Juvenile offenders: a different approach needed? — Part II
In this series written for Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, Navpreet Virk and No5 member Richard Gibbs present the opposing arguments surrounding the manner in which the youth courts treat juveniles convicted of criminal offences and examine the countervailing arguments and policies. In this series, Virk sets out the general philosophical underpinnings of the current policy approach.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ‘introduced a secure training order [STO] that enabled magistrates to lock up 12- to 14-year-olds for a much wider range of offences’, including criminal damage, theft and breach of an order. Furthermore, under the Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act in April 2000, STOs were replaced by the detention and training order, which made it ‘easier for 12- to 14-year-olds to be sentenced to custody’. Full discretion is given to courts with regard to determining whether a child is a persistent offender based on the young person’s pattern of behaviour.
Therefore, it is justified, when courts impose a sentence of imprisonment of a young offender with no previous records, on the grounds that they are seen as potentially ‘dangerous’ and likely to re-offend in the near future. This approach, has led to an ‘increasing number of younger children committing less serious offences’ being caught up in the criminal justice system, as opposed to the proportion of juveniles who commit serious offences…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?