youth Aid Officer is required to give a statement of the facts representing thebasis of the offending. Where the victim does not attend or attends but does not wish to express his or her
own views, the Youth Aid Officer may also express the views of the victim.
6. Community
As well as the innovative involvement of extended families in the Youth Justice process, the CYPF Act
advocates the involvement of the general community. Community involvement is considered necessary toassist young people to recognize the broader impact of their offending and the fact that lawful behaviour isrequisite to community. It is desirable to involve the community in the Youth Justice process to enable young
persons to effectively integrate (or reintegrate) into their communities particularly where a young person
may have no ongoing involvement with formal community structures (for example formal educational
structures).
There is formal provision for certain members of the community to attend FGCs; however,representatives of agencies that will supervise (or are supervising) community work by the young person
may attend an FGC. The Act also allows for community representatives to attend if requested to by theor family group. Additionally, the Youth Justice Co-ordinator can invite any
young person’s family, wh anau
persons who are able to provide relevant information to attend the FGC. Given that one of the policies of the
Act emphasizes reintegration of the young person within his or her community, relevant information could
include a community perspective on the young person, his or her offending and a proposed plan. From apractical point of view, it is also common for a young person’s employer or perhaps a schoolteacher to attend
an FGC.
7. Youth Advocates
A Youth Advocate is a specialist legal practitioner whose appointment is funded through a public fund.
Funding is available regardless of the means of the young person and a Youth Advocate is appointed torepresent the young person. Youth Advocates are appointed where a young person appears before a Youth
Court charged with an offence and where no legal representation for the young person has been arranged, or
will be arranged. In practice it is rare for a young person to instruct external counsel and a Youth Advocate isusually appointed.
A weakness of the present statutory framework is that Youth Advocates are not appointed until charges
are laid although this sometimes occurs on an informal basis. In practical terms a young person may nothave a legal representative at the time of an ‘intention to charge’ FGC even though the young person may bein need of legal advice.
Youth Advocates should have knowledge of, and experience as required, with:••••

objects, principles and provisions of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, of theYouth Justice system, including restorative justice principles and practice, and of the criminal law;
specialist police practice as it applies to young offenders and the roles of the various participants in
the Youth Justice system;
ability to relate to and communicate with young persons and their families; andlocal cultural organizations, community groups, community resources and available education andtraining facilities.

A Youth Advocate’s role is to:••68

discuss the legal nature and implications of the charge and any possible defences with the young
person and his or her family;
liaise with police in relation to any amendments to the Summary of Facts and ensure the correct
charge is laid;

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•••

appear in Court on the young person’s behalf, indicating whether or not the young person intends todeny the charge;
defend the young person if a charge is denied; andattend an FGC if a charge is admitted; represent the young person there (including advocating
decisions, recommendations and plans that are reasonable from the perspective of the young person
and, in cases where families are very hard on a young person, afford him or her some protection).

8. Lay Advocates
As well as a Youth Advocate, the Court may, at its own discretion or in response to an application byanyone entitled to make representations in the proceedings, appoint a Lay Advocate to support a young
person in Youth Court proceedings.48 Lay Advocates are individuals of standing within a young person’s
culture and their representation is expected to be cultural rather than legal. To date, the appointment of Lay
Advocates in the Youth Court has been rare.
9. Social Workers
Social Workers come into the Youth Justice process in most cases after the FGC has been held.49 Theirrole involves:••••

liaising with the community, education and training agencies (with a view to rehabilitation);arranging counselling for the young person (or for members of his or her family), where necessary;monitoring the outcomes of an FGC including, but not limited to, a young person’s performance ofany decisions, recommendations or plans; andpreparing Social Worker reports if requested under the CYPF Act.

C. Family Group Conference Plans
An integral part of the decision-making at FGCs is to devise and come to a consensus about the contents
of a plan which reflects the principles laid down in the CYPF Act.50 There are no other legislative or formal
or informal prescriptions for FGC plans. The established processes merely provide the platform on which
creative and individualized resolutions are formulated. There are consequently no limitations on theimagination and ideas of the group and this is, in many ways, the strength of the system.
All members of the FGC (including the young person) are encouraged to agree to the proposed
diversionary programme, and its implementation is essentially consensual. When designed by the offender,
victim and community, the plan is most likely to be realistic and to reflect the resources and support
available to the parties.51 For 95% of cases, FGC-recommended outcomes involve accountability measuresof some kind.52 Plans commonly include an apology and/or reparation to the victim (whether financial or via
work done for the victim), community service requirements, counselling and rehabilitation programmes andeducational requirements. Plans may also include a curfew and/or an undertaking to not associate with cooffenders. The Court accepts most recommendations or plans and if the plan is carried out no formal Court
order is imposed.53 Formal orders are, however, available if the plan is not carried out.54
Where the young person has been arrested the Court must refer all matters not denied by the young
person to an FGC which recommends to the Court how the matter should be dealt with. Occasionally an
FGC recommends a formal sanction to be imposed by the Court. The plan is supervised by the persons
nominated in the plan, which can be any person, including a family member, with the Court usually being
48 Lay Advocates are paid out of a public fund established for the purpose.
49 Generally, a Social Worker may attend an FGC only at the invitation of the participants at the FGC, unless it is a care andprotection FGC or the child or young person is already in CYFS custody.
50 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s 260(2); the principles are set out in s 208 of the same Act.
51 His Honour, (former) Chief District Court Judge of New Zealand, D. J. Carruthers Restorative Justice and Juvenile Justice: A
Comparison of the Singapore and New Zealand Experience, 2002, 17.
52 Maxwell, Kingi and Robertson Achieving the Diversion and Decarceration of Young Offenders in New Zealand, Crime andJustice Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, 2003, 11.
53 In this situation the young person is given an absolute discharge under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act
1989 (NZ), s 282.
54 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ), s283.

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

asked to adjourn proceedings, say for 3-4 months, to allow the plan to be implemented.
The Youth Court nearly always accepts these plans as it recognizes that the scheme of the Act places theprimary power of disposition with the FGC. Where a plan is not accepted or where the FGC is unable tocome to a consensus, a Youth Court judge will have to make the decision that the participants at the FGC
could not agree on.
It is usually in very serious cases that the FGC may not be able to reach agreement. The Court can
impose a range of sanctions. The most severe Court-imposed sanction is three months’ residence in a social
welfare institution followed by six months’ supervision; or the Court may convict and refer the young person
to the District Court for sentence, which could result in a sentence of imprisonment in certain cases.
As FGCs are a diversionary mechanism, where the plan is carried out as agreed the proceedings areusually withdrawn; however, if the plan is not carried out as agreed the Youth Court can intervene to impose
its own sanctions. Thus the Court acts as both a backstop (where FGC plans break down) and a filter (forpatently unsatisfactory recommendations).55
There can be a tendency for Youth Court judges to be presented with uniform plans.56 Similarity of plans
devised at FGCs (apology, reparation payment, and community work) tends to suggest something of a ‘cutand paste’ approach by the Youth Justice professionals involved. Youth Court Judges can address this issue
by sending plans back for a more creative application of participants’ minds to the specific young person andhis or her offending behaviour.
Other difficulties with FGC plans arise through a lack of proper psychological, psychiatric, education andhealth assessments to identify the complex issues that a young offender may face and a lack of resources
such as comprehensive residential and other rehabilitative drug and alcohol programmes, youth forensic
services, and special education services for the persistent truant or chronically non-enrolled young person.
Poor monitoring of FGC plans can result in unnecessary delays and repeat Court appearances. Youngpeople may be left to ‘get on with’ plans that they are uncertain how to commence or require
encouragement to fulfil. While Police Youth Aid is good at enforcement of its own diversion schemes, thesame is not always true with regard to FGC programmes.57 Most families need considerable help, forinstance in identifying and arranging community work. When a plan provides for a Youth Justice social
worker to assist with aspects of a plan, there can be difficulties and delays in appointing a social worker
because of a lack of resources.

D. Plans in Practice
The attempt to specifically address a youth’s offending can result in a very individualized plan. This is
one of the strengths of the FGC. The following extract is from a report by a Youth Aid Officer charged with
monitoring one of the components of an FGC Plan, namely to give a school talk:58 “A young person involvedin assaulting a boy along with two others agreed to give a school talk as part of his FGC plan. The talk, at
Lower Hutt College, was given to around 400 junior school pupils. The school chaplain and youth worker
asked the teen the following questions and the young person responded in his own words:
1. People deal with differences in many ways. Does violence achieve anything?
2. Is there anything wrong with being different? Why?
3. Why do you think it’s hard to deal with differences?
4. You have, in the past, made some choices that haven’t been helpful to you when faced with differences.
Would you change some of your choices now looking back? Why?

55 Judge F.W.M. McElrea, The New Zealand Model of Family Group Conferences, a paper prepared for the International

Symposium “Beyond Prisons”: Best Practices Along the Criminal Justice Process, March 15-18, 1998, Queen’s University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
56 Note this is also a recognized deficiency in some approaches to devising alternative action plans as discussed earlier.
57 Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft Children and Young People in Conflict with the Law: Asking the Hard
Questions, XVII World Congress of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, Belfast 2006.
58 “Court in the Act” November 2006 No 25.

70

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

His uncle, senior school staff, student leaders and the Youth Aid Officer supported the young person onstage. Members of the young person’s Youth Group were also present. One of the victims was at the school
talk and at the end, the young person apologized directly to him again. It was very effective and the school
was able to witness genuine respect from both sides. The young person and the victim shook hands
afterwards but the second victim had already left college and was not present at the talk. The Youth Aid
Officer noted that the young person had his head up and was noticeably up-beat when it was over. She said:“All in all I would say it took five minutes, with the students listening attentively throughout. Fromobserving this and other less formal situations, I have found speech-giving a really useful tool (given theright circumstances). It’s good having some more creative ways to bring these kids through.””/
The boy is now almost 17 and has not re-offended. The Youth Aid Officer puts this down to good wh anaufamily support. The next extract is from a Youth Justice Co-ordinator reporting on an FGC:

“A young person is now under permanent “supervision” (at least morally) by his victim following a rather
unusual and moving FGC. The teen is a 16-year-old who has been in CYFS care since an early age and who
had previously appeared before the Youth Court. The teen was advised by his social worker that his recent
behaviour had been so good that, if it continued, CYFS would discharge him from his custody order.
Regrettably and inexplicably, a short time later the teen stole a handbag and ran away. He was chased andcaught by a member of the public. A Youth Court appearance followed and an FGC was directed. The victim
attended the FGC with her husband and two teenage daughters.
After the young person admitted the charge, the victim explained that the family had not attended the
FGC to seek retribution but to explore the potential the youth had and how he could use it to better himself.
The victim did not want any punitive sanctions and did not request any monetary reparation. The teenpresented the victim with some flowers and genuinely and sincerely apologized.
After private family deliberations it was decided that the teen should pay $100 to a charity of the victim’s
choice. The victim returned and refused the idea. She then took an envelope out of her handbag, walked
across the room and asked the youngster if he would accept the contents of the envelope. She explained theenvelope contained the money that had been in the handbag at the time it was stolen and that her family
would be grateful if he would accept it as a gesture from them that there are more important things in life
than money. Not surprisingly, the teenager was speechless. He then spent ten minutes alone with thevictim’s family and is now “tied” to the victim, who will be taking an ongoing interest in his life.”
An Administrative Youth Court Judge reported on the following outcome of an FGC.59 The young person
had been facing charges of careless driving causing death and was over the legal limit for alcohol at the timeof the accident.
[family] heard how the 16-year-old driver had tried“At a Family Group Conference the victim’s wh anau
to drive home after drinking seven or eight large bottles of beer. His car struck the victim who was walking
beside the road, throwing him ten metres through the air and he died a short time later at the scene. The
youth stopped further down the road to inspect his car and, thinking he had hit a bank or a possum,
continued on his way home.

The young person was charged with careless driving causing death - a charge with a maximum penalty of
three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine and disqualification for at least six months. Drivers found guiltyof this offence do not usually receive a sentence of imprisonment. The young person was also charged withfailing to stop and ascertain injury and failing to render assistance after the accident.
The resulting FGC was very emotional and charged with regret but, despite their huge loss, the victim’s
family insisted that the youth should not do community work but should instead continue working andcomplete his apprenticeship.
The young person read out a letter of apology that was to be typed and presented to the dead man’s
wh anau
for inclusion in memorabilia to be presented at the Maumaharatanga (unveiling) of his headstone. It
59 “Court in the Act” October 2006 No. 24.

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

was agreed that the young person’s family would pay the $6,000 for the headstone for the “loving, hard
accepted an invitation from the victim’s wh anau
to beworking and respected father”. The offender’s wh anaupresent at the unveiling of the headstone.
The young person received a section 283(b) Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989
admonishment and was formally disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months.”
The following is a Youth Justice Co-ordinator’s account of an effective Family Group Conference.60“Four Samoan boys who participated in serious offences against youths unknown to them were arrested
and charged with wounding with intent to injure and robbery. The offences were completely unprovoked.
What was outstanding in this case was the way the boys decided to apologize to the victims and theirfamilies. In addition to making face-to-face apologies to the victims and their families at the FGCs, theyarranged and prepared a dinner for the victims and their families, their own families, the Youth Aid Officer,
Youth Advocates and CYF staff. They also put on a concert at the dinner. The songs they chose to sing were
popular tunes but they changed and personalized the words to show the level of remorse and sorrow theyfelt for the victims and their families. The show was videotaped and many who have seen the tape areamazed by the efforts the four young people have put into their apology. Judge Becroft heard about the video
and requested permission to play it in Youth Court.
The apologies were accepted by the victims and their families. The plan for each young person stipulated
other activities such as anger management training, community service, reparation, and the provision of
mentors to support change. As a result of the FGCs and the efforts the boys have put in, three of the four
offenders have completed their plans and received a section 282 discharge. One has continued to offend andmore effort is required to bring about change.
This is a story about how Youth Justice Co-ordinators can respond to innovative and creative ways young
people have for addressing the hurt they have caused. The preparing and sharing of a meal is entirely
relevant to the Samoan culture and enabled the boys to utilize the knowledge, experience and wisdom of
their culture to show remorse for what they had done. It did not minimize the offences but required the boys
to walk in the shoes of their victims to understand the hurt they inflicted.”
The following account demonstrates the participation possible in FGCs.
“Thirty-two people including the young person, his family, five victims and their support people attended
a Family Group Conference for a 15-year old facing eight charges of indecent assault. A further three victims
did not attend but the young person and his parents had written apology letters to each of the victims.
All charges were admitted and the Court-directed FGC decided that the young person should complete
80 hours of community work and work with a psychologist to address his sexually inappropriate behaviours.
Child, Youth and Family Services was requested to provide half the funding for a psychologist and the young
person’s parents were to provide the other half.
Because the offending took place at public swimming pools, the FGC decided that the young person
should not attend public swimming pools for a specified period. Further, because one young victim had
withdrawn from a swimming competition at short notice due to being indecently assaulted, and theswimming club had been forced to pay the competition fee of over $300, the young person was to pay thisamount plus pay a donation to a local swimming association. Money for reparations and donations was tocome from $500 the young person had saved towards buying himself a scooter and the securing of a parttime job. The young person also faced a ban on alcohol and non-prescribed drugs for the duration of the FGC
plan and on-going monitoring as to his whereabouts outside school hours and family activities. Each factor
agreed to included a detailed plan for implementation and monitoring.”
The following extract provides an account of how the young person and the specialized professionals
60 “Court in the Act” March 2006 No. 21.

72

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

experienced a Court-directed FGC after the young person admitted the charges against her.61“A 16-year-old was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery. Potentially she could have faced asentence of imprisonment and a criminal record. But today, thanks to her own efforts and the hard work of
those who supported her, she now faces a bright future and is living offence-free in the community.
The Youth Justice Co-ordinator with Child, Youth and Family Services says the youth justice system aims
to hold young people accountable while also helping them avoid reoffending and that “evidence shows thatonce young people have a criminal record they are much more likely to re-offend and have poor life
outcomes. This young person is a very intelligent, resourceful young woman – she could be or do whatever
she set her mind on and we wanted to help make sure she got the chance to do that, while still being
accountable for her actions”.
The Police Youth Aid Officer in the region the young person is from says she was a first time offender
who was not well known to Police Youth Aid before facing the serious charge of aggravated robbery. Afterbeing arrested by Police Youth Aid, the Youth Court appointed a Youth Advocate to represent the young
person who commented that: “Youth Advocates are appointed by the Youth Court to represent young
persons appearing before the Court. Youth Advocates ensure that due process is followed and are a checkand balance on the youth justice system. A key part of that role is also to ensure that the interests of ourclients (young persons), those most vulnerable participants in our criminal justice system, are protected. We
must also ensure that they understand what is happening. The role includes a combination of advising in
relation to the legal aspects of the particular case and also in relation to the process itself.”
The Youth Court ordered a Family Group Conference for the young person, her family, her victim and thevarious agencies involved. The young person said the Family Group Conference was one of the hardest
experiences of her life. “The Family Group Conference was really hard; it was the first time I’d been throughsomething like that. Before going to the conference I felt stuck, like I couldn’t see the way forward. One of
my victims came to the conference. Seeing her was heart-pounding; I was really tense. I gave written
apologies to my victims and a verbal apology to the one who attended the conference. For me, the verbal
apology was the hardest thing ever. I didn’t want to do it but I knew I needed to, that it was the right thing to
do. After the FGC we shook hands; that was pretty great.” And of the recommendations the FGC came up
with she said: “The recommendations were there for me to show I was remorseful, to be accountable forwhat I’d done. They were really hard! I had to follow my bail conditions and go to counselling. I had to go live
in another place and I had to pay reparation for the damage I’d done. Going away was really hard, I missed
my family and home. But I felt really lucky with the people I went to stay with, they made me feel safe andwelcomed. It was a hard thing but a good idea; it gave me time to think.”
The Youth Justice Co-ordinator says this particular FGC was an example of why FGCs work for young
people. “Her family was prepared to hold her accountable for her offending, and to support her to not reoffend. Her family’s commitment made all the difference to the outcomes for her. At the conference she, herfamily, her victim and the agencies agreed to a plan for her. The plan was not an easy ride for her but she
stuck to it.”All the specialized professionals emphasize how important co-operation between the various agencies isin supporting young people to be accountable for their offending and to live law-abiding lives. “This case isan example of the youth justice system doing what it is designed to do. She was held accountable but wasalso given a chance. Youth Aid sees itself as part of the youth justice team, it’s about getting the rightoutcome for everyone - the victim, the young person, the family. The only way we can achieve this is by all
the agencies working together.”
The young person was given several months to carry out the FGC recommendations and was monitoredby the Youth Court during that time. After several months she appeared in the Youth Court for all thematters to be determined. The Youth Advocate explains: “The last appearance was very emotional. The
outcome still needed to be determined and was not guaranteed. After detailed questioning by the Youth
61 Child, Youth and Family’s magazine, “Awhi Mai, Awhi Atu” reproduced in “Court in the Act”, December 2005, No. 20.

73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Court judge and confirmation that all matters had been completed the police consented to a discharge. Afterthe discharge was granted and the young person was free to go, she took the opportunity to personally thankher family, those who had assisted her, and in particular, the Youth Aid Officer and the Youth Court Judge.
This included a handshake for the judge.”
Principal Youth Court Judge Becroft was the presiding Youth Court judge and he acknowledged theenormous effort put in by the young person’s family and the youth justice agencies involved. He alsocommented on the commitment shown by the young person herself to follow her FGC plan to the letter.
Judge Becroft stressed that this was just the beginning for her, not the end, and that the foundations had
been laid for her to go on successfully.
The Youth Advocate saw this case as one of the many successes of the youth justice system but that
“regrettably it is only the high profile failures that seem to make it into the news media. The outcome forthis young person was the right outcome, and, without doubt, a successful outcome.””IV. OTHER INITIATIVES IN THE NEW ZEALAND YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM
A. Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot
Alcohol and drug abuse are often significant factors underpinning youth offending. The Christchurch
Youth Drug Court Pilot has been run through the Christchurch District Court and aims to facilitate better
service delivery for young people with drug and alcohol dependencies in an effort to reduce their offending.
The Pilot targets young offenders appearing at Youth Court who have been identified as having moderate tosevere alcohol and/or other drug dependency that is linked to their offending (note that all sexual offending
and some types of violent offending are excluded). The offences must have either been proved or not denied
in the Youth Court to trigger participation and the offender must be regarded as a recidivist offender (having
appeared two or more times in the Youth Court in the preceding twelve month period). The Youth Drug
Court essentially provides an augmented Youth Court process in that it suspends the formal disposition of
the case until the young person has successfully completed a drug and alcohol programme or has beendischarged back to the Youth Court or to the District Court as applicable. Family Group Conferences are an
essential part of the process and young people involved in the Youth Drug Court are expected to achieve thegoals as set out in the FGC recommendations. Participation in the Youth Drug Court is voluntary and young
people can choose at any time to withdraw from the scheme and to continue through the usual Youth Court
process.
Evaluations of the Youth Drug Court62 have suggested that the following strong features would beapplicable to and could be adopted in the Youth Court itself:•

The same judge deals with the young person at each of his or her Court appearances.

•

Close monitoring of the young person to ensure compliance with FGC plans and any Court orders(normally in the form of bail conditions) by a multidisciplinary team including representatives ofseveral government agencies.

•

Involvement of the young person in a range of positive, socially normal activities that will replacealcohol and drug activity, such as education, work and sport.

•

Involvement and training of families, partners and friends in effective supervision, discipline andcommunication so that the people closest to the young person can encourage and support them inchanging their lives.

B. The Youth Offending Strategy
In April 2002, in response to the Ministerial Taskforce on Youth Offending conducted by then Principal
Youth Court Judge David Carruthers, the New Zealand Government released a Youth Offending Strategy,
which has an overall goal of preventing and reducing offending and reoffending by children and young people.
The following groups, established at a national level, oversee youth justice service delivery:
62 Dr. Sue Carswell “Process Evaluation of the Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot”, Ministry of Justice, 2004.

74

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Youth Justice Ministers’ Group

Youth Justice Leadership Group

Youth Justice Independent
Advisory Group

Youth Offending Teams
Lines of communication identified

1. The Youth Justice Leadership Group
This group comprises national policy and operational managers from the Ministries of Justice, Social
Development, Health and Education; the Department of Child, Youth and Family; New Zealand Police; andthe Department for Courts. The Group’s key responsibilities are to monitor the implementation of the Youth
Offending Strategy, to identify and promote best practice, to conduct data analysis and identify trends, tobalance policy concerns with operational practicalities, to ensure community interests are heard andresponded to, and to develop a strategic focus for the Youth Justice sector.
2. The Youth Justice Ministers’ Group
This group receives regular reports from the Youth Justice Leadership Group on the performance of thelocal teams, on progress towards implementing the Youth Offending Strategy, and on any emerging strategic
issues. The core Ministers of the Group are the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Services andEmployment while the Ministers of Police, Courts, Education, Health, Ma#ori Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs
and Youth Affairs are consulted as appropriate.
3. The Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group
This group provides independent advice to the Ministers’ Group and the Youth Justice Leadership Group.
It is a small specialist group drawn from youth justice practitioners and community representatives outside
Government, and is chaired by Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft.
4. The Youth Offending Teams
These aim to improve the operation of the Youth Justice system and to encourage the four core agencies,
New Zealand Police; Child, Youth and Family Services; the Ministry of Health; and the Ministry of
Education, to facilitate discussion, identify local issues, and to support best practice. Youth Offending Teams
operate in most parts of New Zealand to co-ordinate the services that address offending by children andyoung people.

C. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
The following excerpts detail examples of initiatives and strategies adopted by various YOTs around New
Zealand since the introduction of the Youth Offending Strategy.
1. Youth Justice Referral Form
To assist practitioners to get the ‘big picture’ in relation to young offenders’ lives, one Youth Aid Division
designed a youth justice referral form to collate details about the young person’s offending history, living

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

arrangements, and employment and education situation. Initially, the referral form included standard
questions, such as name and date of birth, and a series of risk assessment questions. Ongoing evaluation of
the referral form resulted in modifications to reflect the Adolescent Risks and Needs Inventory (ARNI)
Screening Tool developed by the Police National Office.
The referral form and the ARNI Screening Tool are filled out by Police Youth Aid for every young personreferred to Police Youth Aid. “The screening tool provides us with a good indication of whether a young
person is likely to continue offending or whether they are a one-off offender”, explained one Youth Aid
Officer. “The screening tool complements and validates the instincts you develop as a Police Youth Aid
Officer”.
When police believe a Family Group Conference needs to be held, the completed referral form and the
ARNI Screening Tool are sent to the local Youth Justice Co-ordinator. The ARNI Screening Tool is a usefuland other community
tool for assisting the Youth Justice Co-ordinator when consulting with family/wh anau
and statutory agencies. By seeing which ‘risk factors’ exist in the young person’s life, the Youth Justice Coordinator is able to assess whether the young person is likely to continue to offend without some form oftargeted intervention, such as drug and alcohol counselling.
At the same time as it is sent to the Youth Justice Co-ordinator, the referral form and screening tool arealso emailed to the health and education members of the YOT. The health and education members are asked
to provide any information that they may hold on the young person or their family to the Youth Justice Coordinator. This ensures that the Youth Justice Co-ordinator has a full picture of all the factors in the young
person’s life and any services they may have received in the past prior to the family group conference.
2. Youth Court Practice
One of the issues identified by this YOT was a concern with the physical layout of the Youth Court. The
Youth Court was originally set up with Youth Advocates on one side of the room, police and Child, Youth andFamily Services staff on the other side, and the young person and his or her family in the middle. Whenevera Youth Advocate had to leave the courtroom (which regularly occurred), they were forced to shuffle past the
young person and his or her family, which disrupted the proceedings.
The solution to the problem involved a simple redesign of the layout of the courtroom to make it morefriendly. The Youth Advocate is now able to stand with the young person
functional and family or wh anau
whoduring proceedings and the judge has an unobstructed view of the young offender and his or her wh anau
are seated in the public gallery at the back of the Court. This has enabled better dialogue between the judge, and at the same time has not excluded the other Court participants from the process.
and the wh anau
Timeliness of reports for the Court was also reported as a major concern in the YOT survey. It had beencommon practice for social worker reports to be delivered at 10am on the court day, leaving no time for theother parties to read the report and consider the findings. Child, Youth and Family Services accepted thatdelivering the reports within hours of the statutory timeframe was unacceptable practice, and the Social
Worker Supervisor agreed to take responsibility for ensuring that all reports were delivered within areasonable timeframe. The Supervisor set up a new system for monitoring completion of the reports, andnow acts as a single point of contact for other agencies querying when a report will be available. The system
has been very successful, and social worker reports are now consistently provided at least two days before
the court day.
The YOT also identified an issue in relation to bail conditions imposed on young people appearing before
the Youth Court. Concern had been expressed that some bail conditions were difficult to monitor andenforce. Commonly, this was in relation to curfew orders where the young person had to be at homebetween certain hours, unless with a particular relative. As a result, police sometimes had to drive to two or
three different locations to determine whether the young person was complying with his or her bailconditions. The relevant members of the YOT resolved the issue by simply raising it at the Youth Court
Liaison meeting, and bringing it to the attention of the presiding judge.

76

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

3. Truancy Initiative
This YOT identified truancy as a major concern of all YOT members. A Truancy Sub-committee wasestablished and set up “Operation Educate”. This programme focuses on ‘hot spots’ and involves police
officers stopping and questioning children found out of school between 9am and 3pm. The YOT has asked for
co-operation from local shops, including takeaway outlets, to refuse to serve school-age children during
school hours.
Education representatives of the YOT identified the need to work with local principals, as there was nocohesion between high schools in dealing with school absences. Meetings were held with local principals anda local pass system was established. The pass system is an excellent example of local collaboration. Since
the system has been established, police and truancy officers have had a far easier job of distinguishing
between students who are legitimately out of school grounds, and those who are truant.
As the YOT developed these initiatives, members of the wider community increasingly came to realizethat truancy is not the responsibility of any one organization or service, but rather rests with numerous
agencies working collaboratively to address the diverse issues.
4. Anger Management Initiative
Anger management has also been a key concern for one YOT which identified that many of the young
people appearing before the Youth Court or receiving police diversion have anger management problems
that directly contribute to their offending.
After surveying the anger management programmes available in the area, the YOT concluded that there
was nothing suitable for young people. The current programmes were generally not long enough and were
too expensive.
In response to this the YOT called a public meeting, which was well attended, to seek support from local
service providers to develop two new anger management programmes, specifically designed for young
people. Two well-established providers were selected to develop proposals.
The first programme developed is targeted at young people with the highest level of need. The
programme runs for 12 weeks. The first week of the programme is residential to allow for intensive workwith the young person, and during the following weeks the young person attends the programme between
8am and 5pm. The programme takes a holistic approach, with anger management as one component of theoverall programme.
The second programme is targeted at young people who have had their offending dealt with in a FamilyGroup Conference or through police diversion. The programme runs for 22 weeks for approximately twohours per week.
5. Mentoring
This YOT has initiated and continued to support a mentoring programme for young people who are
offending or are at risk of offending and aims to provide these young people with a structured and supportive
one-to-one friendship with an interested adult. Mentors are volunteers from the local community and are
expected to be positive role models, who make time for the young person to guide, listen, and model
consistent positive behaviour. Mentors identify the interests and strengths of the young person, encourage
participation and link him or her to positive groups and activities in the community. Mentors must also
communicate any concerns to the programme supervisors. Group events and activities are held either
monthly or bi-monthly to enhance the mentoring relationship. These include adventure-based activities, andcultural, art, and music-based activities.

V. CONCLUSION
Different jurisdictions have different ways in which they attempt to deal with their young offenders. New
Zealand has an emphasis on diversion, with particular attention being paid to having a youth offender being
held accountable for their offending. There is a strong emphasis placed on restorative justice with an attempt

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

to put things right for the victim. This is carried out via the FGC. The belief in New Zealand is that where
the offender admits their offending, attends an FGC, expresses remorse and gives an indication they will not
re-offend, then there is a greater likelihood they will not re-offend. Statistics on this view are not at thisstage compelling. However, on the other hand, there is more to life and preventing the risk of reoffending
than bald statistics.

78

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

APPENDIX I
Flowchart of Youth Court/Youth Justice System

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

APPENDIX II
Youth Court Process – Purely Indictable Offences/Election of Jury Trial

80

ADVANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT OFJUVENILE OFFENDERS
Dr. Robert D. Hoge*

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an introduction to best practices in the assessment and treatment of juvenile
offenders. Many of the guidelines presented in the paper derive from recent theory and research incriminology and psychology. Much of that research has been conducted in Western societies, and it remains
to be seen to what extent conclusions from that research can generalize beyond those settings. However,clinical experience suggests that many of the principles of best practice do have application across a broad
range of cultures.
This paper reflects a child welfare and rehabilitation orientation toward the treatment of the juvenile
offender. As explained below, current theory and research from psychology and criminology support theposition that juvenile justice systems focusing on the identification and amelioration of criminogenic deficits
in youth and their circumstances produce more positive outcomes than other approaches, including those
focusing on punitive sanctions. As well, the implications of the child welfare and rehabilitation model for thetreatment of youth are fully consistent with the UNICEF Guiding Principles for Organizations andIndividuals Dealing with Child Welfare and the United Nations Convention on the Child.
The paper begins with a discussion of alternative approaches to the treatment of offenders within
juvenile justice systems. This is followed by a brief introduction to contemporary theory and research on thecauses and correlations of youth crime and the most efficacious approaches for addressing this serious
problem. A discussion of best practices in the assessment of juvenile offenders is then presented. This
includes an identification of some useful assessment instruments and procedures as well as practicalguidelines in the conduct of assessments. The following section presents a discussion of effective strategies
for case planning and management, including the identification of evidence-based treatments.

II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Comparing juvenile justice systems across societies reveals considerable variations in philosophy, goals,
practices, and attitudes (Winterdyk, 2002). Even within systems we often encounter variety and ambiguity
about practices. For example, Canadian provinces, while all governed by the same federal Youth Criminal
Justice Act, display some differences in the actual treatment of the offender.
While something of an oversimplification, juvenile justice systems can be characterized in terms of acontinuum ranging from a child welfare and rehabilitation orientation to a crime control or punitiveorientation (Corrado, 1992). The following is an elaboration based on that continuum.

A. Child Welfare and Rehabilitation Model
This model accepts controlling antisocial behaviour in young people as its goal, and the fundamental
assumption of the model is that this can be best achieved by enhancing their behavioural and emotional
competencies and by addressing deficits in their environment. This model is generally implemented within aformal justice system, but there may be less emphasis on legal processing and more concern with providing
rehabilitative interventions. Legal sanctioning and punishment generally play a smaller role in systems
guided by child welfare concerns than those located closer to the crime control end of the continuum. The
system often reflects a parens patriae concept whereby the state reserves a right to assume responsibility
for the well-being of the young person.
* Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Distinguished Research Professor, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

B. Corporatist Model
This model has been presented by Corrado (1992), Corrado & Turnbull (1992), and Pratt (1989) as avariation on the Child Welfare Model. The model shares with the latter an emphasis on interventions aimed
at specific deficits in the youth and his or her environment but departs from the Child Welfare Model byemphasizing the importance of integrating all services for children, whether they originate in the judicial orchild welfare systems:“The Corporatist Model emphasizes not the role of police (according to the Crime Control Model), nor
the role of lawyers (according to the Justice Model), nor the role of social workers and other helping
professions (according to the Welfare Model), but rather the role of all of these groups acting in aninteragency structure which efficiently diverts minor offenders, requires less serious property offenders andviolent offenders to participate in attendance programs and sentences the few serious offenders to custodial
institutions.” (Corrado & Turnbull, 1992, p. 77)
The key to this model, then, is an emphasis on the integration of services for the young person and thediversion of youths from the justice system. The Corporatist Model represents an ideal type of system forthose who embrace a child welfare and rehabilitation orientation and who are critical of the fragmented
system of youth services seen in many jurisdictions. It is difficult to identify systems representing pureforms of a Corporatist Model, although the systems in Scotland and the Canadian province of Quebec at least
approach this ideal.

C. Modified Justice Model
This model combines elements of both the Child Welfare and Justice Models. It reflects a child welfare
orientation by recognizing that the control of youth crime depends ultimately on providing young people
with the resources to lead a pro-social lifestyle, and that this is best achieved through the provision of
prevention and intervention programmes. On the other hand, these rehabilitation efforts are delivered in thecontext of a legal system with its concerns for legal rights and judicial processing.
There is clearly an inherent tension within this model, and this concerns the relative emphasis placed on
the child welfare and judicial processing components. There may also be pressure in this type of model
toward the crime control end of the continuum, with its concern for immediate measures to control crime.
Manifestations of this tension may be seen in the American, Canadian, and British juvenile justicesystems over the past 10 or 20 years. To illustrate, juvenile offenders in Canada were governed until 1984
by the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. The latter reflected a modified justice orientation but with a strong
child welfare component. It was based on a parens patriae orientation where the youth was denied basic legal
rights and where it was assumed that the court would look after their best interests. There was some use ofcustodial sanctions for serious crimes, but the general approach was to attempt to intervene to remove
whatever factors were contributing to the delinquency.
This act was replaced in 1984 by the Young Offenders Act which, while retaining some aspects of thechild welfare and rehabilitation orientations, provided for protection of the legal rights of the youth andintroduced judicial processing procedures similar to those of the adult system. Implementation of this act
resulted in reductions in the use of rehabilitative interventions and increases in the use of legal sanctions,
including probation and custody. This in turn has been supplanted by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003)
which, while enhancing punitive sanctions for very serious crimes, places emphasis on diversion andrehabilitative services for less serious offenders.

D. Justice Model
The focus in this model shifts from a concern for the needs of the individual offender and towards thecriminal act and appropriate legal responses to that act. The principal goals in this case are to ensure that thecivil rights of the youth are protected, that prescribed legal procedures are observed, and that a disposition
appropriate to the crime is achieved.
Juvenile justice systems reflecting this orientation will vary somewhat in terms of legal processing
procedures, but the major source of variation probably concerns sanctioning procedures. The latter generally
involves debates about the relative value of individual deterrence, group deterrence, or punishment as the82

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

primary purpose of sentencing. Similarly, there is always debate in this type of system over the extent towhich diversion, probation, or custody sanctions should be employed. There may be some provision forrehabilitation efforts in this type of system, but, because of the concern for due process, participation isusually voluntary.

E. Crime Control Model
This model shares with the previous model a dependence on formal legal processing procedures.
However, while the focus in the Justice Model is on legal rights and procedures, the primary concern in thismodel is with the use of legal sanctions against offenders to ensure protection of society. There is, then, lessconcern with the individual offender in this model than in any of the others. Feld (1999), Schwartz (1992),
and other observers have noted shifts in the direction of this orientation in many communities in the UnitedStates. It is also a model that guides the treatment of juveniles in many jurisdictions throughout the world(Winterdyk, 2002).
Both this and the preceding model derive largely from the Classical Theory of Crime. Criminal acts are
viewed as willful, representing moral transgressions. The only appropriate response to these acts is to
impose criminal sanctions, preferably involving incarceration. While more minor cases might be dealt withthrough diversion procedures, there is generally little concern in this approach with rehabilitation efforts.

F. Preferred Model
While arguments can be developed for and against all of the models described above, the fundamental
assumption underlying this paper is that current theory and research supports a child welfare andrehabilitation orientation as the optimal means for addressing antisocial behaviour in youth. Ideally, this will
be delivered in the larger context of the education, mental health, and social service systems (Corporatist
Model), but it can be delivered in the context of a Justice Model as long as the primary focus is on addressing
deficits and needs in the young person. Note that implementing such a strategy does not run counter toholding the youth accountable for his or her actions. Accountability does not require harsh punishment. It
can take the form of close supervision, some restrictions of privileges, restitution, or other action that does
not interfere with rehabilitation goals.
III. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CONTEMPORARY THEORY AND RESEARCH
We are fortunate that we are now able to draw on a considerable body of theory and research from both
criminology and psychology to guide us in our management of youthful offenders. One body of research
derives from developmental psychology which is giving us valuable clues regarding the conditions
contributing to the appearance of antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents (see Lahey, Moffitt, &Caspi, 2003; Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998). Also useful are broad, integrative models such as those
proposed by Andrews and Bonta (2006), Catalano and Hawkins (1996), and Elliott and Menard (1996).
Research from criminology and forensic psychology is important because of guidance regarding factors
specifically associated with criminal behaviour and evaluations of alternative strategies (see Guerra, Kim, &Boxer, forthcoming; Krisberg & Howell, 1998; Lipsey, 1995, 2006; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). The following
are discussions of some of the more important conclusions from this work.

A. General Conclusions from the Research and Theory
While there remain unanswered questions about youth crime and areas of controversy continue to exist,
it is possible to state some general conclusions from this body of research.
1. Efficacy of Early Prevention Efforts
There is now ample evidence from evaluation research that early prevention efforts, as long as they arecarefully targeted, begun early enough, and reflect best practices, can be effective in reducing negative
outcomes in childhood and adolescence. The evidence is particularly strong in the case of early
compensatory education and headstart type programmes. The best of these programmes can produce
positive results regarding antisocial behaviour, school drop-out, and employment success many years after
they are delivered (e.g. Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). There is also evidence for the effectivenessof carefully targeted behavioural interventions for children at risk of criminal activity delivered during theearly childhood years (Offord, Chimura-Kraemer, Kazdin, Jensen, & Harrington, 1998; Tremblay & Craig,1995). For example, a group of Canadian researchers has shown that a family and school-based intervention

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

programme directed toward boys showing conduct problems during the pre-school years can be effective in
reducing the likelihood they will continue to develop antisocial behaviour during later childhood andadolescence (Tremblay et al. 1995).
2. Ineffectiveness of Punitive Sanctions
Evaluation research demonstrates conclusively that punitive sanctions such as incarceration, shock
incarceration, or boot camps do not have positive effects on reoffending rates (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Lipsey, 1995; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). This research shows that under some circumstances, and for someyouth, incarceration produces small decreases in reoffending rates. In most cases, however, imprisonment isassociated with increased reoffending rates. There are likely a number of reasons for this. For one thing,incarceration of youth is generally not accompanied by meaningful interventions directed toward the deficits
placing them at risk of criminal activity. Second, congregating antisocial youth together will generally havethe effect of increasing the risk level of lower risk youth.
3. Efficacy of Appropriate Interventions
The reviews and meta-analyses cited above clearly support the conclusion that interventions reflecting
best practices and delivered with integrity can be effective in addressing youth crime and reducing theprobability of reoffending. Note two important qualifications included in this conclusion. First, theintervention or treatment strategies we use must reflect proven intervention strategies. We will review
these elements of best practice below. Second, the interventions based on best practice must be delivered
with integrity. In many cases strategies proven effective in other settings do not work because they are notdelivered well.
4. Cost Effectiveness of Interventions
A growing body of sophisticated cost/benefit research has become available and is showing that
programmes reflecting best practice and empirically shown as effective can also be cost effective (Aos,
Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001). In other words, money spent on these programmes can produce significant
savings later in reduced criminal activity, improved school and employment performance, better mental
health, etc. For example, the Functional Family Therapy programme for addressing problems of parenting
and family dynamics yields an average return of $28.34 for every $1.00 invested. Aggression Replacement
Training, a cognitive programme for addressing violence issues, yields on average a return of $45.91 forevery $1.00 spent.

B. Identification of Risk and Need Factors
Contemporary research has also made an important contribution by helping us identify the risk and needfactors associated with youthful criminal activity (see Heilbrun, Lee, & Cottle, 2005; Lipsey & Derzon,
1998; Loeber & Dishion, 1983). This work is important because it forms the basis for much of thesubsequent discussion of best practice.
Risk factors refer to characteristics of the youth or his or her circumstances that place him or her at riskof antisocial behaviour. Need factors refer to the subset of risk factors that can be changed throughinterventions, and, if changed, reduce the chances of future antisocial behaviour. These are sometimes
referred to as dynamic risk factors. To illustrate, a history of conduct disorder constitutes a risk factor;
youths who exhibit such a history are at higher risk of criminal behaviour than those who don’t. However,this is a historical variable and can’t be changed. Antisocial peer associations is another risk factor, but thiscan be considered a dynamic risk or need factor. We can intervene to reduce these associations, and, if we
succeed, will reduce the youth’s risk of reoffending (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge,
1990a; Hoge, 1999a for further discussions of these concepts).
Table 1 provides a summary of the major risk/need factors involved in juvenile criminal activity. These
are divided into two groups: proximal factors are those having a direct impact on the youth, while the distal
factors generally operate indirectly through the proximal factors.
Most research on risk and need factors has been conducted in Western societies, and a question can beraised about their generality across cultures. We do have support from research conducted in Western
societies that the factors are relevant for both boys and girls and for various cultural groupings within those84

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

societies. However, while their generality across geographically diverse cultures remains to be determined,clinical experience would suggest that they do have broad relevance.

Table 1
Major Risk/Need Factors
Proximal Factors
Antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs
Dysfunctional parenting
Dysfunctional behaviour and personality traits
Poor school/vocational achievement
Antisocial peer associations
Substance abuse
Poor use of leisure time
Distal Factors
Criminal/psychiatric problems in family of origin
Family financial problems
Poor accommodations
Negative neighbourhood environments

The identification of risk and need factors is important because of two evidence-based principles of bestpractice (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990a). The risk principle of case classification states that
intensive intervention services should be reserved for high risk cases, while lower risk cases should receive
less intensive services, or, in the case of youth with very few risk factors, no intervention at all. The needprinciple of case classification states that interventions should target the specific risk and need factors of the
youth. In other words, interventions should be individualized and tailored to the youth. These principles will
be explored more fully below.
One other concept should be introduced at this point, although there is less research on the issue.
Responsivity factors refer to characteristics of the youth or his or her circumstances that, while not directly
related to his or her criminal activity, should be taken into account in case planning. Examples include
reading ability, motivation to change, and emotional maturity. We can also include here strength or protective
factors, such as the availability of a co-operative parent or an interest in sport. The responsivity principle ofcase classification states that the choice of interventions should reflect these factors. For example, theyouth’s reading ability may not have an effect on his or her antisocial behaviour, but it would have to betaken into account in selecting a treatment programme requiring the comprehension of written materials.

C. Identification of Evidence-Based Best Practices and Evidence-Based Programmes
Evidence-based best practices refer to intervention strategies shown in evaluation research to be
associated with positive outcomes, including reduced reoffending rates. For example, research has
demonstrated that interventions targeting concrete behavioural and attitudinal problems are more effective
than those that focus on vaguely defined personality problems. Information about these best practices
provide us with general guidance in developing interventions. Evidence-based programmes, on the other
hand, are specific treatment programmes shown by research to be effective in addressing the needs of thejuvenile offender. An example is Aggression Replacement Training. Reviews and meta-analyses of both theevidence-based practice and evidence-based programme literatures are available from Andrews & Bonta,
2006; Guerra et al., forthcoming; Krisberg & Howell, 1998; Lipsey, 1995, 2006; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998.
These principles will be introduced in our discussion of assessment and case management issues.

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

IV. RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT PRACTICESThe careful assessment of the youth, including his or her risk, need, and responsivity characteristics, isimportant, and it is unfortunate that in so many juvenile justice systems there are either no assessment
procedures at all or, if they exist, they are based on very unsystematic clinical procedures. In fact, in mostcases assessments are conducted through brief, informal interviews with the youth. However, the researchcited above shows clearly that programmes employing structured and standardized assessment procedures
are more effective than those that do not. More specifically, the research shows that effective programmes
employ structured assessments of risk, need, and responsivity. This is an important evidence-based
principle of best practice.

A. Purposes of Assessment
Assessment involves collecting information about the youth and his or her circumstances, whether
through interviews, administration of formal tools, or reviews of file information. One purpose of this activity
is to form a risk assessment. That is, we want to evaluate the likelihood that the youth will continue toengage in some sort of antisocial behaviour. Evaluation of the youth’s level of risk is important because it
can have a bearing on the level of supervision security we might impose on the youth and because,
consistent with the risk principle, we should adjust the intensity of our interventions to level of risk. One
problem we encounter is that many risk assessments are based on informal procedures and on a narrow
range of risk factors (Hoge, 1999a, forthcoming: Hoge & Andrews, 1996; Wiebusch, Baird, Krisbert, &Onek, 1995). We will see below that considerable progress has been made in developing more valid risk
assessment tools.
The identification of needs relevant to the criminal activity constitutes another purpose of assessment,
and here we talk about needs assessment. Not only do we want to identify the factors placing the youth atrisk of criminal activity, but we also want to identify those risk factors that we can address to reduce thepropensity to engage in antisocial behaviour. These were identified earlier in Table 1. We will describe somerisk/needs instruments below that are designed to provide a broad assessment of criminogenic risk and needfactors.

B. Forms of Assessment Procedures and Instruments
Structured or standardized assessment procedures or instruments assume a wide variety of forms, but ingeneral they employ structured format, scoring, and interpretation procedures. The Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent are two standardized
instruments many will be familiar with.
A variety of types of standardized tests and procedures are of potential value in assessing offenders.
These include personality tests, behavioural checklists and rating scales, attitude measures, structured
interview schedules, and test measures of cognitive and academic competencies (see Hoge, 1999b; Hoge &Andrews, 1996; Sattler & Hoge, 2006). Some of these measures require special qualifications and expertiseand are normally used only by psychologists or other mental health professionals. These are appropriate
where the youth exhibits evidence of serious emotional or behavioural disorder and where a full mental
health assessment is recommended (see Appendix A for an example of a psychological assessment battery).
Other measures not requiring advanced mental health training can be useful in assessing the youthful
offender. Measures of behavioural and emotional disorders such as the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach& Edelbrock, 1983) and the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (Grisso & Barnum, 2003) andmeasures of antisocial attitudes such as the How I Think Questionnaire (Barriga, Gibbs, Potter, & Liau,
2001) are examples of measures that can be useful in gaining insight into the functioning of the youth. These
do require some training in administration and scoring but do not require an advanced degree.

C. Comprehensive Risk/Needs Measures
Standardized risk/needs instruments constitute another category of assessment tools, ones particularly
useful in juvenile justice systems. These are designed to evaluate the youth’s risk of reoffending and to
identify his or her needs (dynamic risk factors) to aid in case planning. A number of comprehensive
risk/needs measures have become available over the past few years (see Borum & Verhaagen, 2006; Grisso,Vincent, & Seagrave, 2005). These represent advances over the earlier, more primitive risk measures

86136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

because they are based on a wider range of risk variables and provide a focus on needs as well as risks.
Some of these are actuarial instruments yielding empirically based estimates of risk and need, while others
are standardized clinical instruments. All of these help synthesize information about the youth and can help
guide decisions about appropriate community or residential placements, level of supervision, and appropriate
treatments. These are designed for use by a range of service providers, including mental healthprofessionals, probation and parole officers, and child care workers. All do require some specialized training
in administering, scoring, and interpreting the measures. To illustrate, two of these measures will be
described.

The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge, 2005; Hoge & Andrews,2002) is a standardized actuarial measure providing estimates of risk of reoffending and a framework fordeveloping case plans based on a risk/needs assessment. The risk/needs section of the inventory contains
42 items reflecting characteristics of the youth (e.g., “truancy”, “chronic drug use”) or his or her
circumstances (e.g., “parent provides inadequate supervision”). The section yields an overall risk/needs
score and scores for the following domains: Prior and Current Offences/Dispositions; Family
Circumstances/Parenting; Education/Employment; Peer Relations; Substance Abuse; Leisure/Recreation;
Personality/Behaviour; and Attitudes/Orientation. An opportunity is also provided to indicate areas ofstrength. Subsequent sections provide formats for developing a case plan based on the risk/needs
assessment. Reliability and validity research has been reported for the measure. An application of themeasure will be described later in the paper.
The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism-2 (ERASOR; Worling & Curwen, 2001) isan example of a structured clinical assessment tool focusing on youthful sex offenders. It is designed toevaluate the risk of sexual reoffending on the part of individuals who have previously committed a sexualassault and to offer guidance in the development of treatment strategies. Twenty-five risk items are
represented, including “deviant sexual interest,” and “antisocial interpersonal orientation.” The assessor
categorizes the level of risk as low, moderate, or high based on the total number of items checked and theassessor’s judgments about the pattern of risk observed. Psychometric research has been reported for the
scale.
Other instruments in this category include the Early Assessment of Risk List for Boys (EARL-20B;
Augimeri, Koegl, Webster, & Levene, 2001); Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY;
Bartel, Borum, & Forth, 2005); and the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA; Barnoski,2004). Borum and Verhaagen, 2006 and Grisso et al., (2005) have provided extended discussions of thesemeasures.

D. Some Practical Considerations in Conducting Assessments
While assessments of the youth are critical to the process of dealing with the youthful offender, there are
a number of cautions to observe. First, it is important to employ the best standardized measures of risk,
need, and responsivity available. This involves keeping current with the literature. Second, and related, caremust be taken to ensure that individuals administering, scoring and interpreting the measures have therequired competencies and expertise. We have seen that some of the tools require advanced training in amental health field. Others do not, but they do require specialized training in using the procedures.
Ensuring that assessment instruments and procedures are appropriate to the purpose of the assessment
is also important. An instrument designed to estimate risk of general offending may not be useful inevaluating risk for violent offending. The appropriateness of the instrument for the youth being assessedshould also be considered. A psychological test proven valid for children ages 6 to 10 may not be appropriate
for an adolescent. Assuming that measures that work for adults will also apply to children is a common error.
Similarly, instruments appropriate for one cultural group may not be of value for those from another group.
This has to be established through research.
The sources of information on which the assessment is based must also be evaluated. An interview withthe youth is nearly always required, and the more thorough and probing that interview the better. The
following guides for conducting the interview are derived from Gratus (1988), Miller and Rollnick (2002),
and Sattler and Hoge (2006):

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

•
•
•
•
•
•

Establish rapport: Treating the youth with respect and expressing empathy will help in creating a
positive relationship.
Listen carefully: Eliciting good information from the client depends on listening carefully to what heor she has to say.
Remain objective: While the interviewer should maintain a positive attitude and treat the youth’s
responses in a respectful manner, this does not necessarily mean endorsing the youth’s responses.
Facilitate communication: Ensure that questions and responses are clearly understood by the youth.
Maintain control: The youth should be treated with consideration during the interview but notallowed to direct or divert the questioning.
Avoid argumentation: Engaging the youth in lengthy arguments and confronting the youth in a
hostile manner are usually counterproductive.

Interviews with collateral sources such as parents, teachers, or other professionals will be desirable aswell, as is the use of information from the youth’s school, the police, the probation office or other type of fileinformation. In general, the more information collected the better, although you will often be challenged with
the necessity of resolving contradictory data.
Ethical and legal issues are always involved in conducting assessments in juvenile justice settings (seeBorum and Verjaagen, 2006; Grisso et al., 2005; Hoge, forthcoming; Hoge and Andrews, 1996). Someguidelines will be imposed by professional associations within the jurisdiction. For example, the conduct of
psychological assessments in the United States is governed by procedures of the American Psychological
Association and state psychological associations. There will also be legal considerations. For example, theuse of risk/needs assessments in adjudication and disposition decisions can be very problematic. Generally
speaking, these assessments are most relevant to decisions about programming once a disposition has been
imposed by the court.

V. SOME GUIDELINES FOR CASE PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
This section will present some guidelines for case planning and programming with juvenile offenders.
Some of the guidance is founded on the evidence-based principles of best practice and evidence-based
programmes cited above. In other cases the guidelines will be based on clinical experience.

A. Evidence-Based Best Practices
Evidence-based practices or strategies identified in the reviews and meta-analyses cited above will be
discussed in this section. One of the principles of best practice has already been discussed: Effective
programmes utilize standardized assessments of risk, need, and responsivity. Other evidence-based
principles are as follows:
1. Observe the Risk Principle
Effective programmes provide intensive services for high risk cases and less intensive services for lower
risk cases. For example, in the case of probation, close and intensive monitoring should be reserved for
those at greatest risk of continuing antisocial behaviour. Similarly, lengthy and expensive treatment
programmes should involve those with high levels of need. The principle is important for a number ofreasons. First, we have limited resources and should not waste them on youth who do not really require theservices. Second, over-involvement of lower risk youth in the system may have negative consequences (seeDishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999; Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006). This is illustrated where low risk
youth incarcerated with high risk youth begin to show increased levels of risk.
2. Observe the Need Principle
Effective programmes target the specific needs of the youth concerned; that is, they focus on eliminating
or ameliorating those factors placing the youth at risk of antisocial behaviour. If the youth’s delinquency
relates to inadequate parenting and associations with antisocial peers, then interventions should focus on
those specific areas of need. There are two considerations underlying this principle. First, by observing theprinciple we make maximum use of our limited resources; we are going to target them where they are mostneeded. Second, research discussed in the reviews and meta-analyses cited above demonstrates thatinterventions have their greatest impact where they focus on the needs of the individual. Unfortunately,
many juvenile justice systems are rigid in their programming and do not permit the needed levels of
individualization.

88

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

3. Observe the Responsivity Principle
Effective programmes take account of responsivity factors in case planning; that is, characteristics or
circumstances of the youth not directly related to their criminal activity are taken into account in planninginterventions. For example, there is little point in placing a youth with limited reading skills in a cognitive
behaviour modification programme requiring the reading of complicated material. As another illustration,
consider a girl whose criminal activities are clearly related to her associations with an antisocial group ofyouths and drug abuse. However, she may also be suffering from depression and anxiety associated with past
abuse, and those conditions would have to be taken into account in planning an intervention.
We have also included strength or protective considerations as responsivity factors, and it is important toconsider these in case planning. For example, if a co-operative parent is available, they should certainly be
involved in the intervention. Similarly, a risk related to poor use of leisure time could be easily addressed
where the youth has an interest in a particular sport.
4. Utilize Community-based Interventions
Research demonstrates that delivering interventions to the offender in his or her community setting ismore effective than intervening in institutional settings. This result should not be surprising. The young
person’s risk of criminal activities relates to conditions in their home, neighbourhood, and school, and efforts
to address those conditions are best addressed in those settings. We will see below that wrap-aroundprogrammes such as Multisystemic Family Therapy are particularly effective, and one reason for this isbecause they are delivered in the youth’s environment. The new Canadian law governing youthful offenders(Youth Criminal Justice Act) places considerable emphasis on diverting youth out of the criminal justicesystem and delivering interventions in community settings, and this is fully consistent with this particularprinciple. One caution though: the success of these efforts will depend on the availability of quality services
in the community.
5. Address Needs in the Institutional Setting
Research demonstrates that, where institutionalization is necessary, success depends on providing
interventions that will address the needs of the youth. Simply incarcerating youth without any efforts toaddress their behavioural, emotional, social, or educational needs does not reduce reoffending rates. In fact,
it often has the opposite effect of increasing their anger and sense of alienation.
6. Treatments are Multimodal
Effective programmes address the entire range of interacting problems presented by the client. Youths do
not come to us with isolated issues. Instead they often present to us a range of connected risk and needfactors, and interventions that address the set of needs are more effective than those that have a narrowfocus. This is why, for example, placing a youth in a substance abuse programme without acknowledging thatthe problem is linked with supervision problems in their home, an association with a substance abusing
friend, and frustration with school failure, will not be very successful. The success of the wrap-aroundprogrammes can be explained by their goal of addressing the totality of the youth’s situation.
7. Structured Programmes with Concrete Behavioural and Attitudinal Goals
The efficacy of juvenile offender interventions that are highly structured and directed toward altering
specific behavioural and attitudinal deficits in the youth is strongly supported by research. The mosteffective goals entail social problem-solving and decision skills, moral reasoning, and the development ofpro-social attitudes, values, and beliefs. Programmes based on behaviour modification, cognitive-behavioural
patterns, and skill training procedures are particularly effective. Additional information about effective
programming will be presented below.
8. Aftercare Following Institutional Treatment
Effective programmes provide continuing services to the youth after release from custody or otherinstitutional settings. This is essential to ensure that any gains made in the institution transfer to theyouth’s home, community, and school environment. Release planning should be an important part of any
residential programme.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

9. Programme Delivery and Impact are Carefully Monitored
Effective programmes have in place formal procedures for describing and evaluating service delivery(process evaluation) and programme impact (summative evaluation). An expanding body of researchdemonstrates that the effectiveness of our interventions depends very directly on the care with which
programmes are delivered. Ideally, evaluation efforts will be done internally and externally. The importanceof independent external evaluations is particularly important.

B. Clinically-Based Best Practices
We can identify other principles of best practice which, while not empirically derived, have considerable
support from clinical experience. These will be listed here without additional comment:••••

Individuals responsible for the offender are selected with care and provided adequate training andsupport.
The agency has clear guidelines regarding the treatment of clients.
Treatment goals are realistic and attainable.
Staff take care to ensure that they represent pro-social models.

One other potential guideline that has received relatively little attention concerns the use of strengths orprotective factors within the youth or his or her environment in case planning. It is the risk factors that havereceived the most attention, but it is also very important to identify and utilize strengths in the youth. For
example, the young person may confront problems in the home environment and be associating with anegative peer group, but the fact that they are bright and actually like school can be leveraged to help
address their risk factors.

C. Evidence-Based Programmes
A growing body of research is focusing on the identification of effective programmes for the juvenile
offender (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Greenwood, 2005; Guerra et al., forthcoming; Krisberg & Howell, 1998).
Those considered effective generally reflect the principles of best practice identified above. Morespecifically, they tend to be multimodal, delivered in community setting, take account of the risk, need, andresponsivity characteristics of the youth, and depend on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural techniques.
The following are some structured programmes for which there is evidence of effectiveness:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Functional Family Therapy
Multisystemic Family Therapy
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
Aggression Replacement Therapy
Coping Course
Time to Think
Viewpoints.

However, it must be acknowledged that these programmes have not been evaluated for all situations andall types of youth. For example, we are still somewhat limited in our understanding of effective programmingfor female juvenile offenders (see Hoge & Robertson, forthcoming). As well, there is a dearth of data on
programmes for delivery in custodial settings.
Some of the programmes identified above are designed for delivery in a community setting and are
multimodal in focus. Multisystemic Family Therapy (Henggeler & Bordoin, 1990) is one example. This
family-based intervention provides services to the youth and his or her parents in the family, neighbourhood,and school settings. There is an effort to address the entire range of interacting problems presented by the
youth. Other programmes identified in the table are narrower in focus, generally addressing specificbehavioural or attitudinal issues. For example, Viewpoints (Guerra & Slaby, 1990) is a cognitive mediation
training programme designed to improve the youth’s social problem-solving skills and develop more positive
beliefs regarding aggression. The programme can be delivered in a community or institutional setting.
The research cited above also informs us of the types of programming that generally do not work withjuvenile offenders:90

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Client centred/non-directive therapies
Psychoanalytic approaches
Most drug education programmes
Self-Help programmes
Shaming strategies
Enhancing self-esteem strategies
Purely punitive strategies.

There may be individual circumstances where these approaches are appropriate, but generally speaking,they are neither effective nor economic in juvenile justice systems.

D. Case Planning and Implementation
Effective case planning depends on the careful matching of characteristics of the young person and his or
her circumstances with appropriate programmes. As we have seen, assessment of risk, need, andresponsivity are critical to this planning process. The recommended procedure is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Assess risk, need, and responsivity in the client.
Determine the level of service appropriate to the risk level of the youth.
Identify goals of the intervention to reflect the needs identified.
Identify barriers to achieving those goals.
Identify strengths and incentives that will help in achieving the goals.
Select interventions most likely to achieve the goals.

Appendix B illustrates an application of this procedure.
We now have some knowledge of best practices and information about the kinds of programming thatworks best for juvenile offenders. However, we will still encounter practical issues in implementing effective
programmes. Guerra and Leaf (forthcoming) have identified political, economic, and practical barriers to
implementing effective treatment programmes.
1. Political Barriers
Efforts to implement rehabilitative strategies for youth often run into pressure from some politicians andmembers of the public who advocate tough-on-crime policies. This is often associated with demands for useof incarceration and other forms of punitive sanctions, measures that run counter to a rehabilitation
approach. The pressure is sometimes based on an exaggerated fear of crime and from a lack ofunderstanding of the most effective ways of addressing youth crime. However, these fears are real and theonly solution is to try to address the misapprehensions through education.
The political barriers may exist internally as well. Many employees in juvenile justice systems do notshare an enthusiasm for a rehabilitative approach and may continue to advocate for harsh punitive measures.
This can only be addressed through improved selection procedures and efforts to educate staff in the
conclusions from recent research.
2. Economic Barriers
Economic issues become involved because many of the programmes effective in addressing the needs ofthe youth are expensive. Programmes such as Multisystemic Family Therapy are costly in terms of staffing
and other resources. Similarly, implementing an intensive probation programme accompanied byinterventions to address the youth’s educational and emotional needs may require considerable resources.
These costs will be the basis for resistance to the efforts from politicians and policy makers. There may also
be economic barriers associated with funding policies. For example, funding for treatment efforts may bedesignated only for institutional placements, discouraging the use of more effective community-based
placements.
Two responses to these economic barriers are appropriate. First, many of the community-based
programmes, even the more costly ones, are often less expensive than incarceration. Second, many of the
programmes are cost effective. In other words, if the interventions are implemented effectively, the costs

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

will be recovered through future reductions in offending rates, lower school dropout rates, fewer demands
on adult mental health facilities and other such outcomes. Fortunately, we are beginning to obtain good
information from cost/benefit analyses that provide actual figures on the economic returns of the
programmes (see Aos et al., 2001; Tyler, Ziedenberg, & Lokke, 2006).
3. Practical Barriers
There are a number of practical barriers to implementing effective programmes. First, the range ofoptions may be limited by economic and resource considerations. We all have limited resources, andsometimes difficult choices must be made. The only response is to observe, as closely as possible, theprinciples of best practice. This also applies to those cases where the juvenile justice system contracts out
services: efforts must be made to monitor the quality of services being delivered.
Another practical obstacle we encounter derives from the fragmented nature of many human service
systems. Our youth often exhibit special needs in many areas and may have contacts outside the juvenile
justice system, including special services in the schools, treatment in the mental health system, andservices from child protection and other such service agencies. All of these systems must work together toeffectively address the needs of the youth, but in too many cases barriers exist to that co-operation.

E. Examples of Integrated Programmes
The following are brief descriptions of some community and residential-based programmes that attempt
to incorporate a variety of features of best practice in addressing the needs of specific communities.
1. A Different Street
A Different Street is a residential programme created by The John Howard Society of Ottawa and Eastern
Ontario Youth Justice Services. The programme is designed for young men released from custody who
would normally be homeless; a group at particularly high risk of reoffending. The goal is to ease theirtransition to the community and address their behavioural, emotional, social, educational, and vocational
needs. The programme is located in an apartment building housing 24 clients. The professional staff of the
facility are responsible for providing individual counselling and arranging referrals to community services.
Considerable emphasis is placed on developing life skills and vocational competencies. Appendix C provides
an example of the type of case planning utilized.
2. Boys Town USA, Staff-Secure Detention Programme for Female Offenders
Boys Town USA, Staff-Secure Detention Program for Female Offenders is a somewhat unusual
programme since it is designed for high risk/need girls detained prior to trial. Although girls remain in the
programme for relatively short periods of time, an intensive assessment is conducted at intake, and the plandeveloped on the basis of that assessment is designed to follow the client through subsequent placements.
The plan encompasses both short and long term goals. The majority of the girls accepted for the programme
are members of minority groups, come from high risk family environments, and exhibit a range of academic,
social, behavioural, and emotional needs.
The staff of the programme is predominantly female, and all are provided intensive training in genderspecific programming. Individual and group treatment focuses on addressing mental health and behaviouralissues as well as developing life skills counselling. Treatments involve families wherever possible. The
ultimate goal is to address deficits in the young woman and assist her in reintegrating into society.
3. The Ottawa Police Service Diversion Programme
The Ottawa Police Service Diversion Programme, managed by the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa andOttawa Police Services, is designed to satisfy a provision of the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act
requiring the diversion from the formal police and judicial system of youth committing relatively minor
crimes. The initial referral is made by the police officer with initial contact with the youth and then an
assessment of eligibility for the programme is made by programme staff. The latter involves an assessmentof risk and needs of the youth. In many cases no further action is recommended beyond a warning, but in thecase of youth exhibiting significant areas of risk or need, referrals are made to community agencies
providing appropriate interventions. This is a prevention programme designed to address risks and needs
before they lead to more serious antisocial behaviour.

92

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

4. Sexual Abuse: Family Education and Treatment Programme
The Sexual Abuse: Family Education and Treatment Programme was developed at the Thistletown
Regional Centre for Children and Adolescents in Toronto, Ontario. This specialized community-based
programme is directed towards children and adolescents with sexual behaviour problems, including thoseconvicted of sexual offences. The treatment is based on individual, peer group, and family counselling, withtherapeutic techniques based on cognitive-behavioural strategies. Emphasis is placed on alteringdysfunctional cognitions and behaviour. The programme reflects the importance of beginning treatment of
this condition early in development and the involvement of the family.
Examples of other exemplary programmes can be found in Howell (2003) and Loeber & Farrington(1998).

VI. SOME FINAL WORDS
This paper has emphasized the efficacy of a child welfare and rehabilitation approach to the treatment ofyouth in juvenile justice systems. I believe that this approach is supported by contemporary theory andresearch, is consistent with guidelines presented by the United Nations and other organizations concernedwith youth, and reflects a humane concern for young people. However, it is important to acknowledge that
this position represents only one of a number of positions regarding the appropriate treatment of youth in
conflict with the law. Whatever position is favoured, the high personal, social, and financial costs associatedwith youth crime make it absolutely imperative that we recognize this as an issue of paramount concern andadopt a willingness to commit whatever resources are needed to address the problem. The potential profits
from this commitment are immense.

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behaviour Checklist and the RevisedChild Behaviour Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct-Fourth edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering
psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Aos, S. Phipps. P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce
crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Augimeri, L. K., Koegl, C. J., Webster, C. D., & Levene, K. S. (2001). Early Assessment Risk List for Boys:
EARL-20B. Toronto, ON: Earlscourt Child and Family Centre.
Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court
Assessment. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Barriga, A. Q., Gibbs, J. C., Potter, G. B., & Liau, A. K. (2001). How I Think (HIT) Questionnaire manual.
Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Bartel, P., Borum, R., & Forth, A. (2000). Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).
Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
Borum, R., Bartel, P. A., & Forth, A. E. (2005). Structured assessment of violence risk in youth. In T. Grisso,T. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 311323). New York: Guilford.
Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in youth. New York: Guilford.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J.
D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Corrado, R. R. (1992). Introduction. In R. R. Corrado, N. Bala, R. Linden, & M. Le Blanc (Eds.), Juvenile
justice in Canada: A theoretical and analytical assessment (pp. 1-20). Toronto, ON: Buttersworth.
Corrado, R. R., & Turnbull, S. D. (1992). A comparative examination of the Modified Justice Model in the
United Kingdom and the United States. In R. R. Corrado, N. Bala, R. Linden, & M. Le Blanc (Eds.),
Juvenile justice in Canada: A theoretical and analytical assessment (pp. 75-136). Toronto, ON:
Buttersworth.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior.
American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.
Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth.
New York: Guilford.
Elliott, D. S., & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behaviour: Temporal anddevelopmental patterns. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 28-67).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feld, B. C., (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gratus, J. (1988). Successful interviewing. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Greenwood, P. W. (2005). Changing lives: Delinquent prevention as crime control policy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Grisso, T., & Barnum, R. (2003). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2: User’s manual andtechnical report. Sarasota, FL: Personal Resource Press.

94

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Grisso, T., & Tomkins, A. J. (1996). Communicating violence risk assessments. American Psychologist, 51,
928-930.
Grisso, T., & Vincent, G. (2005). The context for mental health screening and assessment. In Mental healthscreening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 44-70). New York: Guilford.
Grisso, T., Vincent, G., & Seagrave, D. (Eds.). (2005). Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile
justice. New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., Kim, T., & Boxer, P. (forthcoming). What works: Best practices with juvenile offenders. In R.
D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treatment of the youthful offender. New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., & Leaf, C. (forthcoming). Implementing treatment programs in community and institutionalsettings. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treatment of the youthful offender. New
York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 2.
Intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26, 269-277.
Heilbrun, K., Lee, R., & Cottle, C. (2005). Risk factors and intervention outcomes: Meta-analyses of juvenile
offending. In K. Heilbrun, N. Goldstein, & R. Redding (Eds), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention,assessment, and intervention (pp. 111-133). New York: Oxford University Press.
Henggeler, S. W., & Borduin, C. M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating
the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hoge, R. D. (1999a). An expanded role for psychological assessments in juvenile justice systems. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 26, 251-266.
Hoge, R. D. (1999b). Assessing adolescents in educational, counseling, and other settings. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Hoge, R. D. (2005). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. In T. Grisso, T. Vincent, & D. Seagrave(Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 283-294). New York: Guilford.
Hoge, R. D. (forthcoming). Assessment in juvenile justice systems. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer(Eds.), Treatment of the youthful offender. New York: Guilford.
Hoge, R. D., & Robertson, L. (forthcoming). The female juvenile offender. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P.
Boxer (Eds.), Treatment of the youthful offender. New York: Guilford.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Assessing the youthful offender: Issues and techniques. New York: Plenum.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory user’s manual.
North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krisberg, B., & Howell, J. C. (1998). The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduatedsanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent
juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 346-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lahey, B. B., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (Eds.) (2003). Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency.
New York: Guilford.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment withjuvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63-78). Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Lipsey, M. W. (2006). The effects of community-based group treatment for delinquency. In K. A. Dodge, T. J.
Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth (pp. 162-184). New
York: Guilford.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early
adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent
juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis ofresearch. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors
and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, M. W., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Loeber, D. P., & Farrington, D. P. (1998) (Eds.). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors andsuccessful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing-Second Edition. New York: Guilford.
Offord, D. R., Chimura-Kraemer, H., Kazdin, A. W., Jensen, P., & Harrington, R. (1998). Lowering the burdenof suffering from child psychiatric disorders: Trade-offs among clinical, targeted, and universal
interventions. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 686-694.
Pratt, J. (1989). Corporatism: The third model of juvenile justice. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 236-253.
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behaviour by young people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sattler, J. M. (1998). Clinical and forensic interviewing of children and families: Guidelines for the mental
health, education, pediatric, and child maltreatment fields . San Diego, CA: Sattler Publishing
Company.
Sattler, J. M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foundations (5thEd.). San Diego, CA: Sattler Publishing Company.
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study throughage 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Foundation.
Schwartz, I. M. (1992) (Ed.). Juvenile justice and public policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Tremblay, R. E., Pagani-Kurtz, L. C., Masse, L. C., Vitaro, F., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A bimodal preventive
intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560-568.
Tremblay, R. E., & Craig, W. M. (1995). Developmental crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington(Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review: Vol. 19. Building a safer society (pp. 151-236). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, J. Ziedenberg, J., & Lotke, E. (2006). Cost effective corrections: The fiscal architecture of rational
juvenile justice systems. Washington, DC: The Justice Policy Institute.
Wiebush, R. G., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., & Onek, D. (1995). Risk assessment and classification for serious
violent and chronic juvenile offenders. In J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson(Eds.), A sourcebook: Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 171-212). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Winterdyk, J. A. (2002) (Ed.). Juvenile justice systems: International perspectives (2nd Ed.). Toronto, ON:
Canadian Scholars Press.
Worling, J. R., & Curwen, M. A. (2001). Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism(ERASOR). Toronto, ON: Thistletown Regional Centre.

96

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF A COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BATTERY
1. Review of File Information
2. Interviews
Semi-structured interview with youth
Semi-structured interview with mother
Telephone interview with school principal
3. Measure of Cognitive Functioning
Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children
4. Behavioural Adjustment MeasureChild Behaviour Checklist (Parent)
5. Personality Test
Basic Personality Inventory
6. Attitudinal Measures
How I Think Questionnaire
Criminal Sentiments Scale
7. Broad-based Risk/Needs Measure
Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE OF CASE PLAN
PREDISPOSITION REPORT
Date:
Name:

xx/xx/2006
MichaelDate of Birth:xx/xx/xxx

Officer:xxx

I. CASE SUMMARY
A. Sources of Information
This report is based on information from the following sources: review of file information (prior probation
reports), interview with the mother, telephone interview with school principal, telephone interview withjuvenile police officer, and a two and a half hour interview with Michael.
B. Background
Michael is a 17-year-old youth convicted of two felony assaults and one misdemeanor assault. He has alengthy criminal history and has served periods of probation and custody. He has been held in detention
since his arrest. As documented below, there are significant family problems in this case and associations
with antisocial gang members.
There have been no disciplinary concerns during the current period of detention, and Michael seems tohave adjusted well to this confinement. He presented as friendly and co-operative during the interview.

C. Prior and Current Offences/Dispositions
Michael has been convicted of two felony assaults and one misdemeanor assault. The assaults relate to
two incidents where he was part of a group of four to five youths who forced themselves into homes andassaulted the occupants. Accused and victims are known to be involved in the drug trade in a small way.
Michael neither admitted nor denied the offences.
Michael’s criminal history began at 12 years of age. He has been convicted of assault (seven times),robbery, burglary, and disorderly conduct (four times). Most of the crimes have been in association with aloosely organized gang. There is no evidence that any of the assaults produced significant physical injuries.
He claims that most of the assaults have resulted from efforts to protect family or friends.
Michael has received four probation and one secure custody (eight months’ long) dispositions and has
failed to observe court orders three times.

D. Family Circumstances/Parenting
Michael lives with his mother, three younger sisters, and two younger brothers. Although dysfunctional
in many respects, the family members are close to one another, and Michael seems to have a very protective
attitude toward his siblings. There has been no contact with the biological father for some years, and there
are some indications that is Michael experiencing some psychological effects of his perception that the father
deserted the family.
The mother is on probation for convictions for welfare fraud and possession of cocaine. She has a minor
criminal history and a history of drug and alcohol abuse, although she has apparently been abstinent forseveral months. The two younger brothers have minor criminal histories and the biological father had
served some time in prison. The family has been mainly supported through social assistance and has moved
often because of evictions.
Although Michael and his mother appear to care for each other, the mother has provided very inadequate

98

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

parenting. Although she does try to set some rules, she rarely follows through consistently in enforcement.
Her primary form of discipline is to yell at the children; their usual response is to ignore her and do what
they please. On the other hand, the mother is committed to her children and is motivated to address family
problems.
Special note should be made of the strong and cohesive bond that exists among the mother and siblings.
This can be considered a potential strength factor in this case.

E. Education/Employment
Michael’s academic performance has generally been rated as poor to adequate. School personnel haveusually felt that he has performed significantly below his capacity. There are no indications of attention span
problems or learning disabilities. He is able to stay on task and perform well when he chooses or when theenvironment is structured and supportive. He was frequently truant when enrolled in school.
While Michael has presented no serious problems in the classroom setting, his relations with otherstudents in other school settings have been contradictory. On the one hand he is capable of exhibiting goodsocial skills and relating easily to others, while on the other hand he has been involved in some serious
physical confrontations with some students. He claims these fights have been justified to protect his“honour” and that of his family. He has been recently expelled because of his assaultive behaviour and theschool zero tolerance policy. Since his expulsion he has been urged to seek either full or part-time
employment but has shown no interest to date.

F. Peer Relations
Most of Michael’s friends are three to four years older and are members of a loose-knit gang. Most of his
friends and acquaintances have a criminal history. His most recent convictions resulted from actions carriedout with this gang. He has virtually no positive associations. He claims he is not seriously involved with any
girls at the present time.
G. Substance Abuse
Michael denies any problems with drugs or alcohol. Drug screens have consistently come back negative.
He does admit to using marijuana on occasion. There are suspicions that he may be dealing drugs, but there
is no evidence to support this.
H. Leisure/Recreation
Michael is not involved in any positive organized activities. Mostly he plays basketball with his friends orjust hangs out with them. The family has limited funds and this has probably hindered efforts to involve him
in organized sports or hobbies. Michael expresses some interest in sports, motorcycles, and photography
but has not acted on those interests.
I. Personality/Behaviour
Michael has a history of verbal and physical assaults against youths. There are indications of poor
frustration tolerance and the absence of skills for dealing maturely with perceived insults to himself and his
family. He has shown little evidence of sympathy for his victims (feeling they have generally deserved what
they got). On the other hand, Michael can behave in a pleasant manner and adults generally feel some
sympathy for his condition and a willingness to help him deal with his problems. The latter could beconsidered a potential strength.
J. Attitudes/Orientation
Michael expresses a lack of respect for the police and judicial system. He feels that the system is biased
against poor people. He feels that his assault convictions simply represented acts where he was defending
the honour of his family or himself. While some of these attitudes and feelings may be justified, Michaelmust learn to respond to these situations with non-violent strategies. There is no evidence that he isincapable of feeling empathy; witness his attitude toward family members.
Michael is not actively seeking help, but he has generally seemed willing to participate in court directed
programming. He has actually responded well to some previous intervention efforts.

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

II. YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Michael obtained a total score of 31 on the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory(YLS/CMI), placing him in the High Risk category. He exhibits high needs with respect to: Family
Circumstances/Parenting; Education/Employment; Peer Relations; Leisure/Recreation; and Attitudes
Orientation. He exhibits moderate needs regarding Substance Abuse and Personality/Behaviour. Strengths
are shown regarding Family Circumstances and Personality.

III. SUPERVISION PLAN
The Supervision Plan is based on the assessment of Michael’s risk and need factors. It is based on asentence of Intensive Supervised Probation with the condition of a custodial sentence if the conditions of theProbation Order are not observed. Condition: attend and successfully complete adult/junior day treatment
programme.

A. Goal 1• Address anger management issues
Barriers• Deep-seated anger over father abandonment & discrimination issues• Poor insight• Peers who support aggression
Strengths/incentives• Family supports for addressing issue• Michael seems to be tiring of conflicts
Means of achievement• Attend individual counselling sessions in day programme• Complete anger management programme in day programme

B. Goal 2• Address peer relations and leisure/recreation issues
Barriers• Peer associations are important to him• Little opportunity to engage in leisure activities
Strengths/incentives• Some members of group moving on• Michael is beginning to recognize costs with current peer associations• Has some interests: mechanics, photography
Means of achievement• Continued attendance at day treatment programme• Enroll in motorcycle mechanics and photography programmes• Join programme basketball league

C. Goal 3• Improve home situation/parenting
Barriers• Financial problems in home
• Mother has history of drug abuse• Family somewhat isolated
Strengths/incentives• Mother seems generally motivated to address problems• Mother has been abstinent for three months; making good progress in treatment

100

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

Family seems to have stabilized recently

Means of Achievement• Mother will continue to attend drug treatment programme• Mother and children will attend family service agency counselling programme

IV. OTHER CONDITIONS•••

Submit weekend plans to probation officer or programme co-ordinator on Friday
Observe all curfews
Attend programme every weekday unless formally excused

The case plan is reviewed after three months.

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

APPENDIX CEXAMPLE OF CASE PLAN FROM A DIFFERENT STREET PROGRAMME
I. CASE MANAGEMENT REVIEW PLAN
The information presented in this example is based on a review of case progress after three months.
Name:
Date of Admission:
Client’s age:

SamuelJuly 8, 2003
17 years

A. Background
Criminal Record
Current convictions/sentence
Assault and breach x 2
Mischief, breach x 2
Breach of undertaking
Uttering death threats
Eighteen months Secure Custody followed by six months’ probation

Past convictions/sentences
Impaired driving, failure to remain at scene of accident and breach – 57 days pre-trial custody, three months’
open custody, 18 months’ probation.
Possession of controlled substance, possession of stolen vehicle x 2, breaches – 4 weeks’ open custody.
Assault x 2, mischief – conditional discharge.
2000 - Probation for assault x 2 and mischief.
B. YLS/CMI Risk/Needs Assessment
Initial YLS/CMI Total Score Level – 29 – High Risk
Three-month update YLS/CMI Total Score Level – 27 – High Risk
Domain Scores
Criminal History – HighFamily/Parenting – Moderate
Education/Employment – Moderate
Peers – High
Alcohol/Drugs – High
Leisure/Recreation – Moderate
Personality/Behaviour – High
Attitudes/Orientation – Moderate
C. Other Assessments
Other assessments completed during initial intake indicated significant problems relating to pro-criminal
attitudes and substance abuse.

II. CASE SUMMARY EXPLANATION
The attached form is a Case Summary for a four-week period. Overarching Goals reflect the goals
identified on the basis of the intake and review assessments and indicate what the treatment team plans toaccomplish prior to the youth’s release. The primary objective is to develop and implement interventions
that will decrease the youth’s propensity for recidivism, and promote the acquisition of self sufficiency skills
in preparation for living independently. Intermediary goals (Means of Achievement) identify how we intend
accomplish the overarching goals. These interventions are implemented until success is achieved or when
all possible interventions to gain change have been tried but we are unable to achieve a higher level ofsuccess. These intermediary goals are modified as we identify barriers to success and when progress ismade in an intervention area.

102

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

III. CASE SUMMARY
A.Over-arching Goals
1. Diminish substance abuse
2. Improve anger management and impulse control skills
3. Diminish antisocial attitudes and beliefs
4. Increase prosocial structured time
5. Improve educational performance
6. Increase self sufficiency
B. Previous Intermediary Goals (Met [MM], Partially Met [PPM], Not Met [NNM])
1. Enroll and stabilize in school programmei)enroll in remedial vocational education programme - M
ii)assist Samuel in obtaining necessary school supplies - M
iii)contact teacher, Mr. Omeara, and determine if he can assist in motivating Samuel to increase
attendance - M
iv)determine if there is value to incentive programme - NM
2.

Increase ability to anticipate high risk triggers and plan to avoid themi)practice self management plans - M
ii)complete daily activity sheets the day prior to assist in structuring day - Miii)
enroll in Alternatives to Aggression group - M
iv)
complete exercises that identify high risk situations, risky thinking and reframed thinking - M

3.

Increase ability to cope with reduction in alcohol usei)use coping skills exercises from Structured Relapse Prevention (SRP) - PMii)widen support network by encouraging attendance at NA - PM

4.

Increase ability to cope with stress and angeri)teach imagery techniques - PMii)
teach deep breathing techniques - PM

5.

Increase budgeting skillsi)use delay of gratification by holding money for him - PM

6.

Increase understanding of thoughts, feelings, behaviour interaction, as well as pro-criminal beliefs
i)complete Cognitive Self Change programme- postponed

C. Barriers to Intermediary Goals
Continued rigid and distorted thinking, although some progress made in self management skills; poor
motivation to address substance abuse issues; continued contact with gang members outside of theresidence.
D. Advances in Treatment
Doing relatively well in the school programme; some progress in developing case management skills;
positive visit from mother; early indications that he is beginning to recognize the harm he is causing himself
with continued drug and alcohol use.
E. Revised Intermediary Goals
1. Continue attending vocational education programmei)explore options around apprenticeship programme for mechanicsii)
introduce value to incentive programme2.

Increase ability to anticipate high risk anger/aggression triggers and avoid themi)practice self management plansii)
complete daily activity sheets the day prior to assist in structuring dayi)complete exercises that identify high risk situations, risky thinking and reframed thinking

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

3.

Increase ability to cope with reduction in alcohol usei)use coping skills exercises from SRP
ii)
widen support network by encouraging attendance at Narcotics Anonymous (NA)iii)
provide pro-social alternatives to boredom as incentive to reduce alcohol use (e.g., participate
in athletic equipment repair programme)

4.

Increase Samuel’s ability to cope with stress and angeri)teach imagery techniquesii)teach deep breathing techniquesiii)
teach muscle relaxation techniques5.

Increase budgeting skillsi)use delay of gratification by holding money for himii)
complete budget plan to distinguish wants verses needs and to prioritize costs per month6.

Increase understanding of thoughts, feelings, behavioural interaction, as well as pro-criminal beliefs
i)challenge distorted thought patterns when used in daily inventory sheetsii)
explore benefits and costs of distorted beliefs specific to high risk situationiii)
commence Cognitive Self Change

104PARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
COUNTRY REPORT: CAMEROONHenry Asaah Ngu Ndama*
I. INTRODUCTION
Every society has laws that govern relationships between individuals. The violation of these laws leads tosanctions being meted out to defaulters. These violators, who are termed offenders, are generally of variedages, from different social backgrounds and of both sexes. Offenders of different categories have problems
which are peculiar to that category. Among these categories are young offenders, who are also termed
minors.
Young offenders are generally considered in terms of their age at the date of commission of the crime.
Every country has an age of penal majority below which any offender is termed a minor. Minors have always
been considered to have special needs because of their relatively young age and immaturity and the impactof adverse socio-economic conditions which may drive them into crime. In addition, young offenders incustody are particularly vulnerable to poor conditions in correctional institutions such as overcrowding, poor
nutrition, lack of access to adequate health care, bullying by older inmates and psychical and psychologicaldisorders. The above situations, where they exist, necessitate planning for the special needs of this category
in order to take appropriate action to ensure their protection and successful reintegration into society.
The protection of young offenders requires the formulation of government policies that take into accounttheir particular needs and the effective implementation of same by all actors and stakeholders of the criminal
justice system. Policy-making in this connection stipulates special procedures for the prosecution of young
offenders, specialized probation services, legal assistance, and mitigation of sentences. On the other hand,correctional institutions which receive convicted minors have to adopt practices that will prevent minors
from becoming victims of the negative effects of “prison culture” which generally result from poor custody
conditions. It is only through an effective and efficient allying of these two aspects that successful social
rehabilitation of the offender can be attained.
Social rehabilitation or reintegration of offenders has always been the difficult side of corrections. This isparticularly true of young offenders who, before conviction, have relatively less developed criminal minds
compared to their older counterparts. The prison environment can easily influence them and sometimes thistakes a serious toll on them, making them worse at release. The question here is how can the prison
environment be made more conducive to the social reintegration of young offenders, and all other offenders,
as a whole? This question is particularly pertinent for developing countries who, because of the economic
difficulties they face, allocate few resources for corrections. Correctional institutions in these countries
generally face problems of overcrowding, a high rate of relapse and recidivism of offenders, resulting frompoorly structured or insufficient rehabilitation programmes. Cameroon faces some of these problems today.
Nevertheless efforts are being made within the context of penitentiary reform to reverse the situation.

II. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE TREATMENT OFJUVENILE OFFENDERS
Legal and statutory instruments provide rules for the handling of juvenile offenders. These cover the
specific definition of juveniles in the legal sense, regulations on their prosecution, and directives for theircustody. In Cameroon these instruments are the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and thepresidential decree bearing on the penitentiary regime in Cameroon.

A. Legal Instruments
These are the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. Penal CodeThe Penal Code of Cameroon in its section 80 sets the age at which a person attains full criminal* Administrator of Prisons, Service Head for Probation and Training, Department of Penitentiary Administration, Ministry ofJustice, Cameroon.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

responsibility at eighteen years. As such, a person aged eighteen years and over shall be responsible as anadult. It also provides that no criminal responsibility shall arise from an act or omission of a person of lessthan ten years. An offence committed by a person aged not less than ten years and not more than fourteen
years may attract only such special measures as provided by law. Criminal responsibility is diminished for an
offence committed by a person aged over fourteen and under eighteen. These ages are relevant at the dateof commission of the offence. From the above, the age of penal majority in Cameroon is consequently
eighteen years and there is no question of personal law. In practice, partial defence and mitigating
circumstances may be applied to a young person under eighteen. A child over ten and under fourteen may be
tried, but may not be sentenced to a penalty nor to a preventive measure provided by the criminal law for
adults. He or she may be the subject only of such measures as are specially provided by the laws on juvenile
delinquency. Finally, a child under ten has no criminal responsibility and may not even be tried for what he or
she does. He or she may be the subject of special measures of care and protection but not of punishment norof preventive measures applicable to older children.
Section 48 of the above code provides for parents, guardians or a person responsible under customary law
for a person under eighteen who has committed an act defined as an offence to enter into recognizance toforfeit his right of guardianship over the said person if he or she shall commit a similar act within a space of
one year, unless it is proven that he or she took reasonable steps to avoid the minor’s committing theoffence. It should be noted here that in the case where the right of guardianship over the minor is forfeited,
his or her care becomes the responsibility of the State alone. Section 82 also provides for responsibility to bediminished for an offence committed by a person under eighteen years under compulsion of his or her
parents or the person having charge of him or her, or responsible for him or her under customary law.
Referring to separation of minors under detention, section 29 provides that “An offender under the age ofeighteen shall serve his sentence in a special establishment, or failing such establishment, shall be separated
from offenders over that age.”
2. Criminal Procedure CodeThe law No 2005/007 bearing on the Criminal Procedure Code promulgated on 27 July 2005, which
entered into force on 1 January 2007, was unanimously acclaimed as a significant and decisive advancementin the protection of human rights and the consolidation of the rule of the law in Cameroon. This Codeprovides rules specific to the prosecution and trial of minors, beginning from the institution of prosecution
proceedings to criminal record and costs arising from measures for the protection and treatment of juveniles.
The legal framework of arrest and police custody for juveniles is the same as that for adult offenders
given that the Criminal Procedure Code makes no distinction between the two categories in this domain.
Arrest is subject to the presentation of a warrant or by virtue of the law in case of in flagrante delicto. The
law also provides for the respect of the physical and psychological integrity of the person arrested (sections
30 to 38).
In the case of police custody, persons are detained in a police cell for a period not exceeding forty-eight
hours and a person cannot be remanded into police custody on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. A
person in police custody is guaranteed the right to health, visitors and legal aid (sections 118-126).
Referring specifically to the prosecution and trial of juveniles, in the domain of institution of prosecution,
the law provides that a preliminary inquiry shall be compulsory for a felony or misdemeanour committed byminors aged under eighteen. An infant shall not be prosecuted by direct summons except in cases of asimple offence. The state counsel or the examining magistrate shall inform the parents, guardian orcustodian of the minor that proceedings have been instituted against him or her (section 700). Also, the state
counsel has to investigate fully to reveal the personality of the minor. This covers the material and moral
situation of his or her family, his or her character antecedents, his or her attendance at school and generalbehaviour, and his or her conditions of upbringing. This investigation is entrusted to the social welfare
service or a medical officer as the case may be. He or she may also by reasoned ruling be placed in a welfare
reception centre (section 701). The examining magistrate may also entrust the custody of a minor to his or
her parents, guardian, custodian, any trustworthy person, welfare centre, observation home, specialized
institution, vocational training or health centre, as the case may be, and may specify the duration of such

106

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

custody in the best interests of the juvenile (section 702). A certificate of apparent age may be delivered by a
medical officer in the absence of a birth certificate (section 703).
As concerns the temporary detention of juveniles after the institution of prosecution, the law provides
that a minor from twelve to fourteen years of age shall not be remanded in custody except when he or she isaccused of capital murder, murder, or assault occasioning death. It continues that a minor aged between
fourteen and eighteen may be remanded in custody only if this measure is considered indispensable (section
704 and 705). Detention of infants can only be carried out in a borstal institution or a special section of a
prison meant for the detention of minors. He or she may be detained in a prison for adults where the above
are absent but must be separated from them (section 706). When a minor is transferred or brought before an
examining magistrate or before the court, steps shall be taken to prevent any contact with adult detainees or
the public (section 707). In the case of release on bail, the examining magistrate or the court may require awritten undertaking to be of good behaviour and appear before the court when he or she is required to do so,a recognizance entered into by his or her father, mother or guardian to guarantee his or her appearance incourt or an oral engagement by a person worthy of trust guaranteeing this appearance (section 708).
In the domain of trial of the juvenile, the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the court shall becognizant of the social welfare report drawn by the examining magistrate only after the infant has been foundguilty (section 717). Also, the presiding magistrate shall explain to the minor in simple language the charges
brought against him or her. Irrespective of the infant’s reply, the court shall hear the testimonies of
witnesses, enable the minor or his or her representatives to put relevant questions to the witness and hear
any statement the minor may wish to make and in which case the presiding magistrate shall put questions to
the witness, or to the minor as he or she deems fit (section 718).
In full trial the minor shall be assisted by counsel or by any other person who is a specialist in theprotection of children’s rights. This is different to the procedure for adults. Where the minor has no counsel,
the court shall on its own motion assign one to him or her (section 719). Under pain of nullity the trial of thejuvenile shall be conducted in camera. This not withstanding, persons entitled to attend the hearing shall be
the infant’s parents, custodian or guardian, witnesses, counsel, the representatives of services or institutions
dealing with problems relating to children and probation officers. The presiding magistrate may also
authorize the presence of representatives of organizations responsible for the protection of human rights andthe rights of the child at the hearing and read out the statement of the social welfare officer (section 720).
The court shall stay trial only where the minor’s age cannot be ascertained, where it is deemed necessary toproceed to further medical examination, psychological examination or other inquiry, or if it is deemednecessary to fix an observation period. Judgment shall be pronounced at a public hearing in the presence ofthe minor but his or her name or initials or those of his or her family members shall not be mentioned in it(section 721). A minor may also be tried in default if he or she has absconded or disappeared and the court
can in this case order measures to ensure his or her appearance by a reasoned decision demanding the infant
to be brought and detained in a prison (section 723).
In connection to applicable measures and penalties, a minor aged fourteen years or younger, if foundguilty, can be subject to the following measures:-

Entrusting the infant to the custody of his or her parents, guardian, custodian or any trustworthy
person;Placing him or her on probation;
Placing him or her in a vocational or health centre;
Placement in a specialized institution;
Requiring him or her to enter into preventive recognizance (section 724).

In the case of a minor aged more than fourteen years but less than eighteen years, if found guilty, the court
by reasoned decision shall pass sentence. In the case of a non-suspended term of imprisonment, only
probation may be ordered in addition. The probation order takes effect after the term of imprisonment has
been served (section 725). When delivered, the measures and judgment provided above shall place the infantin custody for a period as is necessary for his or her education until he or she attains civil majority. Before
decision on the merits, the court may order provisional probation for a length of time as an observation
period.

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Probation of the juvenile is provided as a means of support, protection, supervision and education under
the trust of parents, guardians, or custodians (section 730). Regular probation officers shall be appointed byjoint order of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Affairs. They shall co-ordinate the action ofvoluntary probation officers (section 731). A voluntary probation officer is designated either in the judgment
or decision of the court (section 732). The law also provides that probation measures may be reviewed at any
time and at the request of the legal department, the infant himself or herself, his or her parents or guardianor the probation officer (section 737).
In the domain of appeals, appeals in juvenile cases can be brought before the Court of First Instancesitting on cases of juvenile delinquency (section 739). All judgments delivered against minors are entered in
the criminal record (section 741). It is also worth noting that imprisonment in default of payment does not
apply to infants (section 736).
Mentioning costs arising from trial and measures of protection of juveniles, the Code provides that all
judgments delivered by courts sitting in cases of juvenile delinquency shall be exempted from stamp duty
and shall be registered free of charge (section 727). Also, travelling expenses incurred by regular andvoluntary probation officers in the course of their assignments shall be refunded and the fees of counsel
assigned by the court on its own motion shall be paid as expenses incurred in criminal matters.

B. Statutory Instrument
The statutory instrument is Presidential Decree No 92/052 of 27 March 1992 on the penitentiary regime
in Cameroon.
This instrument in its section 2 provides for the creation of five categories of prisons which are:orientation prisons, relegation centres, production prisons, school prisons and special prisons. School
prisons and special prisons are of special interest to the correction of juveniles because the former aredesigned for the theoretical and practical training of minors in order to ensure their reintegration into
society, while the latter are reserved for minors who are subject to a particular regime. Meanwhile, theapplication of this provision for the creation of the above correctional institutions for minors is still awaited.
Concerning custody within the penitentiary establishment, section 20 (4) provides that a special section
be reserved for minors. They are not subject to the same punishment regime as adult offenders and they can
only be assigned maintenance work within the correctional institution.
Other laws and rules and regulations exist for the treatment of juvenile offenders but these are applied by
the social services of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Such juvenile cases are handed to them by the victims ofthe crime after negotiation with the parents or guardians. These are cases which are not under prosecution.

III. THE CARE OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THEIR REHABILITATIONThe Cameroon government has been taking measures to ensure care and reintegration of juvenile
offenders, although these are usually limited by economic difficulties. These actions can be perceived at thelevel of policy-making and penitentiary practice. These not withstanding, there still exist problems andchallenges for the amelioration of juvenile corrections.

A. Policy-Making
Before December 2004, the Penitentiary Administration in Cameroon was attached to the Ministry of
Territorial Administration and Decentralisation. This situation created many administrative bottlenecks anddelays in the criminal justice system because files had to move between the Ministry of Territorial
Administration and Decentralisation and the Ministry of Justice. The former managed convicts while thelatter managed those awaiting trial and appellants. This situation led to discriminatory management ofinmates in the same prison in favour of convicts. Minors with special needs were also sometimes neglected.
This situation has been reversed since 8 December 2004, when the Penitentiary Administration was
attached to the Ministry of Justice. Delays in justice, poor treatment of offenders and violation of prisoners’
rights have declined in penitentiaries.
The government has elaborated a five year plan (2007-2012) for increasing assistance to female and108

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

juvenile offenders. In the case of juveniles, although financial resources are limited, partnership with civilsociety organizations, philanthropists and other persons of goodwill has greatly contributed to ameliorating
the custody conditions of juveniles. An example is the recent commitment of the Cameroonian football star
Samuel Eto’o to provide beds and bedding to minors in all ten central prisons in the country. This has
already been done for the central prisons of Yaounde and Douala. The commitment by the government tocreate elementary, secondary and high schools in all prisons in the near future as need arises is another casein point. These will be used for the academic training of juveniles.
An important aspect of reintegration is professional training. In Cameroon most young offenders who findthemselves in prison are from poor social backgrounds and/or broken homes; most lack elementary
education and their involvement in crime basically stems from poverty and lack of care. They needprofessional training in order to acquire skills which they can use to make an honest living after release orprobation. Not all prisons in Cameroon have workshops for this purpose but efforts are being made, with thehelp of stakeholders, to create them in all prisons.

B. Penitentiary Practice
Since minors are mostly first time offenders and victims of broken homes and peer pressure, theirtreatment in penitentiaries has to relate to their mentality and psyche as teenagers. Minors need
psychosocial care, material assistance, educative talks, training, legal assistance and links with their families.
Prisons should therefore have facilities for compulsory education and training given the fact that at their age,minors are untrained and most do not have basic education. In addition to the above they must be separated
from adult offenders.
In Cameroonian prisons, minors are always separated from other inmates. In cases where there is no
separate section in the prison reserved for minors, a ward is set apart for them and is specially guarded. This
is to avoid bullying by older inmates, theft, drug abuse, etc. It should be noted that these illicit activities areperpertrated by some adult inmates. Superintendents in charge of prisons always have a ‘special eye’ on theminors’ section because they are particularly vulnerable. It is also worth mentioning that the practicalapplication of discipline and punishment of minors is different from that of adult offenders. More emphasis isplaced on sensitivity and education than on repression.
Cameroonian prisons have a Bureau of Socio-cultural, Educative and Leisure Activities and a Bureau ofTraining. Teaching and educative talks are provided for all inmates with particular attention given to minors.
They are given lectures on topics such as the prevention of sexually transmissible infections and HIV/AIDS,
personal hygiene, responsible behaviour, etc. Also, training in carpentry, masonry, and tailoring is carried out
where workshops for these skills exist.

C. Problems and Challenges in the Care and Reintegration of Juveniles
Many problems plague corrections as a whole, and juvenile corrections in particular, in Cameroon.
Among these are overcrowding in prisons and insufficient human, material, and financial resources toeffectively and efficiently carry out penitentiary activity. Also, the government faces the challenges ofsetting up a correctional system adapted to political, economic, social and legal evolutions.
Overcrowding is a major problem in Cameroonian prisons because many prisons were constructed before
independence, which was more than 47 years ago. Prisons built for 1,000 inmates today have 3,000 or moreinmates. Although minors constitute a small quota of the number of inmates in Cameroon (2,600 out of
22,564 or 11.52% of the total number of inmates), they suffer from this situation because of the absence ofspecial prisons for them. Overcrowding creates poor living conditions and facilitates the spread of contagious
diseases. There is a need to build new prisons.
The insufficiency of human, material and financial resources affects the functioning of penitentiary
establishments. There is a quantitative and qualitative shortage of penitentiary personnel. This has beencaused by the prolonged lack of recruitment due to economic difficulties. The economic problems faced by
the country makes it difficult to provide sufficient material for the functioning of vital penitentiary structures
such as schools, playgrounds and training workshops. Also, the budgetary provisions for prisons are usuallylimited.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

In recent years, corrections as a discipline has evolved, especially its legal framework and respect ofhuman rights. The government has taken up the challenge to adjust the correctional system to theseevolutions by elaborating a new penitentiary regime which will lay more emphasis on reintegration
measures rather than the security of penitentiary establishments. The new regime will take particular careof the special needs of each category of offenders, of which juveniles are the most vulnerable. This falls
within the reforms envisaged by the government.

IV. ENVISAGED REFORMS IN THE CORRECTION OF JUVENILES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Under the auspices of the President of the Republic, a certain number of reforms of the penitentiary
system as a whole and correction of juveniles in particular have been envisaged. These cover the areas ofprison infrastructure, capacity building of penitentiary personnel, reform and organization of the National
School of Penitentiary Administration and the development of a collaborative relationship between the
Penitentiary Administration and stakeholders.

A. Reforms
Reform efforts are being undertaken in four initiatives.
1. Infrastructure
The need for new infrastructure has been emphasized as a means of solving the major problem inprisons, which is overcrowding. By building operational structures for the custody of inmates, conditions ofdetention shall be improved. This will offer inmates better living conditions and increase possibilities for the
carrying out of activities favourable to reintegration. Some of these penitentiary structures will be used forthe custody of minors and women, who represent special categories. The problem of the negative effects of
the incarceration of juveniles with adult inmates will consequently be solved.
2. Capacity Building of Penitentiary Personnel
The training of Cameroon’s penitentiary personnel emphasizes the security aspects of their jobs andplaces less emphasis on resocializing activities. This has always led the Penitentiary Administration toresort to personnel of other ministries such as social workers, teachers, nurses, guidance counsellors, andclergy in order to carry out activities of resocialization such as training, counselling, education etc.
Proposed reforms in the above area are the improvement of performance through the reinforcement of
the institutional capacities of the Penitentiary Administration, the reinforcement of the capacities of its
human resources so as to enable them to respond to the demands of its missions, the modernization ofmanagement practices and methods and the development of a resocializing dimension of penitentiary
activity.
In this connection, penitentiary personnel shall be trained in methods of treatment of prisoners which
respect human rights, ensure discipline, and work towards social rehabilitation. This is necessary because
the strength and major resource of any institution is its staff and the capacity building of personnel is
instrumental in the attainment of objectives. Many penitentiary workers do not understand the job ofcorrections. They view their jobs as keeping inmates inside the prison so as to protect public safety. They do
not understand that they have to work with inmates and be role models so as to encourage and assist themto correct their criminal behaviour. Juveniles in particular can be resocialized through this approach.
3. Reform and Organization of the National School of Penitentiary Administration
In Cameroon the National School of Penitentiary Administration is in charge of the training of
penitentiary personnel. This institution therefore plays an important role in the orientation and application of
the government’s penitentiary policy. The reform of the school covers the building of new structures inorder to make it a sub-regional institution for central Africa, the adjustment of teaching syllabi to theevolution of knowledge, and the creation of specializations. Personnel will be better trained in human rights,
vocational activities, social sciences, psychology, security, etc. With this we can expect greater responsibility
and accountability from prison staff. The existence of specializations will also permit some personnel to train
in the treatment of juveniles.

110

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

4. Collaboration Between the Penitentiary Administration and Stakeholders
Such collaboration existed in the past but it was insufficient because of the limited access to prisons
generally allowed by the government to civil organizations who want to get involved in resocialization
activities. One of the objectives of penitentiary reform is the development of collaboration between the
Penitentiary Administration and other stakeholders involved in the care of inmates so as to favour collective
action in the execution of penalties, promote mechanisms to evaluate the impact of treatment on the inmate,and from this, orientate criminal policy. In this perspective, the introduction of alternative forms ofpunishment as a means of reducing overcrowding in prisons has been envisaged. In addition, since public
opinion is generally hostile to prisoners and even penitentiary personnel, sensitization of public opinion andthe community is necessary. This can only be achieved with the help of stakeholders. Community
complaints of lenient actions and procedures for particular categories will be reduced since the community
will be made to understand the importance and necessity of such actions. It should be noted that complaintsof lenient treatment of some offenders, most of the time minors, which in Cameroon usually take the form of
public manifestations of dissatisfaction, lead judges to become harder on offenders so as to please the public.
Increased collaboration will also facilitate community based care and reintegration programmes for juveniles.
Such activities are presently absent in Cameroon.

B. Recommendations
Several recommendations can be made to complete the reforms to ameliorate penitentiary activity. These
involve individualization, premature release measures (probation, parole, and release on licence),
identification and computerization of information and indeterminate sentencing.
1. Indeterminate Sentencing
This does not exist in Cameroonian penal law. Indeterminate sentencing gives authority to judges to givea sentence range (minimum and maximum) to a criminal, within which, if he or she is of good conduct inprison, he or she serves the minimum period and in the contrary circumstance, serves the maximum period.
The law here should be clearly defined to fix a sentence range for each offence. Judges will pronounce thespecified sentences and prisoners will make an effort to change positively so as to spend less time in prison.
If he or she feigns an improvement and goes on to repeat his or her crime when released, he or she will thenbe given the maximum penalty for the offence committed. This measure is particularly useful for juveniles
who may have been lured into crime by peer pressure or psychological imbalance.
2. Identification and Computerization of Information
To effectively fight criminality there should be a mastery of information relating to it. The government
should make sure convicted prisoners’ files have pictures and finger prints and these should becomputerized. The manual calculation of sentences and keeping of files in Cameroonian prisons does notfavour an effective follow up and monitoring of criminality. Record services in prisons should becomputerized and there should be a network link between all prisons. With this, it will be easier to sort out
recidivists and control the execution of penalties. Also the registry of the court should be computerized andlinked to the computer network of prisons so as to ensure that all certificates of non-conviction delivered are
given to persons whose criminal records are clean as provided by law.
3. Early Release Measures
These are probation, parole and release on licence.
Probation is provided by law in Cameroon but its effective application is limited because of the financial
resources required. It is exclusively directed towards juveniles. Nevertheless there is a need to involve
more penitentiary personnel in probation work in the future given that they, most of the time, have a betterknowledge of the criminal, social and character antecedents of the juvenile. This is especially applicablewhen he or she is a recidivist.
Parole is not provided by law in Cameroon, but it can be introduced as a measure for adult inmates.
Release on parole should be accorded to adult inmates who exhibit good conduct in prison. In suchcircumstances, they should promise to be of good behaviour. If they do not abide by that undertaking, they
will be reincarcerated.

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Release on licence is provided by Cameroonian penal law. Its grant and revocation is by presidential
decree. This makes it a difficult process for the inmate. There is a need to create regional commissions forthe grant and revocation of release on licence to ease the process.
4. Individualization
In order for custody and reintegration to succeed, they should take into account the individual capacities,
abilities, behaviour and antecedents of each prisoner. All prisoners do not have the same needs. The case ofminors shows that their age makes them more vulnerable to prison culture. Individualization can only
succeed if there is a good observation strategy within the prison to identify inmates of good behaviour andallow them to benefit from early release. It is also necessary to adapt the education and training provided
within the prison to the needs of each prisoner.

V. CONCLUSION
The legitimate objective of penitentiary activity is reintegration. In order to achieve this, individual
situations and capacities should be taken into account. Juveniles constitute a particular category within theprison milieu. The issue of accomplishing a positive character change through immersion in the ‘criminal
society’ that is prison has always been raised. Any reforming or reshaping under such circumstances willprobably be in a negative direction. Most of the time, when inmates begin to behave in a socially acceptablemanner, it is largely as a result of their own initiative and not because of the system. Ideally, the factors thatlead to these circumstances should be understood and controlled. Poor individualization is one of them. In
the case of minors, rigorous separation and discipline is necessary in order that probation and other special
measures of protection can lead to reintegration.

112

EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERSAND THEIR REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Shu-kan Kenny Cheung*
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to give an overview of the core treatment programme components provided by theCorrectional Services Department (CSD) of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region in the correction of young offenders. It is prefaced by a brief definition of a young offender and thespectrum of sentencing options for this particular group of offenders. The discussion then focuses on the
major components of the programmes catering for young offenders and the role of the community inrehabilitation work and concludes by offering a glimpse of the way ahead.

II. DEFINITION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
According to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, a “child” means every
human being below the age of 18 years. The Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance defines “adult”
as a person who has attained the age of 18 years. The legal age of criminal responsibility in Hong Kong isseven years and a “child” is interpreted as a person under the age of 14 years. A “young person” refers to aperson of between 14 years and 16 years of age.
The CSD of Hong Kong considers those under the age of 21 years to be young offenders. The Criminal
Procedure Ordinance specifies that no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 years and under 21 yearsof age to imprisonment unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person isappropriate. In the management of penal institutions, the Commissioner of Correctional Services has thestatutory duty and power to set aside a prison or a portion of a prison to accommodate inmates under 21
years of age. The Prison Rules and the newly enacted Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinancerequire a regular review of sentences of prisoners who are under 21 at the date of conviction. Prisoners
under 21 may be required to attend compulsory educational classes. Persons sentenced to imprisonment of
three months or more before attaining the age of 21 years and released before attaining the age of 25 years
are subject to statutory post-release supervision. Only persons aged not less than 14 and not more 21 yearsof age may be sentenced to detention in a training centre. Those under 25 years of age may be sent to adetention centre. Accordingly, the term “young offender” is generally adopted to include offenders aged
seven to 20. In Hong Kong, the CSD and the Social Welfare Department (SWD) are responsible for providing
services for this group, but no person under the age of 14 years shall be placed in the custody of the CSD.
Notwithstanding the slight variation in definitions, it is manifestly clear that the legislature intended toprovide differential treatment in the correction of young offenders.

III. SENTENCING OPTIONS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERSThe criminal justice system of Hong Kong provides the courts with a wide range of options in dealing
with offending youths, each of them operated by the CSD or the SWD under different ordinances. Due to thelimited length of this paper, only the programmes under the purview of the CSD will be discussed in thefollowing sections.

A. Pre-sentencing Assessment
For any programme to be effective, whether institution-based or community-based, an essential factor isgiving a young offender an appropriate sentence. To determine the appropriateness of a particular
programme, or to match the rehabilitative needs of a young offender to a programme, the court obtains andconsiders information about their circumstances, taking into consideration any data which is relevant to thecharacter of the young offender and his or her physical and mental condition. In the case of the CSD, any
young offender who is considered for training in a detention centre, a training centre, or a drug addiction
treatment centre must be remanded for a period not exceeding three weeks to undergo assessment.

* Chief Officer, Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong SAR.

113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

In the process of pre-sentencing assessment, an intake officer interviews the young offender andconducts field and home visits before compiling a report on the social history of the young offender. In 2006,
a total of 4,633 assessment reports were written for the consideration of the courts. The major criterion foradmission to a drug addiction treatment centre is drug dependence at the time of admission. For thedetention centre, the young offender must be physically fit to take part in rigorous physical exercises,
mentally sound and intellectually able, with no previous experience in a prison or a training centre. Those
who, for a variety of reasons, are found to be unsuitable for the detention centre or drug addiction treatment
centre, primarily due to their criminal sophistication or physical, mental, or intellectual deficiencies, which
require a longer period of comprehensive correctional training, may be considered for admission to a training
centre. Though the law stipulates explicitly that no court shall sentence a person under 21 years of age toimprisonment unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him or her is appropriate, aconsiderable number are still sentenced to a term of imprisonment because of the gravity and seriousness of
their offences.
In other words, the CSD runs an informal system of first receiving the young offenders at the detention
centre at the earliest stage of their deviation from the law, their graduation from the training centre, perhaps
a diversion to a drug addiction treatment centre due to drug dependence, and eventually prison, mainly inaccordance with the advancement of their criminal careers and incorrigibility.
In recognition of the significance of pre-sentencing assessment and the need for a comprehensive
enquiry into the most appropriate programme of treatment for convicted young offenders between 14 and 25
years of age, the CSD and the SWD jointly established the Young Offender Assessment Panel in 1987. With
the services provided by the Panel, the lower courts of law (magistrates) may first refer a convicted young
offender to the Panel for comprehensive assessment before passing sentence. In 2006, the Panel received a
total of 194 referrals from magistrates and 82% of its recommendations were accepted.
There are five major correctional programmes catering for the treatment of young offenders, all of which
are of institution-based residential modality.

B. Treatment Programmes
1. Sentence-oriented Main Programmes
The CSD is managing a detention centre, rehabilitation centres, training centres, drug addiction
treatment centres and prisons, i.e. a spectrum of criminal sanctions and correctional programmes foroffenders aged 14 or over, who cannot be otherwise dealt with in the community. Tailor-made sentenceoriented treatment programmes are devised to cater for the different needs of offenders with different
backgrounds. They are briefly illustrated below.
(i) Detention Centre
An alternative to imprisonment for male young offenders aged between 14 and 25, who do not have along string of previous convictions and whose offences are not serious in nature. The rigorous programme
provides young offenders with ‘short, sharp, shock’ treatment emphasizing strict discipline, hard work,
physical training and foot-drill. It aims to teach offenders respect for the law, self respect, an awareness ofneglected capabilities in legitimate pursuits, and an ability to live with other people in harmony.
(ii) Rehabilitation Centre
This is another alternative to imprisonment for young offenders aged between 14 and 21, particularly
those who are not physically fit for the Detention Centre programme. Discipline training in Phase I (2-5months) is followed by a period of residency in a half-way house setting in Phase II (1-4 months).
(iii) Training Centre
This is an intermediate sanction between imprisonment and the Detention Centre or a Rehabilitation
Centre for young offenders aged between 14 and 21. The orderly and structured training programme aims todevelop the character of a young offender. It combines with the personal influence of members of staff andeducation and vocational training to form the basis of the programme. All inmates undergo half-day education
classes and half-day vocational training in accordance with their levels of educational attainment andvocational skills. They are also encouraged to take an active part in indoor and outdoor extra-curricular

114

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

activities, for example, Scouting, Guiding, Outward Bound courses, the Hong Kong Award for Young People(the former Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme), etc. Offenders shall be subject to three-year statutory
supervision after discharge.

(iv) Drug Addiction Treatment Centre
This is for drug addicts who are convicted of minor criminal offences. The aims of this programme arethreefold: detoxification and restoration of physical health; treating the inmate’s psychological and emotional
dependence on drugs; and preparation for the inmate’s reintegration into society.
After admission, every inmate is given symptomatic treatment for drug withdrawal syndrome. The
treatment of psychological dependence is effected through the work programme as well as individual andgroup counselling aimed at improving the inmate’s health and courage, cultivating positive work habits, andestablishing self confidence and a sense of responsibility. Inmates also attend compulsory remedial
educational classes and participate in various recreational activities. A specially designed Relapse Prevention
Programme, aided by tailor-made videos, assists inmates in gaining better insight into their drug problems
and prepares them psychologically prior to their release.
A progressive system is devised for the above programmes and a Board of Review assesses the progress,
attitude, effort and response of each inmate every month. An inmate must have secured suitable
employment or a place in a school before he or she is determined by the Board to be released, to be followed
by a 12-month statutory aftercare supervision period (except Training Centre supervisees). During the postrelease supervision period, the ex-offender can be recalled for a further period of detention if any of thesupervision conditions are breached.

(v) Imprisonment
Young offenders, male or female, sentenced to imprisonment are accommodated in institutions purposely
set aside for them. These institutions operate a programme based on half-day education classes and half-day
vocational training with the term of imprisonment subject to good conduct and industry. Their sentences are
regularly reviewed to ensure that they are receiving treatment in their best interests. A supervision orderwith provision for recall is made against a young prisoner who, before his or her 21st birthday, is sentenced
to serve a term of imprisonment of three months or more and is released from prison before his or her 25thbirthday.
2. Needs-oriented Supplementary Programmes
Apart from the aforementioned sentence-oriented treatment programmes, the CSD has also developed avariety of needs-oriented supplementary programmes to cope with the unique rehabilitative needs ofspecified groups of offenders. Some such programmes are explained below.

(i) Substance Abuse Awareness and Recidivism Prevention ProgrammeThis programme aims to encourage offenders with substance abuse problems to receive necessaryintervention and to facilitate their reintegration into the community.
(ii) Violence Prevention Programme
The purpose of this programme is to provide violent offenders with comprehensive psychologicaltreatment services to reduce violent reoffending, tailored according to an evidence-based, specialized riskneeds assessment.
(iii) Offending Behaviour Programme for Young Offenders
This course helps young offenders to develop positive attitudes and skills instrumental to rehabilitation.
(iv) Relapse Prevention Course for Inmates Undergoing Drug Addiction Treatment
This programme focuses on improving inmates’ efficacy in dealing with problems of substance abuse andminimizing relapse through increasing their motivation to change their drug-taking behaviour, identifying
high risk situations relating to drug-taking, and developing skills to deal with these high-risk situations.

115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75(v) Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment ProgrammeThis programme aims to provide comprehensive and systematic psychological evaluation and treatment
services for sex offenders in a therapeutic environment with a view to enhancing their motivation fortreatment.
(vi) Educational ProgrammeThis programme is to provide offenders, both young and adult, with opportunities to better themselves
through education and to assist them in participating in public examinations.
(vii) Vocational Training
This programme is to assist offenders in acquiring vocational skills which may help them seek gainful
employment after discharge and thus start a new healthy life.

IV. FACTORS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF TREATMENT PROGRAMMESThe various treatment programmes mentioned in the last section have been devised to cope with thedifferent rehabilitative needs of different groups of offenders. How successful these programmes are
depends on to what extent they are able to achieve the community expectations or their pre-set aims. In thissection, the critical success factors of treatment programmes are to be elaborated, which naturally form thebasis or standard of measuring their success. We thereafter take a look at the measures currently used andthen try to see if there is any inspiration to be taken from this review.

A. Reoffending Behaviour
The ultimate objective of all treatment programmes is to assist rehabilitated offenders to reintegrate into
the community as law-abiding citizens. Leading them not to reoffend is the core critical success factor oftreatment programmes. Should this mission not be achieved, the longer the interval between discharge andreoffence, the more successful is the concerned treatment programme.
Certain treatment programmes are tailor-made to help offenders change their offending behaviour andpromote their psychological wellbeing, such as those targeting sexual offenders and violent offenders.
Whether these rehabilitated offenders recommit crimes of a similar nature determines the effectiveness ofthese treatment programmes.

B. Other Rehabilitative Needs
Believing that having a healthy lifestyle impacts positively on rehabilitated offenders, the Department
has been introducing various educational and vocational training programmes to assist their rehabilitation.
Therefore, public examination results and vocational training that helps rehabilitated offenders to seek
employment after discharge are ways of measuring the programme’s success.
C. Stakeholders’ Perspective
Our existence is to satisfy stakeholders’ needs or to meet expectations of various parts of the community.
If this is true, how our stakeholders, such as the public and even the offenders, assess the success of ourtreatment programmes seems to be of paramount importance.
D. Current Measures to Ensure the Effectiveness of Treatment Programmes
1. Success Rates
Persons released from the detention centre, rehabilitation centres, training centres and drug addiction
treatment centres, certain young prisoners, and prisoners released under various supervision schemes, arerequired to receive statutory supervision from CSD aftercare officers. Such requirement is to ensure
continued care and guidance, thus is conducive to their rehabilitation. The success rate of these aftercare
services is defined as the percentage of supervisees who have completed the statutory supervision without
reconviction of a criminal offence. Drug addiction treatment centre supervisees must also remain drug free.
The following figures reflect the success of various treatment programmes.
As shown in Figure 1, a total of 2,786 persons completed statutory supervision in 2006 and the overall
success rate was 71%. Success rates for various programmes were 95% for detention centres, 96% forrehabilitation centres, 70.8% for training centres, and 56.3% for drug addiction treatment centres.

116

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Figure 1: Success Rates
3500
77.1

2976

2894
75.9
2635

2500

76.1
2502

77.1
2567

77
2737

2786

75

2277
74

2000

74
73

73

72.9

76

72

1500
71
1000

71
70
69

500

68

Crime Rate (per 100 000 population)

Nunber of Crimes

3000

78

67

0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Cases Expired

Success Rate

2. Recidivism Rates
The recidivism rate refers to the percentage of readmission within three years of discharge of all local
convicts released from CSD custody. Different time spans may sometimes be used to take a look at the time
it takes the recidivist to reoffend after discharge. It provides a simple and easy-to-understand figure tosummarize the performance of local offenders in leading a law-abiding life after discharge from CSD custody.
Apart from providing timely feedback to facilitate CSD programme planning and monitoring, it helps othercriminal justice components monitor the recidivism trend so that prompt action can be taken to contain the
problem and fight crime, thereby contributing to keeping Hong Kong a safe city.
In order to better reflect the actual reoffending behaviour of rehabilitated offenders, we compare therecidivism rates of different categories such as by gender, age and type of offence. This is to allow
administrators to better allocate scarce resources and to identify room for improvement. The recidivism rate
in 2005 was 45.1% and in 2006 was 43.3%.
3. Target Achievement of Various Needs-oriented Programmes
Thus far, this paper has described various needs-oriented treatment programmes devised to achievedifferent rehabilitative targets. The CSD has developed different measurement tools to check theireffectiveness. Basically, for the programmes aiming at changing offending behaviour and promoting
offenders’ psychological wellbeing, the tools used may be classified into two categories. One is to compare
the recidivism rates of those who have attended the treatment programme with those who have not. The
other is to check whether rehabilitated offenders re-commit the offences for which they underwent
treatment e.g. sex offender treatment. The observations greatly assist in refining our programmes.
4. Education
Education helps offenders improve their academic standards and interpersonal skills, and restores theirself-esteem and confidence, i.e. it is good for their future reintegration. The CSD provides half-day
compulsory education programmes for young offenders (under 21) and guidance to adult offenders who
participate in educational studies on a voluntary basis. They are encouraged to sit external and public
examinations such as the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination, the Hong Kong Advanced Level
Examination, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations and other public examinations
required by distance learning courses at degree, diploma or certificate level.

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Thus, their examination results, shown in Figure 2 below, tell how successful the educational
programmes are. In 2006, offenders attempted a total of 952 public examination papers and obtained an
overall passing rate of 83%.

Figure 2: External and Public Examination
1800
1682

1644

73
1400
66

67

72

80
74

73
70
67

65

60
1060

1094

1061

54

952

1000

800

769

50

40

704

600

30

400

20

200

10

Passing Rate

1200
No of Candidates

83

1567

1600

90

1709

0

0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 2002

2003

2004

2005 2006

Year
No. of Candidates

Passing Rate

5. Vocational Training
Young offenders (under 21) receive compulsory half-day vocational training in industrial or commercial
skills to facilitate their smooth reintegration into the community after discharge. Vocational training is also
extended to adult offenders on a voluntary basis. A wide variety of courses keeping pace with developmentsin the community are conducted to prepare offenders to obtain accredited qualifications by taking the City &Guilds International or the Pitman Qualifications Examinations.
Apart from the examination results, whether rehabilitated offenders may apply the skills acquired
through vocational training to obtain job opportunities in the same field reflects, at least to a certain extent,
the success of the vocational training programmes. Such data are therefore maintained.
6. Inspiration
It is vital to listen to stakeholders in order to address the problems we face. Although we have constantcontact with the public and have been listening to their expectations of correctional work, a more in-depth orscientific approach, i.e. survey, may help us understand the community more and inspire us to further
develop our stakeholder-oriented treatment programmes. If we can accommodate possible unpredictableoutcomes and unfavourable comments, conducting public surveys to understand community expectations ofus and the public assessment of our performance is useful.
The Department has also collaborated with the School of Continuing and Professional Education of the118

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSCity University of Hong Kong in embarking on a new project entitled “Continuing Education for Offenders”
with the intent to stimulate participants’ interest in pursuing further studies. A further two programmes,
comprising a reading programme to promote reading culture and a mentor scheme providing learning
support to individual offenders, will be launched soon.
The family, as an important agent for change and a powerful protective factor for offender rehabilitation,is well-recognized by the CSD, especially in the treatment of young offenders. An Inmate-Parent Centre
opened in 1999, and with the launch of the Inmate-Parent Programme in the same year, demonstrates thescope of family work in an educational as well as interactional format. The programme aims at facilitating thereintegration of young inmates into their families by enhancing communication between them and theirparents.
Besides video seminars on communication and parenting with complementary VCD, other measures arealso implemented. Some examples are using posters and reminder cards; talks on enhancing children’s selfefficacy; emotional handling and understanding children’s substance abuse; and reducing inmates’ risks ofreoffending by strengthening their parents’ capability in supervising their children. Familiarization visits arearranged for family members to acquaint themselves with the institutional training programme. The NeverAgain Programme aims to cultivate a rehabilitative relationship between inmates and their families throughthe work of group dynamics. Birthday gatherings for young inmates are held in correctional institutions with
the inmates’ immediate family members.
For the convenience of aged, pregnant or physically disabled family visitors, a video visit system wasintroduced in 2001. This video conferencing equipment links centres in the city with a number of institutions
in remote areas.

V. FOSTERING REINTEGRATION
A. Staged Release to the Community
According to existing legislation, all young offenders, drug addicts, those who have committed offences
related to violence, sex or triad activities and been sentenced to two to six years in jail, as well as prisoners
whose term of imprisonment exceeds six years, are required to be put under CSD supervision for a period ofseveral months to a few years after release, during which time the Department will provide supervision
services for them. In preparation for effective supervision, rehabilitation officers on supervision duties strive
to foster a trustful relationship with inmates as well as their families and significant others during the period
of detention. They also provide inmates with appropriate support and guidance to adapt to the institutional
programme, and to become aware of their inadequacies and the difficulties ahead. Through regular contact
and visits, prisoners discharged under supervision are assisted in leading law-abiding and decent lives.
The Halfway House Programme of the CSD is an extension of the rehabilitative efforts carried out within
the penal institutions. Following release, supervisees in need of a period of transitional adjustment reside ina halfway house from which they go out to work or school during daytime and to which they return at night.
The programme seeks to cultivate a sense of self-discipline and positive work habits within a structured andsupportive environment.

B. Removing Hurdles
A gainfully employed ex-offender is much less likely to commit crimes. However, some prospective
employers may harbour misunderstandings about rehabilitated offenders and their lives during incarceration.
To overcome such obstacles, in 2001, 2003 and 2004, the CSD organized, in conjunction with the Centre for
Criminology of the University of Hong Kong, three symposia on employment for rehabilitated offenders.
Through experience-sharing by rehabilitated offenders and their employers, we have been able to cultivate adeeper understanding of rehabilitated offenders in employers of various trades and appeal to them to provide
equal job opportunities for rehabilitated offenders.
In addition to a number of employers contacting the CSD after the symposia to make enquiries about theemployment of rehabilitated offenders, some enthusiastic organizations in the private sector have promoted
the “One Company, One Rehabilitated Offender” campaign since 2004 in three local districts, whereby job
placements are made feasible for some rehabilitated offenders. This worthwhile campaign will be extended

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

to all 18 districts in the territory. As of 30 June 2006, we have a database of some 300 employers who haveoffered to rehabilitated offenders more than 600 job vacancies in 100 different trades resulting in 300
rehabilitated offenders having been successfully employed.
Being the major employer in the territory, the Hong Kong Government has established guidelines intaking the lead in employing rehabilitated offenders so long as this is not inconsistent with the public
interest. The question on criminal convictions in the application form for government posts was deleted in2003 and all applicants are subject to the same set of open and fair selection procedures. Candidates are
selected based on their ability, potential and performance, as well as the qualifications, experience and levelof integrity required for the post under recruitment.
As regards legislation, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (Chapter 297, the Laws of Hong Kong)provides for the conditions under which a conviction will be spent. Such conditions include situations where:
a)
b)
c)

the person was not sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three months or to a fine exceeding
HK $10,000 in respect of a conviction in Hong Kong;he or she has not been convicted in Hong Kong previously; anda period of three years has elapsed and he or she has not been convicted in Hong Kong of afurther offence.

The term “spent conviction” means the following:
a)
b)
c)

the conviction is not admissible as evidence in any proceedings save for the exceptions set out
in sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance;
there is no obligation to disclose that previous conviction if asked; andfailure to disclose that conviction cannot be a ground for dismissing or excluding the personfrom any office or employment.

It is considered that the above approach, encompassing both public education and legislation, strikes aproper balance between helping rehabilitated offenders return to the community and protecting the public
interest.

C. Preparing the Community
A survey covering some 1,600 discharged offenders and serving prisoners was conducted in 2000 by the
CSD to heighten public awareness of the problems and needs of rehabilitated offenders and to facilitate
effective planning and delivery of rehabilitative services. The survey revealed that the most immediateproblems at the initial stage of their release were securing employment, improving family relationships,
seeking financial assistance and looking for a dwelling place. Measures and initiatives that have been put
forward to address these needs include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

conducting suitable training to assist offenders in securing employment after release and soliciting
employers to offer fair job opportunities to them;
organizing more structured activities for offenders and their families to rebuild their relationships;
establishing a telephone hotline manned by social workers to provide timely guidance and crisis
intervention services for discharged offenders;providing information on non-government organizations (NGOs) and trust funds which discharged
offenders with pressing financial needs can approach for short-term cash assistance;
identifying those offenders in need of longer-term aid and referring them to the Social Welfare
Department (SWD) for support under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance scheme;
providing financial assistance to discharged offenders to pursue education programmes andemployment-related courses.

While the CSD is committed to providing the best possible opportunity for all offenders to make a newstart in life upon release, the efforts made by the government and the offenders themselves are notadequate. The potential for success largely depends on how ready the community is to help and support
them. Common misconceptions about offenders and, to a certain extent, the prison regimes, are mainly due
to lack of information and public education. This not only creates obstacles to the smooth reintegration of120

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

rehabilitated offenders but also leads to wastage of resources devoted to the rehabilitation of offenders.
Recognizing that community acceptance and support are essential to the successful reintegration ofrehabilitated offenders, we set up the Committee on Community Support for Rehabilitated Offenders in late1999, comprising community leaders, employers, education workers, professionals, and representatives ofNGOs and government departments to advise on rehabilitation programmes and reintegration and publicity
strategies. On the advice of the Committee, a series of publicity and public education activities have beenorganized to help the community better understand the needs and problems of rehabilitated offenders and to
appeal for their support. These include community involvement activities jointly held with various District
Fight Crime Committees, special TV and radio programmes, roving exhibitions, uploading the well-received
and prize-winning TV docu-drama on rehabilitated offenders “The Road Back” to the CSD website for public
viewing, the appointment of local celebrities and public figures as Rehabilitation Ambassadors, etc.
To assess the effectiveness of the publicity strategies, we carried out opinion polls in 2002 and 2004. The
findings were encouraging, revealing that 59.5% of the respondents in 2004 agreed that publicity activities
could enhance their understanding of rehabilitated offenders, and that 91.9% considered it worthwhile for
the Government to continue to conduct publicity activities to appeal for community support for rehabilitatedoffenders. In 2002, the percentages were 43% and 83.6% respectively.
A new initiative to enhance public understanding and support of our work is the Hong Kong Correctional
Services Museum. Opened in late November 2002, the museum serves to preserve and showcase thehistory of the Department and the evolution of local corrections from a closed system that focused onpunishment to the present one that emphasizes rehabilitation and community partnership. The museum
helps lift the veil on correctional work, dispel the misconceptions held by the public about prisons, enhance
the Department’s public image and serve as an interactive platform for our staff to share with visitors theirexperience in helping prisoners start afresh and the difficulties they encounter in their daily work. Up to
April 2007, over 370,000 people had visited the museum.
The Department values partnership with community organizations and continues to receive support,
both financial and in kind, from them to take forward projects for the benefit of offenders and rehabilitatedoffenders. These organizations include the Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Zonta Clubs, Yan Oi Tong, Lok Sin
Tong Benevolent Society, Pok Oi Hospital, Yuen Yuen Institute, Care of Rehabilitated Offenders Association,
International CICA Association of Esthetics and Tung Sin Tan.
To further encourage the involvement of the general public in our rehabilitation work, we formed theCSD Rehabilitation Volunteer Group in 2004 to conduct interest groups on languages, computers and othercultural pursuits for offenders in various correctional institutions and on occasion, to assist in publicity
campaigns to promote the message of acceptance of rehabilitated offenders. The Group now consists of morethan 180 volunteers who are mostly university students and serving teachers, and has conducted some 270
classes and served over 3,000 inmates.

D. Continuity and Inter-Agency Collaboration
Community participation in various aspects of the correctional and rehabilitative process builds a bridge
between the community and the offenders. As a result, community attitudes towards offenders beginchanging and supportive connections are formed that are more conducive to an offender’s re-entry tosociety. At present, there are more than 60 religious bodies and non-government social services agencies
working with us in providing services to help prisoners reintegrate into the community. These
organizations, through the employment of social workers, peer counsellors and volunteers, rendercounselling, employment and accommodation assistance, and recreational and religious services for persons
under our custody as well as rehabilitated offenders. Also, the Continuing Care Project implemented in early
2004 engages seven NGOs to follow up on supervisees who, after completing the statutory supervision, arestill found to be in need of, and are willing to receive, counselling services.
With a view to strengthening co-operation amongst NGOs and providing all NGO partners with anopportunity to exchange views on matters relating to rehabilitation services, forums with NGO
representatives have been held in the past. Besides, a web-based messaging platform has been set up toprovide users with an interactive site to post up topics for open discussion.

121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

E. Outreach Approach for Juvenile Crime Prevention
Apart from detaining offenders in a decent and safe environment, the CSD also strives to provide
comprehensive rehabilitative services and programmes to offenders with the long-term objectives ofprotecting the public and reducing crime. In line with the Department’s outreaching strategy to support theDistrict Fight Crime Campaign, the CSD has undertaken a number of public education initiatives for youth
over the years. The purposes of these initiatives are two-fold, namely to help prevent juvenile delinquency
through better understanding of the harmful effects and untoward consequences of committing crimes, andto promote youth support for offender rehabilitation through encounters with rehabilitated offenders who
have determined to turn over a new leaf in life. Some such initiatives are outlined below.
1. Personal Encounter with Prisoners Scheme (PEPS)The CSD has been running PEPS since 1993, with a view to generating attitudinal and behaviouralchanges among youth at risk. Under this Scheme, participants will visit one of the designated correctional
institutions, and have face-to-face discussions with reformed prisoners. The objective is to prompt theparticipants to think about the consequences of committing crimes. At the same time, the participating
prisoners can develop a positive self-image and build up confidence through the experience sharing sessions.
In 2006, 207 visits were arranged for a total of 3,399 young people and students under PEPS.
2. Green Haven Scheme (GHS)The Department started the Scheme in January 2001 to promote anti-drug messages and the importanceof environmental protection among young people. Under the Scheme, participants will visit the mini drug
museum at the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on Hei Ling Chau and meet with young inmates there tolearn about the harmful effects of drug abuse. They will also take part in a tree planting ceremony to pledge
support for rehabilitated offenders and environmental protection, and as a vow to stay away from drugs. In
2006, 33 visits were arranged for 904 participants under GHS.
3. “Options in Life” Student ForumTo demonstrate the willingness of rehabilitated offenders to contribute to society, the CSD organized aseries of student forums in all 18 districts from late 2003 to late 2005 to provide opportunities for secondary
school students to interact with rehabilitated offenders, and to discuss with them the detrimental
consequences of committing crimes. A total of 20 student forums have been organized with 3,300
participants. In line with the CSD’s community involvement strategy, arrangements have been made forsimilar forums to be run by 12 non-government organizations (NGOs) since 2006. The CSD provides thenecessary support and guidance to the NGOs.

VI. CONCLUSION
Societies are now focusing on how best to reintegrate offenders into society and to reduce their chancesof reoffending, for the good of society and the offenders themselves. The young offender rehabilitation
programmes of Hong Kong Correctional Services Department aim to help young offenders develop sociallyacceptable behaviour and improve their interpersonal skills; strengthen their confidence and abilities to copewith stress and difficulties arising from their reintegration into society; and enhance their potential for
productive and decent employment. As responsible correctional administrators, we exercise care in putting
the right proportion of discipline, sanction and constraints together with rights, privileges, and measures
which facilitate the young offender to change for the better, while at the same time providing for him or her
protection and security, and securing a way to re-enter mainstream society. The CSD will endeavour tobecome a pioneer in meeting society’s expectations, fulfilling our mission in the correction of offenders, andrehabilitating them as law-abiding citizens.
It is most encouraging to see that an increasing number of community organizations and the generalpublic share the view that the community as a whole would benefit from the successful transition ofrehabilitated offenders, and many have expressed interest in rendering support to them after learning of
their needs and rehabilitation efforts through our publicity activities. Notwithstanding this, the CSD willcontinue to focus efforts on cultivating the desired corporate culture in order to match our VMV statements,
empowering prisoners and rehabilitated offenders to face the challenges of reintegration into the communityand enlisting community support in the rehabilitation of young offenders.

122

EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERSAND THEIR REINTEGRATION TO SOCIETY
Loupua Kuli*
I. INTRODUCTION
The Kingdom of Tonga (also known as “The Friendly Islands”) is a monarchy with King George V as the
Head of the State. It is comprised of three main island groups, Tongatapu, Vava’u and the Ha’apai group.
There are minor islands such as ‘Eua and the two Niuas located further to the North.
The 1875 Constitution of Tonga is still the country’s Supreme Law and is also one of the oldest
Constitutions in the world. The Criminal Offences Act (COA) governs criminal activities within theKingdom. This law applies equally to everyone regardless of their age, race, religion or status. The law ofTonga does not stipulate the youngest age at which a person may be charged with a crime.
The Kingdom still has no Probation Act to guide the work of its probation officers. However, those within
the Crown Law Office who are responsible for drafting legislation are addressing this matter. Therefore theprobation officers’ duties are authorized and guided by the following directives:(i) Court Orders, particularly under section 25A of the COA. This is in relation to Community Service
Orders;(ii) Cabinet Decisions, particularly the new rehabilitation programme for youth known as the “YouthDiversion Programme”;(iii) Traditional procedures formulated by Ms. Grigg, a volunteer from the UK who founded the probation
service in 1994;(iv) Legal advice from the Crown Law Officers.
The Probation Division in Tonga handles adult and youth (juvenile) cases, both through the justicesystem and outside it.
In addition, the Probation Division is under the supervision of the Secretary for Justice and it employs
five officers. This is a major development because last year, there were only three officers. These five
officers are based at the main island, Tongatapu. The Probation Service is yet to be extended to the outerislands. There are five Magistrate Courts as well as the Supreme Court in Tongatapu, two Magistrate Courts
at Vava’u and one at Ha’apai. The Supreme Court has Court Circuits to Ha’apai and Vava’u, once and twice
respectively every year. There are also monthly Magistrate Court Circuits to ‘Eua from the Tongatapu
Magistrate’s Court and the Niuas from Vava’u Magistrate’s Courts. The Probation Division’s work is limited
to the courts on the main island unless there is an urgent need for an officer on the other islands.
As a result of the riot in Tonga on 16 November 2006, the implementation of the now major youth
rehabilitation programme commenced. The name of this programme is the Youth Diversion Programme.
First time offenders aged seventeen and under are diverted to this programme at the discretion of theProsecution Service. The details of this new programme will be discussed later in the paper.
With the limited staff and infrastructure of the Probation Division, we do our best to cope with theincreasing workload and to provide the highest quality service possible.

II. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE TONGA PROBATION DIVISION
A. General Services
The following are the services provided by the Probation Division in Tonga in relation to juvenile
rehabilitation and reintegration into Tongan society:* Probation Officer, Probation and Youth Justice Division, Ministry of Justice, Tonga. Please note: the use of the word “youth”
in this paper also refers to juveniles.

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75(i) Preparation of pre-sentencing reports as directed by the Court;(ii) Arrangement and supervision of Community Work;(iii) Co-ordination and Supervision of the Youth Diversion Programme;(iv) Counselling;(v) Supervision of Probation Orders;(vi) Outreach programmes for youths e.g. “Youth Crime Awareness”.
Services (i), (ii) and (v) have been implemented since the establishment of the Probation Division in
Tonga. Service (iv) began in April 2007 with the recruitment of an Officer with knowledge of counselling.
Service (iii) commenced in early December 2006 after the riot in Tonga. This is a new development in the
rehabilitation of youths and will be discussed in detail later in the paper. Service number (vi) is currently informulation and is to commence in July 2007.

B. Youth Diversion Programme (YDP)
This is the first time this rehabilitation programme has been implemented in Tonga. After the riot in
November 2006, the Honourable Minister and Attorney General decided that it was time for Tonga to allow
offending youths a second chance, starting with the youths who were involved in the riot. The objectives ofthis YDP are:(i) To divert criminal issues from the courts in cases where young people are involved;(ii) To enable those who played a role in causing the damage to develop a full understanding of the harmthey have caused and acknowledge their responsibility for it;(iii) To enable those who played a role in causing the damage to contribute to repairing the harm;(iv) To increase community involvement in the justice process, and community commitment to restoring
peace and harmony in Tonga.
These incorporate some of the core objectives of the criminal justice system. The YDP also intends toresolve matters quickly, and to avoid imposing a life-long record of conviction on youths which could prevent
travel and limit employment opportunities. The Prosecution Service has the discretion to nominate eligible
youths to be diverted to the YDP and the qualifications are:(i) That he or she is 17 years old or under;(ii) That he or she is a first time offender; and(iii) That the case in which he or she is involved is a minor one (under the jurisdiction of theMagistrate’s Court).

III. TREND OF YOUTH OFFENDING IN TONGA
There has been a gradual increase in youth crime in the last four years. The following table is taken fromthe Tonga Police Force’s statistics and shows what type of criminal activities youths have committed from2002 to 2005.

124

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Major offences committed by young offenders (15-24 years) in Tonga (2002-2005)
Offences

2002

2003

2004

2005

Grievous Bodily Harm

2

5

4

5

Bodily Harm

15

11

24

11

Common Assault

106

102

82

74

Indecent Assault on a child

7

2

6

2

Theft

57

113

191

39

Receiving

3

7

–

–

Robbery

1

–

3

–

Embezzlement

1

4

1

–

Forgery

–

–

99

–

Obtain money by false pretences

2

6

68

–

Housebreaking

5

15

8

7

Unlawful entry into a building

9

12

17

9

Willful damage to properties

13

9

13

12

Disturbance

24

36

59

30

Abusive language

40

31

45

39

Drunkenness

348

274

443

417

Total

633

627

1063

645

The trend indicates a gradual change with a significant increase in 2004. In 2005, the average age forusing any type of alcohol was 17, which correlates to the increase in drunkenness in Tonga for that year.
In general, the PYJD works closely with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These NGOs include
the Tonga Salvation Army, the Tonga Center for Women and Children, the Tonga National Youth Congress,and Legal Literacy. The referral of youths from the PYJD to each NGO for appropriate rehabilitation
programmes is based on the probation officer’s assessment of what kind of the guidance and assistance theyouth needs. For example, a youth who stole something to trade for liquor will be referred to the Alcohol andDrugs Awareness Course of the Salvation Army and perhaps the Life Skills Training course also.
For the PYJD to use the NGOs’ allowances, each NGO must seek permission from the Chief Justice of
Tonga by submitting an application. The Chief Justice must also endorse their respective rehabilitation
programmes.

IV. CHALLENGES FACING THE PROBATION DIVISION IN RELATION TO
YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES
A. Financial
Because the national budget is limited, the PYJD can barely meet the existing costs of manpower andequipment. This prevents the extension of services to the outer islands. The equipment required includes areliable vehicle, maintenance tools such as lawnmowers, and administrative tools such as computers, etc.
This is the greatest challenge in the work of the PYJD.
B. Cultural
It is the traditional belief of Tongans that a criminal will be punished by a court. Society is therefore
questioning the effectiveness of this new YDP programme. Some Tongans challenge the YDP and say that it
is unfair that prior to the establishment of the YDP some youths were sentenced to hard labour whilst
present offenders are not.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

C. Social
Youths who were committing offences are still mingling with other members of society and may have anegative influence on their peers. There have been a few cases where a young offender living with peers has
encouraged the others to commit further offences. There are also a few cases where young offenders havebeen before the Courts since the age of 12 for stealing and housebreaking. Having attained the age of 21 andbeen to prison a number of times, their behaviour has not improved. Despite attending various NGOs’
rehabilitation programmes, the offenders still are not employed.
D. Lack of Legal InfrastructureFirst of all, Tonga is yet to establish a separate court for juveniles and is yet to enact a separate Juvenile
Act. Discussion of this very important issue is currently proceeding. It was only in April 2007 that theConvention for the Rights of Child was launched in Tonga.
The arresting procedure of a juvenile is the same with that of an adult. There is no difference whatsoever.
The juvenile is also detained in exactly the same way as adults. After the 16 November riot in Tonga, many
people, including juveniles, were arrested. In fact, these juveniles were detained with the adult offenders
from overnight to a week or more.
Additionally, the same prosecution procedure is applied to juveniles in Tonga and the same sentences arealso applicable.

E. Problem Families
The number of juveniles from broken families is increasing. In some cases, both parents have migrated
overseas leaving the juvenile with relatives who equally neglect their guardianship of these minors. There isalso a lack of guidance for parents who have difficulty raising their children. In some cases, juveniles havebeen known to commute between both parents, finally ending up living with a peer group from whom he or
she can pick up all sorts of criminal activities.
There are also some juveniles who left school at a very young age; some are engaged in hard labour toearn a living whilst others roam the streets seeking other ways to earn an income.
Some interviewees lie to the probation officer when questioned about the juvenile, making it very
difficult for the probation officer to make a correct risk assessment of the juvenile.

F. Specific Challenges in Introducing the Youth Diversion Programme
There are no additional staff to co-ordinate this newly established diversion programme, nor has thesalary scale increased to reflect the extra workload. There is also a lack of funds for resources such as
vehicles. There is an absence of any official regulation or law for the guidance and protection of theDiversion Programme.
So far the repayment of victims’ losses is via compensation ordered in the Courts. Attempts have been
made for some offenders to execute their Community Work hours to the victim’s benefit, but in most cases
there is lingering ill-feeling between the two parties.

V. EFFECTIVE MEASURES IN THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS
So far, Tonga lacks the facilities for institutional treatment. However, the close relationship and cooperation of the NGOs makes the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders much more possible.
Below is a sample of the Tonga Salvation Army rehabilitation programmes for juveniles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

126

Assessment
12 Step Comprehensive Treatment Programme
12 Steps to Good Health
Life-Skills
Healthy Anger
Smoking Cessation Programme
Psychology of Winning
Family Focus Group

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

•
•
•
•
•

Parental Information Group
Recovery Group
Community Based Programmes
Recreational Programme
Recovery GroupA. Community-based Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
An unofficial restorative justice programme is in practice in one of the villages in Tongatapu. In thisrestorative justice system, the complaint is verbally submitted by the complainant to the Noble or his
representative and the elders in the village at the fono meetings. There is an apology from the person who isthe subject of the complaint and some kind of agreement is negotiated by that person and the offended party
as to how the relationship will be restored.
The main objective of this unofficial restorative justice is to maintain peace and harmony in the village by
the efforts of the community members themselves. According to the members of the village, it is very
effective.

B. Effective Measures to Promote the Reintegration of Juveniles into the Community
The best method practiced in Tonga is when parents and elders include young offenders in theircommunity gatherings, such as kava parties, and give them good advice and let them know they are notoutcasts.
In the YDP, there is a family conference where the parents are present and involved in the discussion ofwhat is best for their child. With the 16 November cases, the victims were not invited, mainly because of thepolitical unrest in Tonga. Inviting the victims may have caused more problems for everyone rather thanfinding a peaceful solution to what happened.
There is still a lack of hostels and other rehabilitation aid places in Tonga. There are however somepeople who take in delinquents and try to help them become better people and citizens. Some are successful
and some are not.

VI. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Tongans have now realized that sending people to prison to punish them for their crimes is
not the only way to create a better Tonga. The introduction of the YDP proves this. Parents and community
members are surprised that the Government who passed the law is now giving another chance to criminals,
especially the youth, to realize what they did was wrong and to save them from any limitations on future
employment and travel opportunities. It is the foremost duty of the Tonga PYJD to oversee any rehabilitation
programmes within the Ministry and NGOs and to oversee the reintegration of youths into the community.
The main task of the Probation Division is to make youths feel accepted by including them inrehabilitation programmes so that they will understand the causes and the consequences of their wrongfulactions and will make better choices.
This is also why the Tonga PYJD is formulating and will implement the Crime Awareness Programme to
inform juveniles of what they should and should not do in order to abide by the law, because most juveniles
admitted that they did not know that by perpetrating a specific act, they actually committed an offence.
In summary, the Tonga PYJD is doing its best with present staff and infrastructure to assist the vision of
the Ministry of Justice for a “Better Tonga Tomorrow”.

127

HANDLING JUVENILE OFFENDERSUNDER CRIMINAL LAW IN VIETNAM
Chu Thanh Quang*
I. INTRODUCTION
In Vietnam, juveniles1 committing crimes are not handled by a separate court system, but the generalcriminal court system. However, as well as many other countries, Vietnam has special provisions, stipulated
in the Penal Code2 and Criminal Procedure Code,3 which are applicable to juvenile offenders. They provide
the age subject to penal liability, principles for handling juvenile offenders, judicial measures and penalties
applicable to juvenile offenders, the order and procedures of investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating
juvenile offenders and executing judgments. These provisions ensure that the handling of juvenile offenders
aims mainly to educate them and help them redress their mistakes, develop healthily, and become citizens
who contribute to society.4
Within the scope of this paper two main points will be presented. In Section I, the statistics of theSupreme People’s Court of Vietnam will be outlined to show the situation of juveniles committing crime andthe handling of same in recent years in Vietnam. In Section II, the current legal framework applicable tojuveniles committing crime as well as challenges and disadvantages arising from legal proceedings will be
discussed. My personal opinion on more effective measures will be given in the conclusion.

II. STATISTICS OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN VIETNAM
According to the statistics of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam, the number of juveniles
committing crime has not declined in recent years, but has continuously increased; specifically:•••

In 2004 there were 2,540 juvenile offenders;
In 2005 there were 5,305 juvenile offenders (twice as many as 2004);
In the first nine months of 2006 there were 4,438 juvenile offenders.

The figures show that the number of juvenile offenders adjudicated each year constitutes from 6.5% to6.9% of the total number of defendants adjudicated by the Vietnamese Courts. The majority of them were
between 16 and 18 years old. Although there is no exact data on the application of penalties to juvenile
offenders (warning, fine, non-custodial reform, termed imprisonment) recorded by the courts, in practice,many of them were sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment.5 Also, the statistics show that juvenile
offenders usually commit certain crimes, namely: intentionally inflicting injury on or causing harm to thehealth of other persons; plundering property (robbery); extortion of property; robbery by snatching; stealing
property (theft); and breaching regulations on operating road vehicles. Specific figures are given in thefollowing chart.

* Legal Specialist, Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam.
1 Article 18 of the Civil Code of Vietnam, “juveniles” are individuals under eighteen years of age.
2 This Code was passed by the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Xth Legislature, at its 6th session on
21 December 1999, replacing the Penal Code of 1985.
3 This Code was passed by the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, XIth Legislature, at its 4th session on
26 November 1999, replacing the Criminal Procedure Code of 1988.
4 Article 69(1) of the Vietnamese Penal Code.
5 Juvenile offenders who are given less than three years’ imprisonment may be entitled to a suspended sentence if they meetthe requirement of Article 60 of the Penal Code.

128

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Crime

2004

2005

First
Nine
Monthsof 2006

Intentionally inflicting injury on or causing harm to the health of other persons

374

653

527

Plundering property

552

822

772

Extortion of property

65

150

72

Robbery by snatching

117

380

312

Stealing property

650

1649

1259

Breaching regulations on operating road vehicles

99

179

144

According to a 1994 survey carried out by the Institute of Law Research of the Ministry of Justice, among
1,983 juveniles prosecuted, there were 377 recidivists; in 1995, the number of recidivists was 302 of 2,269
juveniles prosecuted; in 1996 the number of recidivists was 287 of 2,337 juveniles prosecuted. There is no
exact data on the recidivism of juveniles in recent years recorded by the Vietnamese Courts. However, inpractice, it is clear that the number of juveniles offending in recent years has risen. Also, many of them are
drug addicts or alcoholics.

III. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO JUVENILES COMMITTING CRIMES
A. Age Subject to Penal Liability
Article 12 of the Penal Code stipulates that:“1.
2.

Persons aged 16 or older shall have to bear penal liability for all crimes they commit.
Persons aged 14 or older but under 16 shall have to bear penal liability for very serious crimes
intentionally committed or particularly serious crimes”.

The very serious crimes mentioned in Article 12 above are those which cause very great harm to society
and the maximum penalty bracket for such crimes is fifteen years’ imprisonment. Also, particularly serious
crimes are those which cause exceptionally great harm to society and the maximum penalty bracket for suchcrimes shall be over fifteen years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment or capital punishment.6
In accordance with Article 12 of the Penal Code, Article 302(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requiresthat in the process of investigation, prosecution and trial, the exact age of the juvenile offenders shall beidentified. The identification of a juvenile offender’s age can be based on his or her personal documents suchas a birth certificate or a family household book. If the exact age cannot be found in such documents, theidentification can be made in the locality where he or she was born or resides.
However, a problem arising from practice is that, in some cases, juvenile offenders do not have any typeof personal documents. Also, the local authority does not have evidence to confirm the age of such juveniles.
In order to deal with this problem, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Official Letter No:
81/2002/TANDTC on 10 June 2002 to guide as follows:(i) If a specific month is identified, but not a specific day, his/her date of birth shall be determined as thelast day of such a month;(ii) If a specific quarter of a year is identified, but not a specific day and a specific month, his/her date ofbirth shall be determined as the last day of the last month of such a quarter.
(iii) If the first half or second half of a year is identified, but not a specific day and specific month, his/herdate of birth shall be determined as the 30 June or 31 December respectively.

B. Principles for Handling Juvenile Offenders
The principles for handling juvenile offenders are provided in Article 69 of the Penal Code, accordingly:
6 Article 8(3) of the Penal Code.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75“1.

The handling of juvenile offenders aims mainly to educate and help them redress their wrongs,
develop healthily and become citizens useful to society.

In all cases of investigation, prosecution and adjudication of criminal acts committed by juveniles, thecompetent State agencies shall have to determine their capability of being aware of the danger to societyof their criminal acts and the causes and conditions relating to such criminal acts.
2.

Juvenile offenders may be exempted from penal liability if they commit less serious crimes orserious crimes which cause no great harm and involve many extenuating circumstances and they arereceived for supervision and education by their families, agencies or organizations.

3.

The penal liability examination and imposition of penalties on juvenile offenders shall only apply tocases of necessity and must be based on the nature of their criminal acts, their personal
characteristics and crime prevention requirements.

4.

The courts, if deeming it unnecessary to impose penalties on juvenile offenders, shall apply one of
the judicial measures prescribed in Article 70 of this Code.

5.

Life imprisonment or the death sentence shall not be imposed on juvenile offenders. When handing
down sentences of termed imprisonment, the courts shall impose on them lighter sentences thanthose imposed on adult offenders of the corresponding crimes.

Pecuniary punishment shall not apply to juvenile offenders who are from 14 to under 16 years old.
Additional penalties shall not apply to juvenile offenders.
6.

The judgment imposed on juvenile offenders aged under 16 years shall not be taken into account for
determining recidivism or dangerous recidivism.”

The judicial measures set out in Article 69(4) include: education at communes, wards or district towns, orsending juveniles to reformatory school. However, in reality, these measures are rarely applied. Why judges
decide not to use these measures is a controversial issue. There are some who state that these measures
are often applied to less serious cases by the executive before the legal proceedings.7 Others suppose thatsome judges impose a penalty instead of judicial measures as they are afraid of taking a risk. Whatever thereason, this fact reduces the effectiveness of Article 69(4) and Article 70.

C. Arrest, Custody, Temporary Detention and Other Deterrent Measures
Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:“1.

Persons aged between 14 years and under 16 years may be arrested, held in custody or temporary
detention if there are sufficient grounds prescribed in Articles 80, 81, 82, 86, 88 and 120 of this Code,but only in cases where they commit very serious offenses intentionally or commit especiallyserious offenses.8

2.

Persons aged between 16 years and under 18 years may be arrested, held in custody or temporary
detention, if there are sufficient grounds prescribed in Articles 80, 81, 82, 86, 88 and 120 of thisCode, but only in cases where they commit serious offenses intentionally or commit very serious orespecially serious offenses.

3.

The bodies ordering the arrest, custody or temporary detention of juveniles must notify theirfamilies or lawful representatives thereof immediately after the arrest, custody or temporary
detention is effected”.

Besides the provisions on arrest, custody and temporary detention, the Criminal Procedure Code allows
7 Under Vietnamese administrative law, juveniles violating laws may be subject to a form of sanctioning, administrative

violation or other administrative handling measures, including: warning; fines; education at communes, wards, or district
towns; sending to reformatory schools, educational establishments, or medical treatment establishments; or administrative
probation. These sanctions and measures are decided by the executive.
8 Articles 80, 81, 82, 86, 88 and 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code are applied to criminals in general.

130

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

the investigating bodies, procuracies or courts to assign juvenile offenders to their parents or guardians forsupervision so as to secure their appearance in response to summonses of the procedure. Persons assigned
to supervise the juvenile offenders are required to do so closely, to oversee their behaviour and ethics and toeducate them.9 This measure can be seen as a special deterrent measure applicable to juvenile offenders. It
also increases the responsibility of juvenile offenders’ parents and guardians to educate and help juveniles toredress their wrongs.

D. Defence
Under Article 57(2) of the Penal Code and Article 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code, juvenile accusedor juvenile defendants must be assisted by defence counsel. Where they or their lawful representatives
refuse to select defence counsel, the investigating bodies, procuracies or courts must request bar
associations to assign lawyers’ offices to appoint defence counsel for them or propose the Vietnam
Fatherland Front Committee or the Front’s member organizations to appoint defence counsels for theirmembers. Where defence counsel is assigned, the counsel’s fee shall be paid by the investigating bodies,procuracies or courts.
Although the provisions mentioned above ensure that the juvenile offenders are assisted by defence
counsel in proceedings, the legal interests of juveniles may not be well protected. The problem arising isthat, due to the low fees paid by the investigating bodies, procuracies or courts, the defence of juvenile
offenders is often assigned to inexperienced lawyers. Also, in some cases, such lawyers may workirresponsibly. This fact badly affects the defence of juvenile offenders.

E. Trial
At first-instance, the trial panel shall be composed of one judge and two people’s assessors.10 For serious
and complicated cases, the trial panel may be composed of two judges and three people’s assessors.
According to Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the defendants are juveniles, thecomposition of a trial panel must include a people’s assessor (juror) who is a teacher or a Ho Chi Minh
Communist Youth Union cadre. In addition, Article 302(1) requires that judges who handle juvenile
defendants must possess the necessary knowledge of the psychology and education of juveniles as well as
knowledge of activities to prevent and fight crime committed by juveniles. However, currently, there are no
judges specializing in handling juvenile offenders in Vietnam. Therefore, personally, I think the provision of
Article 302(1) is ineffective.
F. Participation in the Procedure by Families, Schools and Organizations
Under Article 306 of the Criminal Code, participation of families, schools and organizations in thecriminal procedures of juvenile offenders is not only a right, but also an obligation; accordingly:“1.

Representatives of the families of persons kept in custody, the accused or defendants, teachers or
representatives of schools, the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union or other organizations where
the persons kept in custody, the accused or defendants study, work and live shall have the right aswell as obligation to participate in the procedure under decisions of the investigating bodies,procuracies or courts.

2.

Where the persons kept in custody or the accused are between 14 years and under 16 years old or
juveniles with mental or physical defects, or in other necessary cases, the taking of their statements
and interrogation must be attended by their families’ representatives, except for the cases where
their families’ representatives are deliberately absent without plausible reasons. The families’
representatives may inquire about the persons kept in custody or the accused, if the investigators so
agree; they may produce documents, objects, make requests or complaints, and read the case files
upon the termination of the investigation.

3.

At the court sessions to try juvenile defendants, the presence of their families’ representatives,
except for the cases where their families’ representatives are deliberately absent without plausible
reasons, of their schools’ and/or organizations’ representatives is compulsory.

9 Article 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10 A people’s assessor, selected by the courts,

is a person who meets the requirements set out in Article 29 of the Ordinanceon Judges and Assessors of the People’s Courts.

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Representatives of the defendant’s family and representatives of their school and/or organization
attending the court sessions shall have the rights to produce documents, exhibits, to request or propose
to change the procedure-conducting persons; to join in the arguing process, and lodge complaints aboutprocedural acts of the persons with procedure-conducting competence, and court decisions”.

G. Penalties Applicable to Juvenile Offenders
According to Article 71 of the Penal Code, juvenile offenders shall be subject to one of the following
penalties for each offence:(i) Warning(ii) Fine(iii) Non-custodial reform(iv) Termed-imprisonment.
The Penal Code also has special provisions relating to fines, non-custodial reform and termed
imprisonment applicable to juvenile offenders. Accordingly, a fine shall be applied as a principal penalty tojuvenile offenders aged between 16 years and under 18 years, if such persons have income or private
property. The fine levels applicable to juvenile offenders shall not exceed half of the fine level prescribed by
the relevant law provision.11
In respect of the non-custodial reform penalty, Article 73 of the Penal Code stipulates that when applying
non-custodial reform to juvenile offenders, the income of such persons shall not be deducted. The noncustodial reform duration for juvenile offenders shall not exceed half of the term prescribed by the relevant
law provision.
In relation to the termed imprisonment penalty, Article 74 of the Penal Code provides as follows:“The juvenile offenders shall be penalized with termed imprisonment according to the following
regulations:1.

For persons aged between 16 and under 18 when they committed crimes, if the applicable law
provisions stipulate life imprisonment or the death sentence, the highest applicable penalty shall not
exceed eighteen years of imprisonment; if it is termed imprisonment, the highest applicable penalty
shall not exceed three quarters of the prison term prescribed by the law provision;2.

For persons aged 14 to under 16 when committing crimes, if the applicable law provisions stipulate
life imprisonment or the death sentence, the highest applicable penalty shall not exceed twelve
years; if it is the termed imprisonment, the highest applicable penalty shall not exceed half of theprison term prescribed by the law provision”.

As mentioned above, although the Penal Code provides four types of penalties applicable to juvenile
offenders, in practice, a penalty of termed imprisonment is regularly applied. In some cases the courts
decide to impose a warning, fine or non-custodial reform on juvenile defendants.

H. Augmentation of Penalties in Cases of Multiple Crimes
Under Article 75 of the Penal Code, for a person who has committed more than one crime, of which themost serious was committed before he or she reached the age of 18 years, the common penalty shall not
exceed the highest level prescribed in Article 74 mentioned above. If the most serious crime is committed
after such person has reached the age of 18 years, the common penalty is the same as that applicable to adultoffenders.
I. Serving of Imprisonment Penalties
Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:“1.

Juvenile offenders shall serve their imprisonment penalties according to a separate detention regime
prescribed by law.

11 Article 72 of the Penal Code.

132

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

It is forbidden to keep juvenile offenders together with adult offenders.
2.

The juvenile convicts must be provided with job training or general education while they are serving
their imprisonment penalties.

3.

If the juveniles reach the age of 18 years while serving their imprisonment penalties, they shall be
moved to be subject to the imprisonment regime applicable to adults.

4.

For juveniles who have completely served their imprisonment penalties, the superintendence boardsof their prisons shall have to coordinate with the administrations and social organizations in thecommunes, wards or townships in helping them to lead a normal life in society.”

The Penal Code also stipulates a special provision to reduce penalties served by juvenile offenders as
follows:“1.

If juvenile offenders, who are subject to non-custodial reform or imprisonment, have made good
progress and already served one-quarter of their term, they shall be considered by the court for a
penalty reduction; particularly for imprisonment, their penalty can be reduced each time by four
years but only if they have already served two-fifths of the declared penalty term.

2.

If juvenile offenders who are subject to non-custodial reform or imprisonment have recorded
achievements or suffered from dangerous illnesses, they shall be immediately considered for penalty
reduction and may be exempt from serving the remainder of their penalty.

3.

For juvenile offenders who are subject to a fine penalty but fall into prolonged economic difficulties
due to natural calamities, fires, accidents or ailments or who have recorded great achievements, thecourts, at the proposal of the directors of the procuracies, may decide to reduce or exempt them fromthe remainder of the fine penalty.”

J. Remission of Criminal Records
The time limit for criminal record remission for juvenile offenders shall be half of the time limits
applicable to adult offenders. Juvenile offenders subject to judicial measures shall be considered as having nocriminal records.12
IV. CONCLUSION
In spite of a quite good legal framework provided in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, thenumber of juvenile offenders has continuously increased. It could be a result of poor implementation ofexisting relevant legislation. In my opinion, to make the juvenile justice system more effective, it isnecessary to train the investigators, prosecutors and judges who specialize in handling juvenile offenders.
Enlightening lawyers on their responsibility and necessary skills is also an effective remedy to protect
juveniles’ rights and prevent them from committing crimes.

12 Article 77 of the Penal Code.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

APPENDIX A
Court System of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Supreme People’s
People s Court
Central Military Court

134

People s Courts of provinces, cities
People’s
directly under the central authority

Regional Military Courtsand equivalents

People’sPeople s Courts of districts, prefectures,
towns and cities under provincial authority

Area Military Courts

136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

APPENDIX B
Organization of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam

Judicial Councilof the Supreme People’s
People s Court

Criminal
Court

Court of Appealsin:- Hanoi- Da Nang City
- Ho Chi Minh City

Civil
Court

Economic
Court

LabourCourt

Administrative
Court

Supporting apparatus:
1. Institute for Judicial Science
2. Judicial Training School
3. Personnel and Organization
Department
4. Secretariat Board
5. Inspection Bureau
6. Budgeting and Financing
Department
7. Administrative Department
8. People’s
People s Court Journal
9. Justice Newspaper

CentralMilitary
Court

135

REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 1ENSURING DUE PROCESS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
THE APPROPRIATE ADJUDICATION OR DISPOSITION OF JUVENILES
Chairperson
Co-Chairpersons

Mr. Kapila Mudantha Waidyaratne
Mr. Masaomi Nakazawa
Mr. William Antonio Parodi Pugliese
Mr. Joseph Makwakwa
Mr. Thanh Quang Chu
Mr. Augustin Esperanza Senot
Mr. Hisami Katsuda(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Panama)(Zimbabwe)(Vietnam)(Philippines)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Judge O’Driscoll
Dr. Robert Hoge

(New Zealand)(Canada)Advisers

Deputy Director Takeshi Seto
Prof. Kayo Ishihara
Prof. Jun Oshino
Prof. Shintaro Naito(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 agreed to discuss the following agenda:(1) Current situation and challenges in regard to the legal framework of arrest, detention, transfer
between related agencies, prosecution and trial.
(2) Current situation and challenges in regard to (i) information gathering (legal investigations and social
inquiry) of offences and/or the background of delinquency; (ii) information sharing; and (iii) cooperation amongst stakeholders.
(3) Assessment of the degree of risk of reoffending and the factors important for the rehabilitation ofeach juvenile (i.e. their needs) before disposition.
(4) Measures for ensuring the appropriate adjudication or disposition of juveniles, including the
introduction of diversion programmes.
(5) Adjudication or disposition considering the restitution or minimization of damage to the victim and/or
community and effective measures to restore the damage caused by juvenile offenders.
The discussions of the group were mainly centred on ensuring due process in the juvenile justice systemand the appropriate adjudication or disposition of juveniles through considering the current situation andchallenges facing member countries. The group agreed that some member countries are already adhering to
the United Nations standards, norms and guidelines.

II. CURRENT SITUATION AND CHALLENGES
The group discussed the following topics and agreed that they posed great challenges in ensuring due
process in the juvenile justice system.

A. Arrest and Detention
The group observed that member countries had laws in place that provide for the arrest of offenders but
noted that certain countries did not have specific separate laws dealing with the arrest of juveniles as
distinct from adults. A further challenge was the issue of detention before a juvenile can be brought to court.
In some countries, where such laws exist, in certain circumstances or cases, they are not specificallyfollowed by the courts and law enforcement agencies. Where the law provides that a juvenile must be
detained for a minimum period of time, the juvenile is not brought to court in a timely manner. This can arise
due to practical and individual reasons. Probation reports are not thorough or detailed and are not submitted
on time. In certain instances, presiding officers consider the gravity of the offence more than the basic
requirements of rehabilitating and reintegrating the juvenile into society.

136

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

B. Trial
Zimbabwe and Vietnam have fragmented legal provisions on juvenile justice such as the right to be
represented by a parent or guardian when police record a caution and during trial. However, there are no
specific courts to deal with juvenile offenders and insufficient facilities for their detention.
While educative measures are very effective for juvenile offenders, in Japan there is a social movement
which criticizes the Family Court as being too lenient on juveniles and which calls for severe punishment.
This is mostly attributed to the fact that there is a lack of awareness of the gains of the juvenile justicesystem.
In respect of the right to a speedy trial, the group agreed that justice delayed is justice denied. In certain
circumstances, there is an inordinate delay before juvenile cases are disposed of and this causes actual
prejudice in that a juvenile, due to the delay, is dealt with as an adult when matter is tried (Sri Lanka,
Zimbabwe). Japan has strict time limitations for detention not only in the investigation stage (arrest andreferral to Family Court must occur within a maximum of 23 days) but also in the juvenile hearing stage (theFamily Court has to make a final disposition, usually within four weeks, but up to a maximum of eightweeks). These limits are provided for by law.
In relation to the right to legal representation, in some countries, it is available only at the juvenile’s
expense. The result is that most juvenile cases are disposed without them being properly represented bylegal counsel. In Zimbabwe, legal representation is only provided by the State in indictable cases. In Panama,
offices of public defenders of adolescents provide legal representation for juveniles. In Japan, an attendant(lawyer) will be appointed by the State for detained juveniles in felony cases by the 2007 amendment of theJuvenile Law.

C. Probation Officers and their Assessment
All participants explained the situations of probation officers in their respective countries. In Sri Lanka,
probation officers are required to have a background in sociology. Japanese participants found it interestingthat while in some countries probation officers do not have a background in juvenile psychology, in Japanthey are expected to be specialists in psychology, sociology, and education.
In Vietnam the law does not provide for probation officers. Instead, police officers make an assessment
during their investigations and send the information to the prosecutors who in turn place this information
before the judge. The judge will proceed to deliver his or her judgment after considering this assessment.
In Japan, the law provides for the juvenile classification home officer and the Family Court probation
officer to carry out assessment of juvenile offenders. Family Court judges must consider two aspects of thematter before them: the criminal facts of the case and the necessity for educative measures. The judge gives
serious consideration to the report by the family court probation officer in his or her assessment of the riskof reoffending. The underlying principle is that since juveniles act out of immaturity, and because of theirhigh placidity, they may be corrected. The great challenge lies in educating citizens to understand the allimportant role played by probation officers in juvenile justice.
A Japanese participant stated that in Japan, a challenge exists in the quality of probation officers. It isbelieved that the quality is not low. However, information gathering is a vital yet difficult task. Therefore, in
his opinion, there is still room for Japanese family court probation officers to improve their ability.
The Zimbabwean position is that probation officers, who fall under the Department of Social Welfare in
the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, are called upon by the police and the courts to carry out
assessments of juvenile offenders. The police make such a request in all cases involving juveniles below theage of 14 years. The assessments are passed to the Attorney General in order for him or her to decide
whether or not to prosecute a juvenile offender. If a docket is referred to the Attorney General without thisreport, it will be returned to the police to enable them to obtain the report. The courts request probation
officers to provide an assessment report on the risk of recidivism and rehabilitation before passing sentence.
Probation officers are professionals and presiding officers are accordingly guided by their recommendations
in passing sentence.

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

In Sri Lanka, supervising police officers and probation officers assist judges in assessing the risk of reoffending by juveniles in minor cases. Since probation officers play a vital role in delivering juvenile justice,they must be given adequate time and resources to enable them to come up with comprehensive reports.
Regarding rehabilitation, the chairperson’s personal opinion was that Family Group Conferencing (FGC) of
New Zealand and the Family Court of Japan were good models in minor cases. FGC allows the offender andthe victim to come face to face and has a provision for restorative justice. As for serious offences, Sri Lanka
is bound by national and international laws in such dispositions. Judges should consider probation officers’
reports even in serious offences and mostly pass rehabilitative sentences.

D. Diversion
The group wanted to come up with a working definition of this word and adopted the international bestpractice of diversion as the channelling of juveniles away from the formal court system into reintegrative
programmes. If a juvenile acknowledges responsibility for his or her wrongdoing, he or she can be ‘diverted’
to such a programme, thereby avoiding the stigmatizing effects of the criminal justice system. It gives
juveniles a chance to avoid a criminal record, while at the same time aiming to teach them to takeresponsibility for their actions and to avoid getting into trouble again.
In Vietnam there are provisions in both criminal and administrative procedures in which courts play nopart. In the administrative procedure, the police take the juvenile to the local government or authority for it
to take appropriate measures to send the juvenile to a training school. Alternatively, the police can send thecase to a prosecutor who may also decide to refer the matter to the local authority for the juvenile to receive
treatment.
In Panama, other than in cases of murder, rape, kidnapping, terrorism and drug trafficking, a judge ofadolescents deals with issues of diversion. A judge of adolescents can prescribe social or educative measures
for a juvenile offender in non-serious cases. A prosecutor can also dispose of the case in his or her office andmay choose not to send it to a judge of adolescents where the victim has been compensated and in cases
where there is no threat to society.
In the Philippines, there are various programmes in place which provide for diversion of children in
conflict with the law such as the Barangay Court (village court system), police, prosecutors and lastly, thecourts. Decision makers are guided by the juvenile law. Diversion is allowed in minor cases where thepossible penalty for the offence is less than six years. Some other factors include such things as the natureand consequence of the offence and circumstances of the child. The disposition must be made withconsideration for the best interests of the child.
Current laws in Zimbabwe do not specifically provide for diversion of juvenile offenders. However, there
is provision for prosecutors to decline prosecution in trivial cases using the de minimis non curat lex
principle (the law does not concern itself with trivialities). The problems or challenges with this system arethat it has no provision for the juvenile offender to take responsibility for what he or she has done; thus, theoffender is not sent for corrective and/or rehabilitative treatment. The diversion programme proposed by the
National Committee on Community Service has provision for the victim and offender to meet under victim
offender mediation (VOM) and Family Group Conferencing (FGC). This will provide a platform for the victim
to be heard.
The Family Court in Japan can be seen as special model of diversion (more than 70% of all juvenile cases
are dismissed without any disposition). In the Family Court procedure, victims can request the Court to hear
their opinion. However, in some cases, it is difficult for the Court to fully reflect the victim’s voice in its
disposition.
Sri Lanka at present does not have a specific diversion programme. However, the present law enables aJuvenile Court judge to proceed with protective measures and diversion in cases of a minor nature. Even
though a juvenile offender is brought before a court, a formal hearing does not take place because
magistrates are empowered and it is within their jurisdiction to act in appropriate cases resulting indiversion.

138

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING AND
STRENGTHENING JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMSWith regard to the topics, the participants agreed that the following recommendations could be necessary
for improving and strengthening juvenile justice systems:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

A special court system competent to deal with juvenile offenders is necessary. The Family Court inJapan, and also the model of the Criminal Child Court in South Africa as proposed in the Child Justice
Bill, or the model of the Barangay Court in the Philippines are considered good models;The formulation of (or improvement an existing) fundamental framework on arrest, detention,prosecution and trial, applicable to juvenile offenders and based on United Nations standards, norms
and guidelines, must be taken into account;
Judges must have proper information in the form of comprehensive reports to enable them to makeappropriate decisions;
Probation officers, as specialists of human sciences such as psychology, sociology and education,
should be involved in the process of decision-making. Their reports and recommendations shouldhave significant bearing on the final dispositions of cases;
The involvement of volunteer probation officers, volunteer social workers, etc. as community
support resources in dealing with juvenile offenders should be encouraged;
The competent authorities, in their determination, should, as a rule, give priority to the juvenile
offender rather than the offence;
Restorative justice, where the victim meets the juvenile offender to understand why the latter
committed the offence and for possible compensation to be agreed upon, should be encouraged;
Many participants emphasized the importance of recording, properly and methodically, statistics onjuvenile offenders.

139

GROUP 2

EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERSFOR THEIR SUCCESSFUL REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs

Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung
Ms. Ayumi Ishikawa
Mr. Karma Sonam
Mr. Herath T. N. Upuldeniya
Mr. Masaru Kiuchi
Mr. Min Than Kyaw
Mr. Hee-Ho Park
Mr. Kenji Nagaike(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Bhutan)(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Myanmar)(Korea)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Judge Stephen O’Driscoll
Dr. Robert Hoge

(New Zealand)(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Tetsuya SuganoProf. Koji YamadaProf. Shintaro Naito(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Members

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 2 agreed to base its discussions on the following agenda.
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.

The current situation and problems of organizations treating juveniles.
Measures of assessing the individual characteristics of juveniles.
Development of effective treatment programmes in accordance with the results of the risk and needs
assessment:(i) Characteristics and circumstances of each juvenile to be considered for developing a treatment
programme;(ii) Utilizing the risk, need and responsivity principles of case classification to design treatment
programmes, with provision however, that such programmes are subject to professional override;(iii) Type of resources for treatment.
Development of an effective treatment programme considering victims and/or restitution of theharm caused to victims.
Continuous collaboration and maintaining links with community-based treatment services and/or
related organizations for the effective treatment of juveniles and their rehabilitation (through-care):(i) Participation of private companies, NGOs, social workers, volunteers, governmentorganizations;(ii) Need for a monitoring system;(iii) Residential programmes and halfway houses.
Aftercare systems which help maintain the effect of correctional treatment and which reduce the riskof reoffending and enhance the juvenile’s ability to reintegrate into the community:(i) Supervision by a government authority (probation officer, welfare officer or prison/correctional
officer);(ii) Involving community resources (volunteer probation officers, volunteer welfare officers,NGOs);(iii) Need for experienced and professional staff;(iv) Pre-release arrangements;(v) Close contact or communication with family members before and after discharge.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
A. Current Situation and Problems of Organizations Treating Juveniles
Most of the participants agreed that specialization of services is necessary. Staff assigned to different
tasks should take responsibility for specified duties e.g. security, discipline, education, welfare. There may
be some conflicts because of varying areas of responsibility. Most participants agreed that work assignment
140

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

deviations are necessary, and at the same time, smooth inter-sectional communication and co-operation
should be practiced to solve the difficulties we face in each field. Participants from Sri Lanka, Hong Kong,
Korea, and Bhutan mentioned that they had introduced the separated section system to give special
attention in training, counselling and education on one side, and security on the other. Mr. Nagaike statedthat Japan had introduced a whole unit concept for effective management. In that system, all staff are
required to be familiar with all programmes, including security matters, as well as educational or
psychological treatments.
Regarding the negative effects of keeping juveniles in custody, group members indicated that there is ahigh possibility of stigmatization. Most of the participants agreed that TV or radio publicity is important toredress the negative image of inmates. We also need to announce that the acceptance of inmates is
indispensable not only for the rehabilitation and reintegration of juveniles, but also for building a supportingand caring social atmosphere.
All the participants agreed that overcrowding in juvenile training centres has a negative effect onrehabilitation programmes in relation to health, hygiene, and discipline. Overcrowding can cause terrible
conflicts among inmates, and because of this problem, institutions cannot implement programmes smoothly
and thereby fail to meet UN standards. Ms. Ishikawa said that in Japan, for example, in order to cope withovercrowding issues, the parole system is a good solution to reduce the population of an institution. Mr.
Upuldeniya, participant of Sri Lanka, noted that the parole system alone might not be an effective way to
reduce the numbers of offenders. In Sri Lanka, the parole system does not function well enough to succeed
in alleviating overcrowding conditions.
Regarding family support systems and parenting assistance systems, most of the group members agreed
that these helping schemes for parents and guardians are very important for the stabilization of juvenile
behaviour and emotions. Most societies face the problems of broken and dysfunctional families which
aggravate juveniles’ misbehaviour. It is very difficult to prevent re-offending when juveniles have serious
family problems. In this regard, all the participants agreed that parental meetings and education conducted inprobation offices or correctional institutions under the instruction of staff members are good solutions.
Group members indicated that introducing volunteer family activities or youth supporting activities isvery useful. It would provide access for juveniles to healthy social activities. Mr. Park, the Koreanparticipant, explained the video meeting system which allows juveniles accommodated in institutions andparents in the community to remain in contact, providing an opportunity to maintain and improve theirrelationships.
In addition, the group discussed the fact that the correctional systems of most of the represented
countries are suffering from a lack of sufficient human and financial resources. Shortage of staff may cause
deterioration in the quality of treatment programmes, inadequate service implementation, and unsustainable
activities. Most members experienced difficulties in upgrading their agencies’ equipment and facilities
because of a lack of financial input.

B. Measures of Assessing Individual Characteristics of Juveniles
All agreed that probation officers, psychologists, and social workers should participate in the assessmentof individual characteristics. The important factors for assessment and classification have been metaanalyses or other statistical research, and the group members shared information on these factors from thearticles of Dr. Hoge and Dr. Bonta. The Corrections Bureau of Japan has just begun the improvement of its
risk and need assessment tools based upon these meta-analytic studies:(i) Prior or current offences/disposition(ii) Family circumstances/parenting(iii) Education/employment(iv) Peer relations(v) Substance abuse(vi) Leisure/recreation activities(vii) Personality/behaviour patterns(viii)Attitudes/values/cognitions(ix) Health condition.

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

The Korean and Japanese members explained that they have developed standardized personality
inventories and attitude tests. Mr. Cheung said that in Hong Kong, intake assessment for offenders is
conducted after their admission into correctional institutions for the purpose of deciding placement andrehabilitative programme planning.
Judge O’Driscoll stated that the criminal history of juveniles could be analysed to learn more about crimecommission patterns and the development of reoffending behaviour. All participants agreed that home visitsor parents’ interviews are indispensable in order to get accurate information on the juvenile’s criminal
history, general life history, family background, and living environment.
Mr. Upuldeniya said that in Sri Lanka, risk assessment is conducted for the purpose of separating lowrisk inmates from high-risk inmates. He mentioned that categorizing offenders according to levels of drug
abuse and the tendency to commit criminal or delinquent acts is important for effective programmemanagement. Assessment of criminal history and types of offence are important elements not only for
sentence adjudications or placement of offenders, but also for individual programme planning.
All the participants agreed on the importance of staff education in the assessment and identification ofjuvenile characteristics and their risk/need levels. Well trained and experienced staff should be assigned toassess juveniles. Regarding monitoring and evaluation of risk assessment, the group member from Sri Lanka
explained that social workers and probation officers have to submit reports on released offenders every six
months. The superintendents of institutions have to examine these reports coming from different sections.
All the participants agreed that sharing information among different organizations is very important for
exchanging views on the results of risk assessments and also for double-checking evaluations.
Most group members agreed that professional workers from different parties should exchange opinions on
the identification of juveniles’ characteristics. In institutions, close and careful behavioural observation ofjuveniles in group settings is very effective in identifying natural and innate personalities and behaviour patterns.

C. Development of Effective Treatment Programmes in Accordance with Risk and Needs Assessment
All participants agreed that the factors mentioned in the previous section and some additional need(dynamic) factors should be taken into consideration for the design of treatment programmes.
Factors to be considered are:(i) Criminal history(ii) Education/employment(iii) Financial circumstances(iv) Family/parents’ marital situation (attitude of parents)(v) Accommodation(vi) Leisure/recreation(vii) Gang/triad society background/social relationships(viii)Alcohol/drug/gambling problems(ix) Physical/emotional/psychological condition(x) Attitude/orientation(xi) Heath condition.
Dr. Hoge explained the concept of assessments based on the risk/need/responsivity principle, and alsoemphasized the importance of professional override in individual cases. Participants shared information on
effective treatment from the reference material and concluded that it is necessary to construct theoreticalframeworks such as:(i) Insight oriented therapies(ii) Humanistic therapies(iii) Behavioural treatment - behavioural modification(iv) Cognitive behavioural strategies(v) Family and parenting intervention(vi) Medical and drug treatments.

142

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

Mr. Cheung pointed out that in Hong Kong some social skills and prevention of antisocial behaviour
training are provided by officers of the Rehabilitation Unit (RU), and sexual offender and drug relapse
prevention programmes are conducted by psychologists. The participants from Hong Kong and Sri Lanka
said that special programmes for drug addicts are held in separate drug rehabilitation institutions. Drug
addicted inmates receive not only relapse prevention programmes or cognitive behavioural treatments, butalso vocational training, family group counselling, and post-release follow-up supervision to achieve stablesocial reintegration.
All participants agreed that special treatment should be provided for offenders with mental or emotional
disabilities. Also, they all agreed to the need to establish separate independent juvenile training schools,
juvenile prisons, and juvenile classification centres for better management of treatment programmes.
Mr. Upuldeniya said that in Sri Lanka mirror room therapy is used for offenders to express their views
and to tell life stories. It is the basic requirement of drug addiction treatment centres in Sri Lanka that all
staff be selected from among those who do not smoke or drink alcoholic beverages. He also said that Sri
Lankan correctional institutions conduct meditation programmes, vocational training programmes, andcounselling programmes in juvenile treatment institutions.
Mr. Cheung pointed out that in Hong Kong there are two training centres for different age groups. One isfor juveniles under the age of 17 and the other is for young adults under the age of 21. They are separated
for efficient management and rehabilitative purposes.
Ms. Ishikawa stated that in Japan probationers with a drugs history are required to undergo a medical
follow-up examination. Voluntary urinanalysis was adopted to motivate probationers to keep away fromdrugs and prevent relapses.
Professor Sugano raised the issue of effectiveness. He mentioned that from the statistical study,
programmes which focus on self-esteem alone have been evaluated as ineffective in reducing rates of reoffending. Ms. Ishikawa said that from her experience, dealing with the self-esteem of juveniles is very
effective. Mr. Kiuchi agreed with Ms. Ishikawa, and said that among Japanese juveniles, most suffer from alack of self-esteem which contributes to their troubled behaviour. Professor Sugano agreed that most staff
working in the treatment of juveniles believe that a lack of self-esteem is related to juvenile delinquency;
however, he mentioned that when we focus on the most effective way to reduce troubled behaviour, we needto precisely measure the results of teaching methods. To narrow down the targeted goals, the training
schemes are important for developing effective treatment methods.
All members agreed that the following training programmes are good for juveniles:(i) Changing antisocial attitudes and feelings(ii) Reducing antisocial peer association(iii) Promoting family affection and communication(iv) Improving parenting skill and supervision(v) Increasing self control, self management, problem-solving skills(vi) Reducing drug dependencies(vii) Sex offender treatment.
Most of the group members also agreed that the following types of resources for treatment should beconsidered:(i) Human resources: experts, staff and training resources(ii) Social resources: community support, private companies, volunteers(iii) Hardware and equipment, computerization(iv) Assessment tools (standardized formats).
All participants agreed that anger management programmes, social skills training programmes, relapse
prevention programmes, and family education programmes are important. In addition, publicity through projects
such as TV programmes is important for promoting smooth reintegration into society and avoiding stigmatization.

143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

D. Development of Effective Treatment Programmes which Consider Victims and/or Restitution
At the beginning of the discussion of this issue, all group members agreed that this topic is difficult topractice in institutional settings. Most members agreed that programmes concerning the damage caused to
victims should cover the following:
•
•
•
•
•

Preparation programmes for the direct participation of victims
VideosFamily group conferencing with victims
Letters to victims
Training programmes.

Mr. Kiuchi from Japan introduced the practices implemented in Japanese juvenile training schools. He
mentioned that the victims and victims ’ family members are regularly invited to give speeches to theinmates of juvenile training schools. He added information concerning institution-based treatment
programmes, e.g. training for inmates to learn how to write apology letters to the victims before real
mediation. All agreed that direct mediation should occur only after proper guidance to help inmates deepen
their feelings of remorse toward victims.
All participants agreed that family group conferences might be a good way for inmates to think more
about the feelings of and damage caused to the victims, and also the consequences of their crimes.
Mr. Upuldeniya from Sri Lanka said that video programmes for all offences other than sexual offences
would be conducted as training programmes to enhance awareness of the victim’s loss, damages caused anda sense of remorse.

E. Continuous Collaboration and Maintaining Links With Community-Based Treatment Services orRelated Organizations (Through-Care)All participants agreed that participation of private companies, NGOs, volunteers and related governmentorganizations could provide more resources and assistance for the rehabilitation of young offenders.
Mr. Cheung reiterated that in Hong Kong, NGOs and private companies are actively involved inrehabilitation services. Publicity campaigns encourage employers to employ discharged inmates. Volunteers
are invited to provide support and assistance for released offenders. Ms. Ishikawa from Japan stated that theprotection of confidential information should be considered at the time of community involvement or
employment referrals. Mr. Upuldeniya said that in Sri Lanka the welfare association in each prison, including
government officers and welfare officers, is directly involved in post-release treatment. The participantsfrom Korea and Myanmar stated that volunteers and religious groups are actively involved in the
rehabilitation services in their countries. Mr. Upuldeniya said that in Sri Lanka the Discharged Prisoners Cooperative Association provides jobs to discharged juveniles. Activities include carpentry and masonrytraining and employment. The association has also undertaken some government construction projects.
All participants agreed that a monitoring system for the performance and functions of the volunteers andNGOs is important to maintain the quality of their services. The privacy of inmates must also be considered
and monitored. Besides, all agreed that accommodation assistance or halfway house services are essential
for some juveniles. Moreover, NGOs could provide assistance in the arrangement of accommodation before
discharge and close contact between welfare or parole officers and the NGO could be maintained.

F. Aftercare Systems which Help Maintain the Effect of Correctional Treatment
The group members spent more time on this topic as all agreed that aftercare supervision is significant inmonitoring the progress of discharged juveniles and in providing assistance.
Mr. Nagaike said that in Japan aftercare supervision is provided by probation officers or parole officers.
He mentioned that the most essential matter is how to create a law-abiding spirit within probationers. Group
members agreed that probation officers need to develop programmes to enhance the spontaneous will torespect the rules and regulations of society. Mr. Upuldeniya said that in Sri Lanka aftercare supervision isprovided by prison welfare officers, probation officers or parole officers.

144

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

Mr. Cheung stated that in Hong Kong, aftercare supervision is provided by the officers from theRehabilitation Unit, and they closely supervise and counsel supervisees and their family members and also
maintain contact with employers (if applicable). Besides, they have the involvement of some community
resources and NGOs to provide needed services to young offenders, e.g. halfway houses, recreational
activities and employment guidance.
All participants agreed that trained and professional staff are essential for providing aftercare services andthat motivation of juveniles, strict regulations, monitoring and effective counselling are also important forsupervision. Ms. Ishikawa reiterated that linkage between institutions and community-based treatment
should be established to enhance the effectiveness of parole and probation supervision. All participants
agreed that pre-release programmes for young offenders and future discharge plans play an important role insocial reintegration. Mr. Kiuchi said that in Japan more practical and updated training in institutions should
be provided for meeting social change.
All participants agreed that the co-operation and active participation of parents are important for the
rehabilitation of juveniles. Mr. Cheung stated that in Hong Kong regular family group and individual
counselling services are provided for family members before discharge. He added that a multi-modality
approach is used and also that different types of programmes are conducted by related parties to enhance theeffectiveness of the supervision.
Prof. Sugano shared some relevant information on the idea of Multisystemic Family Therapy, which wasdeveloped in the USA and Canada. This therapy involves intensive observation sessions in a domestic family
setting by professional volunteers. The observations last for two to three weeks and are used to identify
persons who have a significant role in the juvenile’ s life and who can become a positive resource for thejuvenile.
All participants agreed that supervision should be conducted by a government authority (probation
officers, parole officers, welfare officers or prison aftercare officers), and that volunteers should play an
assisting role.
Mr. Cheung stated that Hong Kong adopted the outreach approach whereby a supervising officer
conducts surprise home and workplace visits to supervise the released offender closely and effectively. The
participants from Japan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka said that in their countries probationers or parolees areinterviewed in the probation office by appointment. Family visits are conducted if necessary. Mr. Sonam said
that in Bhutan police and regional community leaders provide some assistance for discharged juveniles.
All participants agreed that there were some challenges and difficulties regarding aftercare supervision,
such as handling of VPOs and some uncontrollable factors arising from bad peer group influence, finding
employment, lack of family support and drug addiction.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All participants agreed on the following conclusions and recommendations:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

To obtain more genuine and accurate information, the different aspects and characteristics ofjuveniles should be taken into consideration when conducting risk/needs assessment;
Treatment programmes should be updated regularly by inviting the opinion of experts and relatedparties. Consideration should also be given to the ideas of participating staff and juveniles.
Introduction of new programmes should be implemented in a step-by-step manner and the scale ofreform should depend on available resources;
Objective and scientific measurements should be used for assessing the effectiveness of treatment
programmes, such as the rate of recidivism and change of behaviour. Accurate and updated researchand statistics should be rigorously maintained;
Restorative justice mediation programmes provide good opportunities for the juvenile to think more
about the feeling of his or her victim and the consequences of crime. Juveniles should be guided andtrained before attending victim mediation programmes;
Before discharging juveniles, greater pre-release training and preparation should be provided. For

145

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

this purpose, parole board officers or probation officers should be involved in the treatment of thejuvenile during his or her stay in an institution. The through-care concept could be applied;
6. Stable employment is indispensable for the juvenile to lead a law-abiding life. Therefore, we need toseek more co-operation and assistance, from private companies as well as the community, throughpublicity campaigns;
7. Effective systems to monitor volunteers and NGOs are necessary;
8. In order for the juvenile to maintain his or her motivation to rehabilitate after release, it is necessary
to provide some innovative and creative programmes;
9. Family plays an important part in the rehabilitation process; greater effort should be made toencourage the juvenile to build up trusting relationships with his or her family members. This should
begin upon the juvenile’ s admission to an institution. The juvenile should also be encouraged tomaintain close contact with his or her family during the parole or supervision period;
10. Aftercare supervision with control and care elements significantly influences a juvenile’s reintegration. For this purpose, juveniles’ needs should be assessed before release;
11. Training and education for staff on the rationale and mission of rehabilitation of juveniles should be
strengthened. Some cultural change and motivational programmes could be good ways to enhanceteam spirit and levels of co-operation amongst staff members.

146

GROUP 3

EFFECTIVE MEASURES IN THE COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT OFJUVENILE OFFENDERS AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE JUVENILE’SABILITY TO REINTEGRATE INTO SOCIETY
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs

Ms. Loupua Kuli
Mr. Braam Paul Korff
Mr. Henry Asaah Ngu Ndama
Ms. Iacy Monteiro Braga Caracelli
Ms. Suwa Imai
Mr. Abdelkhoder Mahdi Al-Taher
Mr. Cesar Alexis Luiz Rodriguez
Mr. Satoshi Imamura(Tonga)(South Africa)(Cameroon)(Brazil)(Japan)(Iraq)(Honduras)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Dr. Ann Skelton
Dr. Robert Hoge

(South Africa)(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Tae Sugiyama
Prof. Haruhiko Higuchi
Prof. Ryuji Tatsuya(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Members

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 3 elected by consensus Ms Loupua Kuli as its chairperson, Mr. Braam Paul Korff as its cochairperson, Mr. Henry Asaah Ngu Ndama as its rapporteur, and Ms. Suwa Imai and Ms. Iacy Monteiro
Braga Caracelli as its co-rapporteurs. The group, which was assigned to discuss “Effective Measures in theCommunity-Based Treatment of Juvenile Offenders and Enhancement of the Juvenile’s Ability to
Reintegrate into Society”, agreed to conduct its discussion according to the following agenda:
1) The current situation and problems faced by organizations that treat juveniles.
2) Measures of assessing the individual characteristics, degree of risk and individual needs of juveniles
and classification accordingly.
3) Development of an effective programme in accordance with risk and needs assessment.
4) Development of an effective treatment programme considering victims and/or restitution of theharm caused to victims.
5) Continuous collaboration and maintaining links with institutional treatment services and/or relatedorganizations for the effective treatment of juveniles and their rehabilitation (through-care).
6) The creation of an aftercare system which helps maintain the effect of correctional treatment,
reduces the risk of reoffending and enhances the juvenile’s ability to reintegrate into the community.

II. THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROBLEMS FACED BY ORGANIZATIONSTHAT TREAT JUVENILES
The group first reviewed the current situation and problems faced by organizations treating juveniles inparticipants’ countries. The participant from Honduras, Mr. Rodriguez, said that in his country juvenile gang
activity is a problem, as is their stigmatization by society. He added that some Christian groups and NGOs
support juveniles but there are only eight such groups and they work with few juveniles. Also, one of theseNGOs has conflict with the police making it difficult to have complete trust in NGOs because of the difficulty
in reaching an agreement. He concluded that cultural and educational change, plus a sense of value, isneeded. Reacting to this, the visiting expert from South Africa, Dr. Skelton, said some NGOs have an
adversarial position to the government while others do not and actually assist the government in providing
services. She said all these roles were important but the government will find it easier to make agreementswith the second group of NGOs.
Ms. Caracelli, from Brazil, said that in her country, institutions are overcrowded and the aftercare system
is not good, leading to a high rate of recidivism. Dr. Skelton responded that community-based treatment isless costly than institutional treatment and it is therefore easier to convince the government to establish andutilize such treatment.

147

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

Mr. Al-Taher said that in his country there is the problem of war orphans and civil organizations which do
not do their work properly. These orphans are at great risk of turning to juvenile crime because they have noone to take care of them. The present government is making efforts to take care of juvenile offenders andrehabilitate them.
The participant from South Africa, Mr. Korff, said that in his country police officers are not well trained todeal with juvenile offenders. He also raised the problem of prison overcrowding and the need for more
facilities in urban areas for juveniles. Reacting to this statement, Dr. Skelton noted that there is at present a
good relationship between NGOs and the government for community-based treatment in South Africa. The
only problem, she said, is that accessibility varies greatly between rural and urban areas. She emphasizedthat NGO activities should be financed by the government since they provide public services. She finallyrevealed that South Africa is preparing a detailed standard for restorative justice and NGO activities.
The participant from Cameroon said that in his country there is too much emphasis on institutional
treatment and there are no policy guidelines or rules for community-based treatment. Probation officers
have no legal power to conduct aftercare programmes and they work on a voluntary basis for a few
community-based programmes, which are in turn initiated by NGOs and religious organizations.
The participant from Tonga, Ms. Kuli, said her country relied mainly on community-based treatment withgood support from seven NGOs. According to her the only problem is accessibility since all NGOs arelocated on the mainland. The participant from Iraq also raised the issue of reliance on religion. To this Ms.
Kuli said home training is more important than religion. The participant from Cameroon added that, religion
being a sensitive issue, separation of religion from politics (secularism) is important.
Ms. Imai said about 80% of juvenile offenders’ cases are dismissed after Family Court probation officers’
investigations (which function as protective measures) so diversion is accomplished and Family Court
probation officers, professional probation officers and volunteer probation officers are all well trained. She
added that the future need is additional professional assistance for probation officers because cases havebecome, with regard to juveniles and victims, increasingly difficult to handle.
Mr. Imamura said that there has been a recent discussion of the increasing level of family problems andschool problems which have necessitated the revision of the educational system, including the amendmentof the Fundamental Law of Education. According to him, the problem lies with probation officers. Also,
inquiry by Family Court probation officers is not fully utilized in aftercare and training also requires
improvement.
The group afterwards discussed the countermeasures taken by governments to solve the problems
raised above. Ms. Caracelli said in her country, age and type of offence are being considered but correction
measures are not enough to take care of juvenile offenders and the educational level of offenders is very low.
Mr. Rodriguez said that his government has not established any concrete correction measures. Treatment
measures are not adapted to the needs of offenders and personnel in juvenile centres lack training.
Mr. Al-Taher mentioned that young people constitute 60% of the population of Middle Eastern countries.
Education, religion, tribe and rehabilitation are therefore important in the treatment of juveniles. He said
there are childhood, employment, education and rehabilitation problems.
Mr. Ndama said that in his country a family code has been elaborated and will be sent to Parliament, and a
Department of Child Protection has been created in the Ministry of Social Affairs to help pre-delinquent andstreet children and child protection has become an important aspect of the National Human Rights
Commission’s job. All of these he said will give probation officers a wider sphere of influence in thetreatment of juveniles.
Ms. Kuli said that in her country, there are rehabilitation programmes such as training seminars andworkshops, an alcohol and drugs treatment programme and unofficial practice of restorative justice at thefono, which is a village meeting where nobles and elders of the village gather to solve community problems.

148

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

The participant from South Africa said that in his country, there is need for improvement or creation of
more facilities for the custody of juveniles, especially in urban areas, and lectures by the Department of
Education to increase children’s level of education. There are two One-Stop Child Justice Centres andnineteen other facilities for juveniles. Donors finance learning programmes for the police on domestic
violence and child protection and people from the community provide police services on a voluntary basis.
Dr. Skelton said that training on diversion has been provided by the government for judges andprosecutors. The number of people in custody has been decreasing through inter-sectoral collaboration andlegal representation. The problem of the budget required for enforcement has been solved by donors
convincing the government to continue funding NGO activities and assistant probation officers earn a
relatively low salary. Mr. Imamura said the Japanese government is reviewing the professional probation
officers’ training system and is working on increasing their numbers and criteria of employment. There isalso the development of expert, clear, unified and specified services to be provided to clients.
Prof. Sugiyama added that in Japan professional probation officers have three years’ training, consisting of
lectures and on the job training, and another one month’s training after ten years of service to become
senior probation officers. Training is also provided six times a year for volunteer probation officers on
matters such as the treatment of offenders and juveniles who have difficult problems. She also mentionedthat social requests for effective community-based treatment are increasing.
The participant from Brazil said volunteers for several projects, such as the Midnight Programme, comefrom the Public Safety Secretariat, the police and the community.

III. MEASURES OF ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS, RISK AND NEEDS,AND CLASSIFICATION ACCORDINGLY
Under this topic the group permitted each participant to mention what elements are assessed in his or
her country, the methods of assessment, and how this assessment is used.
Mr. Korff said age, type of offence, family background and personal history constitute elements ofassessment in his country. To this, Dr. Skelton said emphasis should be placed on the juvenile’s abilities andinterests. Professor Sugiyama added that considering the juvenile’s abilities and interests is very important
for reintegration. Ms. Caracelli, from Brazil, said that in her country the type of offence and age are theprimary factors for consideration. The mental and physical development of the juvenile and his or her family
situation are also taken into account. For the participant from Honduras, family background is a very
important factor. The participant from Cameroon said assessment by probation officers is based on the
traditional elements of age, type of offence, criminal history etc. The medical approach is used in age
determination and type of offence is important in determining diversion.
Ms. Kuli said that in Tonga there are two kinds of assessments; one for pretrial diversion programmes
and the other for court. Six elements are used: family background, health status, criminal history, social
circumstances, educational status and economic status. Marks are allocated as follows; 0-9 is low risk; 10-17
is moderate risk; 18-25 is high risk. Drug abuse is a subtitle under the social circumstance category.
The participant from Iraq said the political situation is an important element in assessment in his country.
Mr. Imamura said the social and economic situation should be also considered.
Concerning methods of assessment, the participant from South Africa said that in his country theassessment is conducted via interviews with the juvenile. The interviewers are probation officers,
schoolteachers and parents. This is the same for Brazil.
In the case of Iraq, interview is carried out after identifying the juvenile suspect. The Honduras
participant said police officers in his country carry out such investigations. In Cameroon and Tonga
assessment is carried out through interviewing of juvenile offenders, family members, teachers, friends,
church leaders, employers or any person who can provide useful information.

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

In Japan, as revealed by Mr. Imamura, interviews and questionnaires are used. Professor Sugiyama addedthat psychological tests are used by the juvenile classification home officer. To this, Professor Higuchi said
psychological tests are not always effective because they do not guarantee that juveniles will speak thetruth; therefore, professional judgment is very important. Still on assessment methods, the visiting expert
from Canada, Dr. Hoge, said assessments should be standardized, the people who administer them should bewell trained, and assessment of juveniles should be different from that of adults. He gave the example of theCase Management Index method which gathers and mixes information. In addition there should always beroom for professional judgments and flexibility, and he emphasized that school officers should be taught basic
risk/needs assessments because there is a danger that they may overestimate risk, especially risk ofviolence.
On the use of assessment, the participant from South Africa said the scoring sheets are used todetermine level of delinquency, peer influence and other characteristics. In Cameroon probation officers
have discretion to decide on the use of assessment results. This decision influences future determinations
on diversion and premature release. In the case of Tonga, assessment results are used to evaluate thejuvenile’s characteristics and from this make an individualized treatment plan. They also enlighten on thecomposition of the panel members who will attend the juvenile hearing, the appropriate disposition and theelaboration of an appropriate rehabilitation programme. In Japan assessment results are used to determine
the appropriate disposition and elaboration of treatment programmes.

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMMEIN ACCORDANCE WITH RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Under this topic the participants discussed the characteristics and circumstances of each juvenile which
ought to be considered in order to develop a treatment programme, the kind of treatment programmes that
could be introduced, and the kinds of resources that could be used.
Concerning the characteristics of the juvenile, the participant from Honduras said the juvenile’s abilities
and interests should be a primary factor for consideration, to which all participants agreed. Mr. Ndama addedthat in complement to the juvenile’s skill and ability, community opinion should be considered since thecommunity’s acceptance of the juvenile favours his or her reintegration. Therefore, in determining risk
there is a need to strike a balance between juvenile risk and social risk.
In Japan, as expressed by Mr. Imamura, evaluation of a juvenile’s characteristics are based on thefollowing classification elements: drug dependency, relationship with gangs, sex offences, psychologicaldisorders (including mental disability), unemployment, level of education, school violence, and domestic
violence. Professor Sugiyama mentioned that emotional maturity was also an important characteristic toassess.
Ms. Kuli explained that in addition to needs, skills, and the disposition of the community, the juvenile’s
health, physical condition and possible changes in his or her circumstances if he or she moves from one
community to another, should be considered. All participants concurred.
Regarding treatment programmes to be introduced, participants agreed that they should be individualized
as much as possible. This is the case in Japan where there are different treatment programmes according todifferent behavioural patterns and characteristics, such as sex offender treatment programmes, drug
treatment programmes, vocational training, etc.
In addition, many participants admitted the insufficiency or poor enforcement of treatment programmes
in their countries. In the case of Honduras there are 12 programmes for at-risk juveniles and a passiveminors’ programme. These programmes face problems such as lack of finances and inadequately trained
personnel. They therefore need to be improved. In Cameroon, there is a need for a treatment programme forgirls and drug offenders as the numbers of such offenders are increasing.
Finally, participants agreed that in addition to taking into account juveniles’ abilities and interests, such as
sports or music, treatment programmes should incorporate, as much as possible, elements of juveniles’
former environments. For example, for juveniles who have links with gangs, the rites and role types that150

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

feature in gang life can be used in the elaboration of a treatment programme for them.
Referring to possible resources the group unanimously agreed that institutional and community
resources are necessary. In Japan, this involves professional probation officers and VPOs; in South Africa, itmeans assistant probation officers and probation officers; and in other countries it refers to probation
officers.
Mr. Imamura asked what material is to be used by these officials and proposed the establishment of
unified manuals to provide the same quality of treatment across all institutions. Mr. Ndama thought such amanual could minimize differences in knowledge and experience of probation workers, while Professor
Higuchi thought that since crimes are varied, an excessively detailed manual would discourage independent
thinking and initiative, thereby promoting incompetence. Professor Sugiyama expressed the view that a
guideline rather than a manual was necessary and this should be associated with experience and discussion
between professionals. This was agreed upon by participants.
The use of community resources was considered very important in community-based treatment, forexample, in Iraq community treatment involves religious and tribal leaders with strong influence in thecommunity. This may require political and financial aid. The fono in Tonga, where nobles and elders in thevillage meet to solve the juvenile’s problems, is a further example.
It was noted that in many countries NGOs and religious organizations are the major providers ofcommunity-based assistance to juveniles. Workers in these bodies usually assist offenders on a voluntarybasis and the organizations themselves usually face financial problems and lack of access to information.
Given the above situation group members were unanimous on the fact that it’s important for governments toprovide necessary information and financial aid to these bodies. The role of the government in providing
incentives to companies who employ juveniles and that of the mass media in sensitization of communities on
the need, importance and advantage of community-based treatment as against prejudice and rejection ofjuveniles was highlighted. To this end, the Japanese example regarding incentives for employers wasconsidered an example to emulate.
In relation to this topic certain difficulties were raised. Dr. Hoge mentioned that although community
opinion is important, it is difficult to consider it in a large community where there are few or no relationships
between community members.
Another problem raised by Professor Sugiyama was sectionalism, which makes it difficult for PPOs,
VPOs and police to co-operate with schools. Nonetheless, she said this is changing due to co-operation fromthe community. In reaction to these difficulties presented, the group unanimously agreed that the use ofopinion leaders within the community is crucial, coupled with media sensitization of the community.
Nevertheless, the difficulty of how to sensitize the media to advance this aim remains.

V. DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMME CONSIDERING
VICTIMS AND/OR RESTITUTION OF HARM CAUSED TO VICTIMS
Under this topic, the group discussed the victim’s feelings, expectations and needs; how, where and when
offenders and victims should relate; and the third parties that should be involved in victim-offender contact.
On the aspect of victim’s feelings, Dr. Hoge said anger and sorrow were common emotions experienced
by victims. Also, victims may blame themselves, lose interest in their lives and isolate themselves fromsociety, as mentioned by the participant from South Africa. Other concerns are cases where victims don’t
want to talk at all, even after a minor offence. This has happened in many cases in Brazil. With the victims
having these feelings it is important to know what they want. The participant from Cameroon in relation tothis said some victims may want justice to be done while others may not bother much about the offence. Stillon this, Professor Higuchi said victims want severe punishment and they expect the government to provide
such punishment. In order to take the victim’s interest into consideration, compensation is important.
Dr. Hoge said this could be monetary compensation or community work. Also, Mr. Ndama mentioned thatvictims may require only symbolic compensation, such as an apology. Professor Sugiyama added that victims
want some information about the offender, the circumstances and facts constituting the offence. It is

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

noteworthy, as Ms. Imai mentioned, that in cases where the victim is seriously injured as a result of theoffence and needs continuous medical assistance, or is permanently handicapped, the issue of receiving
compensation becomes very serious.
Referring to how offenders and victims should relate, Dr. Hoge said that face-to-face meeting is the mostuseful but it is very difficult and needs to be applied carefully. In some cases, victims do not want to see theoffender. Ms. Caracelli said that in Brazil, communities are shown a video on how juveniles are serving thecommunity through voluntary work. Some victims feel more satisfied and less afraid after watching thevideo. Dr. Hoge added that although compensation is very important, restorative justice has to continue after
restitution because there are needs of juveniles which need to be addressed.
The discussion that followed was on the matter of where victims and offenders should meet. Mr. Al-Taher
said that in his country, they meet in a tribe guesthouse, a countryside place called the “Senate”, or tribe
police affairs where meetings are organized in conformity with the desires of the victim. Other participants
proposed that the meetings should be held at the victim’s house and or an administrator’s office. Participants
finally agreed on Ms. Kuli’s proposal that a neutral place where both parties could relax, chosen throughconsensus and accepted by them both, was preferable.
Ms. Kuli also asked whether offenders could write letters to victims. Participants agreed that this was
possible where victims were ready to read the letters. Participants discussed the inability of many offenders
to write comprehensive letters due to their low level of education. It was unanimously agreed that face-toface meeting between victims and offenders in a convenient place accepted by both parties is most desirable.
Speaking on when victims and offenders should meet, Mr. Imamura said that victims’ feelings usually show
the following progression: firstly confusion; secondly anger and revenge when he or she finds out the facts
constituting the offence; and thirdly wanting to act to achieve solutions. As such, the best time for the
meeting between the victim and the offender is after the second stage. This opinion was unanimously
accepted by all group members. Talking about third parties who should be included in victim-offender
meetings, Mr. Rodriguez said the victim should be accompanied by a friend or somebody he or she trusts.
The participant from Cameroon continued that in cases of sexual offence victims are often in a very sensitive
situation and in the case of murder the bereaved family’s feelings are very severe and this should beconsidered when deciding on the presence of third parties. Dr. Hoge highlighted the fact that the healing of
the victim is a process and should be considered as such. Ms. Kuli was of the opinion that the victim’s andoffender’s choices should be considered when deciding on the presence of third parties.
The group finally agreed that third parties were necessary for the successful conduct of victim-offender
meetings but stipulated that they needed to be chosen carefully, taking into account the desires of both
victims and offenders.

VI. CONTINUOUS COLLABORATION AND MAINTAINING LINKS WITH
INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES (THROUGH-CARE)
Under this topic the group discussed three issues: how to strengthen the relationship between related
treatment agencies to create an integrated system; the efforts communities can make before they receive
the juvenile, and the institutional change that can be introduced to enhance inter-agency co-operation.
Relating to the first issue, participants agreed that communication and exchange of information between
treatment agencies and the community was crucial in increasing collaboration and co-operation between
them. This nonetheless requires due regard for the juvenile’s right to privacy and should be done in thejuvenile’s best interests. In this regard, information should not be given to just anybody and should be given
for a good reason. Ideally information will be provided only to persons or bodies who have a positive stake inthe juvenile’s rehabilitation. In the case of Japan, there is a juvenile support team in which VPOs, police
officers, child welfare centre officers and school teachers discuss juvenile aftercare treatment.
In Honduras, officials and bodies involved in treatment have access to only part of the information on thecase of the juvenile; full access is the exclusive preserve of the judge. Ms. Kuli proposed in this regard thatthe probation officer should be responsible for information on the juvenile.

152

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

Mr. Korff said depending on the country situation, the courts of the Social Welfare Department could bein charge of information on the juvenile. No matter what the facts of the case, it is desirable and in the bestinterests of the juvenile that the probation office has a perfect mastery of this information. Professor
Sugiyama, from her Kenyan experience, posited a situation in which different agencies may use differently
formatted documents, thereby creating misunderstanding. In this case the challenge of ensuring the use ofidentically formatted documents by all agencies is very important, because this enhances co-operation andcollaboration. The participant from Honduras said this situation exists in his country, where NGOs use
differently formatted documents, but agencies exchange information with them and everything works well.
Exchange of personnel between agencies as a means of enhancing collaboration was also mentioned byProfessor Sugiyama.
Concerning the efforts communities should undertake before they receive the juvenile, participants
focused on community sensitization in order to ensure preparedness. The participant from South Africa said
that in his country there is a “police forum” involving police officers, community members and invited
experts, where juvenile offenders’ issues are discussed and common solutions are sought. This makes thecommunity more prepared to receive and accept the juvenile, and prevents stigmatization. Social events arealso organized in the community for sensitization.
The participant from Brazil revealed that the above-mentioned approach is also used in her country andthis raises community awareness of and co-operation with the reintegration of juveniles. To this, theparticipant from Tonga said that police officers and probation workers have connections with people who are
influential in the community, to whom they can turn for help in sensitizing the community. She also
underscored the important role of the mass media in community sensitization. Enhancing community
preparedness also requires that the community has some information about the juvenile that they will
receive. In this connection, Professor Sugiyama said the community needs to know what the juvenile wants
to do after release, and it needs to understand what training the juvenile has received by visiting theinstitution or exchanging letters with staff.
Mr. Ndama proposed that the community be involved in activities of vocational training and living
guidance within the institution. This will ready the community to receive and accept the juvenile because it
can already identify with the juvenile when he or she is released.
With reference to what institutional change should be introduced to enhance inter-agency co-operation,
the group had a heated discussion.
Mr. Ndama highlighted the fact that the link between the institution and the community is difficult toestablish, but it is nonetheless desirable to continue treatment after the juvenile’s release. It is therefore
necessary to establish a formal public institution for aftercare. He continued that in Japan there is a formallink between institutional treatment and community-based treatment, but this is not the case in many othercountries, like his, where commissions have been proposed in each province to act as a link between theinstitution and the community. Professor Sugiyama said in that in Japan, the parole board decides whether or
not the juvenile will be paroled. Also, in some systems, such as that of Hong Kong, correctional institutions
have a section in charge of aftercare activities such as job searching. Ms. Kuli said that in Tonga, theprobation office is the link between institutional treatment and community-based treatment. Mr. Imamura
mentioned the fact that establishing a good system of information was most important given that providing
information to the community is more necessary than setting up a new government institution. Regarding
the juvenile’s right to privacy, he said information can be provided on an anonymous basis, on request. For
example, when a company requests information for recruitment, the juvenile’s name is not disclosed.
Mr. Ndama next proposed the establishment of a government agency which co-ordinates several
community resources regarding the juvenile because he believes that an overly complicated system would
be unclear and vague. He also said that the Japanese system is too dependent on volunteers. The participantfrom South Africa said to change institutions you must have good benchmarks and communication between
agencies and everyone has to assume responsibility. In relation to the proposal to establish anotherinstitution which is mainly in charge of aftercare, the participant from Cameroon said it was an excellent
idea, but mentioned one difficulty. According to him, most of the time corrections tend to be regarded as aconsuming department and to convince the government to provide a budget for institutional change, it is153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

important to use cost-benefit analysis. This opinion was also shared by Mr. Imamura. To this, the participantfrom South Africa said that before carrying out institutional change it is necessary to carry out an impact
study to show how corrections can decrease recidivism and save money.

VII. AN AFTERCARE SYSTEM WHICH HELPS MAINTAIN THE EFFECT OF
CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT AND PROMOTES REINTEGRATION
Under this topic, the group dwelt firstly on how aftercare should maintain the effect of correctional
treatment; secondly on how it reduces the risk of reoffending; and finally how it enhances the juvenile’s
ability to reintegrate into the community.
Relating to the first subtopic, Ms. Caracelli said that in her country finding a job for juveniles is very
difficult, and there is no aftercare treatment. She continued that there is an agricultural training school but it
is not for juveniles. This school, she said, may be useful for juveniles and does not require a large
government budget.
Ms. Kuli said continuous communication with the juvenile’s family, school authorities and community isnecessary. To this end, in her country, probation officers continue to keep in touch with family members andschool members for at least six months. Ms. Caracelli mentioned that it is possible to work on continuous
aftercare where the community can collaborate with the police and schools to help juveniles.
Mr. Korff said an impact study is very important to see whether the treatment was effective and if
juveniles have re-offended. The participant from Cameroon was of the opinion that there is a big gap
between community-based treatment and institutional treatment, and it is necessary to make efforts to
reduce this gap since treatment has to be a continuous process.
Ms. Caracelli next highlighted the fact that it is important for juveniles to attend community-based
activities, while for Tonga’s participant it is also important to solve family problems before release and it isdesirable for juveniles to attend counselling once or twice a week.
Professor Sugiyama said that in Japan it is necessary to provide many medical follow-up programmessuch as hospital or clinic visits to treat the juvenile’s mental disorder or psychological problem. Additionally,
there is need for professional support to supervise the juveniles after release because supervising them isdifficult for their family members. According to Professor Sugiyama, family support is very necessary and
VPOs work in liaison with families, medical doctors, counsellors and other experts. The problem here is thatvery few of these professionals provide these services and the insufficiency of medical follow-up
programmes makes it difficult to release the juvenile. Some people are thus of the opinion that a juvenile
should remain in the institution for a longer period so as to get full treatment before he or she is released.
To this the participant from Cameroon said that a longer stay in the institution defeats the very purposeof juvenile justice which demands that juveniles be in institutions for the shortest possible time. This,according to him, is a controversial issue and should be a matter of public policy.
For the participant from Iraq, whether or not the juvenile has the support of family members after his or
her release is very important. If he or she has no family member there is a need to provide a particular
programme. This in his opinion is because when the juvenile is released, he or she may be taken care of by
the probation officer for a few months but if there is no family member to take over he or she will go back tothe streets and resume a criminal or delinquent lifestyle. The government therefore has to take care of suchjuvenile offenders and oversee their rehabilitation. He added that in his country the government provides
counselling to increase the self-esteem of juveniles and the community has to accept him or her. Also, thegovernment provides money to juveniles without jobs to get married and to start a small business.
Professor Sugiyama was of the opinion that establishing facilities requires a large budget. She said that inJapan the government gives compensation or financial aid to companies which employ juveniles. This was
proposed as a good approach by the participant from Tonga.

154

136TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE COURSE

The participant from South Africa revealed that his government gives subsidies to certain organizations
which provide free accommodation and food to released juveniles and the juveniles in turn do community
work. Also, most churches carry out weekend activities where social workers and other professionals
provide counselling, communication and social skills to juveniles.
The participant from Cameroon said that public opinion is sometimes very critical of government
provision of facilities for offenders which are much better than those available to the law-abiding community.
It is therefore necessary according to him to provide minimum service; this is the responsibility of thegovernment because over-reliance on volunteer systems does not set a solid basis for aftercare.
He added that private individuals or companies can provide aftercare services and manage them under
the supervision of the government, like the privatization system underway in Hong Kong and Japan. To this,Professor Sugiyama said halfway houses in Japan were established by private persons, but now thegovernment provides about 70% to 80% of their budgets. She added that Japan is now planning to establish
national halfway houses for offenders who are difficult to deal with and this may be useful to other countries.
For Mr. Imamura, the important thing is improving the juvenile’s ability or awareness rather than giving
any particular kind of aid. Also, Ms. Kuli said a post-release legal system is needed because most aftercare
activities are carried out through personal or group initiatives.
On how aftercare can reduce the risk of reoffending the participant from South Africa asserted that theprobation officer’s role is very important. He continued that his country has a programme for adult andjuvenile sex offenders called “Say Stop’’. This is an NGO programme, which aims at preventing offenders
from committing further sex offences. He also emphasized the importance of stopping juveniles fromengaging in relationships with peers, especially adults, who influence them negatively. The above-mentioned
programme provides advice and counselling to them in this regard.
Mr. Rodriguez said that in Honduras there is no aftercare system. Co-ordination between NGOs and thegovernment is therefore necessary. In his opinion, police officers could call such meetings. Ms. Imai said it isalso important for NGOs to receive budgets from the government. This is because without such budgets, it
is difficult for the government to supervise NGOs and they can’t work effectively.
According to Ms. Kuli, an aftercare system has to accommodate the problems of the juvenile. This needs
continuous assessment after release and the information has to be shared with family members. She addedthat aftercare has to continue until the juvenile is completely corrected or becomes an adult.
To this Mr. Korff reaffirmed the importance of continuous assessment to see if the juvenile is progressing
and the crucial role of the probation officer.
Mr. Imamura said when we assess the risk and needs of the juvenile both before and after release, notonly family problems but relationships with supportive persons are important. In addition, whether or not
the juvenile has a job is important, not only because of money but also because it is important for him or her
to contribute to society.
Mr. Al-Taher agreed with Mr. Imamura’s opinion and added that the juvenile should also feel forgiven andnot have a sense of guilt anymore in order to consider himself or herself accepted and admitted into thecommunity.
Mr. Ndama was of the opinion that bad peer influence and recidivism can be reduced by changing the way
the juvenile uses his or her free time. In this connection, treatment programmes should involve juveniles
using their free time for healthy distractions and hobbies, such as the Midnight Programmes in Brazil. In
this regard it is important to take the juvenile’s interest into consideration and not impose on him on her
activities which will not work.
Professor Higuchi said that in his experience, the juvenile is relatively psychologically, mentally and evenphysically weak. This makes him or her want to belong to a group and he or she tends to return todetrimental peer groups after release. It is therefore necessary to provide the juvenile with another group,155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.75

such as legal motorcycle riders or an agricultural activities group, which is involved in constructive
activities.
Following this the participant from Brazil said that in her country, juveniles always talk about groups andthey say the group is waiting for them. She agrees therefore, that it is very important to provide them withanother group.
On aftercare enhancing the juvenile’s ability to reintegrate into the community, Professor Sugiyama said
the juvenile’s parents always need continuous support because they tend to conceal the juvenile’s case fromtheir wider social circle. They are also afraid to ask for help because they are always criticized by othercommunity members. She mentioned that in the case of Japan each prefectural police office has a support
centre which the juvenile’s parents can consult at no cost. Ms. Caracelli also added that the juvenile’s familyneeds support in looking for a job and counselling by probation officers is very important for them. For Ms.
Kuli, to make aftercare treatment effective, connecting with family and community members is very
important and there is need for a legal system of aftercare treatment.
The participant from South Africa said that in his country, there is a “Skill Development Programme’’
which provides juveniles with skills so that they can find employment.
Referring to the family, the participant from Cameroon said it is one of the most important elements inensuring that the juvenile is reintegrated into the community. According to him, counselling parents
increases their ability to help the juveniles after release, making it a vital element of aftercare treatment. He
went ahead to underscore the role of the victim in aftercare treatment. He said when the victim and offender
are in the same community, the victim will be an important element in facilitating the juvenile’s reintegrationin cases where he or she has forgiven the juvenile. The victim can convince the community members toaccept the juvenile as he or she has done.
Mr. Al-Taher said the volunteer system is very important because it has a direct influence on thecommunity. He added that Iraq has a child adoption system which works very well.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

156

Community-based treatment measures must be in line with the needs of offenders. A board or
governmental institution may screen these programmes before allowing implementation by NGOs
and other community organizations. By doing this, the government may also need to set guidelines
or regulations;
A treatment programme for the type of risk and need assessment should be developed by specialists
and role players in co-operation with the police and departments of justice, social welfare,correctional services and prisons;Considering the protection of the human rights of juveniles, governments must prioritize financial
support of treatment programmes and concerned organizations;
Aftercare agencies should co-operate and collaborate with all institutional organizations.
Communication and exchange of information and community resources between treatment agencies
and the community is crucial in increasing collaboration and co-operation between them. This shouldtake into consideration the juvenile’s right to privacy, and should be in the juvenile’s best interests.
Identically formatted documents should be used by all agencies to enhance co-operation andcollaboration among stakeholders;
The use of community resources such as religious groups, community leaders and police community
forums should be highly considered for community-based treatment;
Third parties are necessary for successful victim-offender meetings but they need to be chosencarefully, taking into account the desires and situations of both victims and offenders;Aftercare residences (halfway houses, etc.) should be established or increased to continue effective
treatment of the juvenile within the community;
Continuous supervision, assessment and treatment of juveniles, and supports to their parents andfamilies, should be maintained;
Treatment programmes should provide juveniles with healthy distractions and hobbies in which they
have interest so as to reduce negative peer influence and recidivism.

APPENDIXCOMMEMORATIVE PHOTOGRAPH• 136th International Training Course

UNAFEIT h e 1 3 6 th I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g C o u r s e

Left to Right:
Above:
Dr. Hoge, (Canada), Prof. Noguchi, Prof. Higuchi, Prof. Naito, Mr. Park (Korea)
4th Row:
Ms. Shibuki (Staff), Ms. Uenishi (Staff), Mr. Ohashi (Staff), Mr. Matsumoto (Chef), Mr. Iwakami (Staff),
Mr. Takagi (Staff), Mr. Kitada (Staff), Mr. Nakayasu (Staff), Mr. Kosaka (Staff), Mr. Yamagami (Staff), Ms.
Obayashi (JICA), Mr. Shirakawa (Staff)
3rd Row:
Ms. Ota (Staff), Ms. Tomita (Staff), Ms. Tsuruoka (Staff), Mr. Nagaike (Japan), Ms. Ishikawa (Japan), Ms.
Kuli (Tonga), Mr. Kapila (Sri Lanka), Mr. Upuldeniya (Sri Lanka), Mr. Parodi Pugliese (Panama), Ms.
Caracelli (Brazil), Ms. Imai (Japan), Mr. Ndama (Cameroon)
2nd Row:
Mr. Al-Taher (Iraq), Mr. Senot (Philippines), Mr. Sonam (Bhutan), Mr. Kyaw (Myanmar), Mr.
Rodriguez (Honduras), Mr. Korff (South Africa), Mr. Cheung (Hong Kong), Mr. Chu (Vietnam), Mr.
Kiuchi (Japan), Mr. Imamura (Japan), Mr. Nakazawa (Japan), Mr. Katsuda (Japan), Mr. Makwakwa(Zimbabwe)
1st Row:
Mr. Kawabe (Staff), Prof. Ishihara, Prof. Yamada, Prof. Sugiyama, Deputy Director Seto, Judge
O’Driscoll (New Zealand), Director Aizawa, Dr. Skelton (South Africa), Prof. Oshino, Prof. Tatsuya,Prof. Sugano, Mr. Fujii (Staff), Mr. Cornell (LA)