Page 70 - JUSTICE Tackling Racial Injustice - Children and the Youth Justice System

that children in different parts of the country will have better or worse
outcomes simply because of where they live.

3.32 We have been impressed by how Young Hackney reformed its diversion
process, which applies many of the principles we consider valuable in the YJS.
It worked with the police to change the procedure from a police-led decision,
to a panel decision, which includes members of the community, as well as the
police.

3.33 Although only recently implemented, and with results yet to be thoroughly
evaluated, early indications of low reoffending rates are promising. However,
the panel still does not make a decision on every child that is arrested. This is
because the police will only refer certain types of offences for diversion,
usually excluding those where violence was either threatened or used. This
causes a problem when charging practices are taken into account. As set out in
Chapter 1 above, repetitive stops and use of force during arrest can lead to
charges of resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. Moreover, BAME children
are more likely than White children to be charged with robbery rather than
theft. These practices may explain why there is a higher proportion of BAME
FTEs into the CJS, than White. This highlights another stage of the YJS where
discretionary decisions can result in widely different outcomes for different
cohorts of children, and could be significantly remedied by updating the Youth
Gravity Matrix such that discrepancies between levels of perceived
dangerousness are addressed. 203

3.34 In addition, we consider the fact that diversion is not a statutory activity as
deeply damaging to YOT funding schemes particularly as diversion is rightly
becoming a large part of their work. This has led to inconsistent practice, as
YOTs develop schemes based on the resources and knowledge they have. In
order to remedy this a national framework for diversion schemes should be
developed and implemented. The process should be mandatory and followed
by all those who are part of the diversion decision-making process, including
the police, YOTs and the CPS. The underlying objective of this framework is

203 See Youth Justice Resource Hub, ‘ACPO Youth Gravity Matrix’. For example, Robbery is given a
gravity score of 4, resulting in a mandatory referral to the CPS, whereas trespass with intent to commit
a Sexual Offence receives a 3, which can receive a caution. The level of dangerousness between the two
offences is difficult to delineate.

63