Youth Rehabilitation Order

The Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) has come into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

When the idea of a shopping list of sanctions from which the sentencer could choose was first proposed, we were very concerned that a child would be given unduly onerous interventions on the spurious grounds of dealing with his or her welfare needs. The Howard League adheres to the principle that the criminal justice system should deal with the offence and if there are welfare or health needs, then the young person should have access to mainstream services. Our campaign on children in custody states as one it its core principles that the offence does not define the child. And, the criminal justice system is a blunt instrument, whose reach should be curtailed rather than extended into the realm of social welfare provision.

However, evidence from the adult sentencing regime has so far not appeared to indicate that sentencers are ratcheting up the punishments. Overly complicated or intrusive community sentences lead to breaches and thence to custody, even when the original offence is not sufficiently serious as to warrant a prison sentence.

If the YRO is to be a fair sentence for young people and not a route to prison, it is for the youth court magistrates to use it with common sense.

One element of the Act that has not been brought into force is Section 9. I understand that the judiciary fought hard not to have this section brought into force as it would inhibit the possibility of deterrent sentencing. Our years of working directly with children in custody, and many research programmes, indicate that particularly harsh punishment of one child ostensibly to deter another is both morally reprehensible and ineffective.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidelines on “Sentencing Youth” (what an insulting appellation that is!) is welcome in that it exhorts sentencers to recognise international law, the chronological age and maturity of the child, and that a sentence that follows re-offending does not need to be more severe than the previous sentence solely because there has been a previous conviction.

We will see.