Sub-comité Técnico:

Of the referrals made, three quarters (75%) successfully resulted in a youth conference. Those referrals that did not proceed to a youth conference (25%) were returned to the court or the PPS at either the request of the young person or by the Youth Conference Service.

When broken down into referral type, diversionary referrals were more likely to result in a conference. A total of 90% of diversionary referrals resulted in a conference, whilst 69% of court referrals did the same. This discrepancy may be related to the young person’s understanding of what the conference process entails. As explained in Chapter 3, the nature of referral to a diversionary conference allows the young person time to consider and make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in a youth conference45_{. Observations found that the nature of court process does} not particularly lend itself well to such decision making. For example, after agreeing to a conference at court, several young people subsequently withdrew their consent when informed of the nature of the conference process.

Out of all referrals that did not result in a conference, the majority (47 or 57%) were as a result of the young person withdrawing their consent following their initial agreement to participate. Reasons given by young people for withdrawing consent include not wanting to discuss the offence in a group environment, not wanting to meet the victim, they subsequently denied committing the offence, that the offence was ‘victimless’ or that they were advised against taking part by their solicitor. In all but five cases, in which the young person withdrew consent mid-

conference, consent was withdrawn prior to the conference taking place.

Most cases returned to the court or PPS by the Youth Conference Service were a result of the young person failing to engage with the co-ordinator in the pre-conference preparation stage or being deemed ‘unsuitable’ to participate in the conference. Other reasons for return include that the young person failed to turn up to conferences, the young person did not accept responsibility for their actions and the young person was ineligible for conferencing by virtue of the date of the offence or residing outside the pilot area.

The average length of time from the offence to referral was 120 working days46_{(115 days for diversionary referrals} and 122 days for court referrals)47_{. Following the referral, an average of 21 days passed before the conference took} place (24 days for diversionary referrals and 19 days for court referrals). Article 7 of the Youth Conference Rules (Northern Ireland) 2003 requires that all diversionary conferences are completed within 30 days of referral. Court- ordered conferences are expected to be returned to the court within 4 weeks of referral. As such, most conferences were therefore successfully completed within the required timescales.

The majority of conferences convened (82%) took place during working hours (9am -5pm). Only 18% of conferences took place in the evening. Conferences lasted an average of one hour, however the duration of conferences often varied. The shortest conference - in which the young person withdrew consent during the conference - lasted a mere 6 minutes whilst the longest continued for 115 minutes. Only 8% of conferences lasted more than 90 minutes. Most conferences appeared to last long enough to fully deal with the relevant issues and engage all participants, however several participants commented that they felt the conference was “far too long”48_{. One victim representative stated} that they felt a break would have been appropriate in these circumstances;

“It would have been useful if a break took place. The conference was 1 hour and 15 minutes and requires concentration. Having a break so the young person had the chance to think about what has been said rather than running conference 1hr 15 minutes - an opportunity for talk and support.”

Conference facilities were rated in terms of heat, light, spaciousness, refreshments, audibility and visibility and in most cases the overall facilities were good. Two thirds of conferences (66%) took place within the purpose-built Youth Conference Service headquarters in Belfast. These facilities are very well equipped with private waiting areas, two conference rooms, several ‘time out rooms’ for reflection, video-link facilities and an observation screen for victims who are unwilling to meet the young person face to face. In the Fermanagh and Tyrone areas community venues or Youth Justice Agency community premises were used to hold all observed conferences, as purpose-built premises in which to hold conferences were not yet available. Occasionally, community venues were used in the Greater Belfast region when it was more convenient for participants. Although often well equipped, the standard of these venues varied with the most frequent problems including that the room was too small to facilitate all participants and / or there were distracting noise levels. The issue of privacy and community venues was particularly apparent in one conference, in which other young people at the venue recognised the young person and called out to him49_{. The young person’s} supporter was concerned that the location was too local, and that the young person would be subject to “20 questions in school tomorrow.”

45 _{Conversely, it could be argued that faced with the prospect of a court appearance and possible criminal conviction young people referred to a} diversionary conference are more reluctant to withdraw consent.

46 _{All time periods are measured in working days throughout this report.} 47 _{See Recommendation 4.}

48 _{See Recommendation 5.} 49 _{See Recommendation 6.}

Six conferences took place in the Juvenile Justice Centre50_{, two of which the victim attended remotely via video-link.} Only one victim chose to use the one-way observation mirror in the YCS headquarters. The victim knew the young person, but indicated that they felt more comfortable not meeting them face to face. Another co-ordinator sat with the victim in the observation room as support, and an empty seat was left in front of observation screen to allow a full view of all participants. Despite the inherent difficulties in encouraging dialogue in this manner, this victim’s

participation was facilitated well. The presence of a mirror did however pose problems in a few other conferences, as a number of young people expressed concerns and / or agitation regarding it; “Is there someone in there watching us?”; “There is someone in there. I know there is. Yous are recording this!” Prior to the conference, several co-ordinators were observed to reassure the young person by bringing them into the room to confirm that they were not being observed. Given such concerns, it might be prudent to install a blind or curtain over the large observation screen51_. Though conferences generally did not start on time (63%), the average delay of 17 minutes was quite short. Only a minority of conferences (18%) were delayed for more than 30 minutes. Delays were typically caused by one or more of the participants failing to arrive on time. Where the conference was delayed, most victims (83%) and young people (80%) were kept informed, however 17% of victims and 20% of young people were not told why there was a delay.