1. 1 “Judicial Communication in the English Youth Court: Expressing sentencing explanations to young offenders.” Dr Max Lowenstein

2. Judicial Principles and Approach towards Youth Offenders 19 th C Protection/Early Intervention Industrial School Acts (1857-80) & Youthful Offenders Act (1854) ‘children in trouble’ & ‘showing kindness to nip crime in the bud’ Harris & Webb (1987): 15 Child welfare S. 44 Children & Young Persons Act(1933) Offending can be relevant evidence of harm due to unreasonable parental controlS.31(2) Children Act(1989) Prevent (re) offending S. 37 Crime & Disorder Act (1998) S. 142A (3) Criminal Justice Act (2003) 4 youth sentencing principles mirror their adult counterparts except for deterrence which is omitted S. 142(1)(b) ‘the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)’ Principle aim is to prevent (re) offending S. 142A (2)(a) 2

3. Judicial Principles for Court Communication Offence harm and offender culpability (Sentencing Guidelines Council, Seriousness Guideline, 2004). Prevention of offending and detailed regard to offender welfare (Sentencing Guidelines Council, Sentencing Youths Guideline, 2009): para. 2.9 with the judicial duty ‘MUST’ comply with definitive guidelines supported by S. 125 Coroners & Justice Act (2009) Under section 174 of the CJ Act (2003): judges are duty bound to give reasons for, and explain the effect of their sentence to the offender. 3

4. Youth Sentencing Statistical Trend Limits Youth Re-offending (38% within 12 months, 3.12 re-offences ave.) Increase of 5.6% since 2008. (MOJ YJ Statistics 14-15 p. 8) Re-offending for 10-14 (38.9%) is now higher than that for 15-17 (37.8%) (MOJ YJ Statistics 14-15 p. 9) 1) What do these re-offending rates tell us about youth court communication? 2) Can we relate judicial communication (words/actions) in court towards young offenders with youth re-offending? 4

5. Methodology 1) Challenges: time & cost (Lowenstein, 2013) 2) Judicial Access & Ethics Approval 3) Funding SLSA small research grant 4) Chasing sample (16 Mags) 5) Transcription and Analysis Kvale (1996) - qualitative interview data VIA (7 face (chambers) & 9 email then telephone (office) @ 30 MIN. average per voice recording) 5

6. Results Q & A 1) The source(s) which inform sentence explanations; Question: What sources of youth sentencing guidance do you use for the construction of your sentencing remarks (words/actions)? Answer: Youth Offender, Parents/Guardian, YOT (PSRs) mattered most for all 16 Magistrates. These Specific Perspectives are KEY! 6

7. Results Q & A 2) The influence of other court room actors; Question: When communicating your sentencing remarks (words/actions) in the Youth Court, who do you seek to predominantly influence? Answer: YOT (PSRs), Offender, Parents/Guardian mattered most for all 16 Magistrates. This specific focus was on ‘those who regularly engaged with the young offender’ to ‘further discuss the sentence with them’. 7

8. Results Q & A 3) The extent of judicial perceived participation and engagement with young offenders including the recidivist impact; Question: How much do you participate and engage with the offender so that they may realise their culpability and the harm caused by their violence? V. High High Moderate Low V. Low 1(9) 2 (7)34 5 Answer: YOT support is key to explaining seriousness. Other influential factors include gender, mental health and understanding body language in different young offenders. 8

9. Results Q & A 3) The extent of judicial perceived participation and engagement with young offenders including the recidivist impact; Question: If applicable, how much impact do you perceive your sentencing remarks (words/actions) will have on reducing the re-offending of violent youth offenders? V. High High Moderate Low V. Low 1 (2) 2 (5) 3 (9) 4 5 Answer: Depends on youth offender recidivism stage and seriousness. If early on it is more, if later on it is less. Effective empathy examples – Youths reflecting upon negative impact to emotionally close family/care providers mattered most! 9

10. Results Q & A 4) The predominant mode of expression (positive to negative); Question: In what way do you predominantly express your sentencing remarks (words/actions) in order to promote engagement and reduce re-offending? Positive M. positive Neutral M. negative Negative 1 (11) 2 (4) 3(1) 4 5 Answer: Informal youth court setting lends itself to a detailed hearing focussed upon positive ‘youth understanding and treatment’. Does positive thinking therapy work? 10

11. Results Q & A 5) The detailed reasons for sentence explanations, beyond what we currently know, i.e.) human behaviours, language simplification and moral education, (Weijers, 2004: 30). Question: Why do you predominantly express your sentencing remarks (words/actions) in this way? Answer: Beyond Weijers (2004) – family/care giver support dynamics (welfare matters!), countering peer group pressures, understanding religious and cultural differences and the young offenders’ personality. Parenting Orders matter as they provide ‘positive enforcement’ to consensual parenting contracts. 11

12. Conclusions 1) Sentencing explanations matter and benefit from judicial experience/examples. 2) Youth Court judges perceive they ARE positively engaging with young offenders. 3) Youth Court judges recognize their own impact limitations on promoting engagement and reducing re-offending. 4) YOT and Family/Care givers matter! 12

13. Next Steps… Publication of data detail, then PhD student is considering: Dorset YOT interviewing the interviewers. YOT asset plus model document (2014) known issues: 1) Communication special needs recognized such as mental health, gang affiliation, radicalization? 2) Documentation quality limits (layout linking between assessment layout clearly linked to young offender’s intervention plan?) 3) Assessment duplication (testing for each court appearance?) 13

14. 14 THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! QUESTIONS AND YOUR VIEWS.