Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 55, Issue 2–3, pp 133–151 | Cite as

Policing, young people, diversion and accountability in Ireland

  • Ursula KilkellyEmail author
Article

Abstract

The Irish police practice of diverting young offenders was placed within a statutory framework in 2001. The police discretion in the management of young offenders that had been a feature of the administrative process was retained at the heart of the new statutory programme although attempts were made to streamline the process. This article critiques the law, policy and practice underpinning the exercise of that discretion against the relevant international human rights standards on transparency, accountability and professionalism in juvenile justice. It reveals how the management of the programme in practice falls short of these standards and, in particular, the due process rights of the children who come within its reach. It argues that the root of the problem lies primarily in the lack of published criteria to guide the discretionary decision-making at several stages of the programme, and the lack of a credible complaint or review mechanism for the children affected. It recommends the publication of reasons for decisions taken in the exercise of Garda discretion in individual cases, together with provision for review or appeal of such decisions as well as regular independent monitoring of the operation of the programme as a whole.

Keywords

Young People Young Person Juvenile Justice Legal Advice Health Service Executive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    An Garda Síochána. (2007). Corporate strategy 2007–2009: a time for change. Dublin: An Garda Síochána.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An Garda Síochána. (2009). Youth and children strategy 2009–2011. Dublin: An Garda Síochána.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annual Report of the Committee appointed to monitor the effectiveness of the Diversion Programme. (2003). Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annual Report of the Committee Appointed to Monitor the Effectiveness of the Diversion Programme. (2009). Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrne, T., Nixon, E., Mayock, P., & Whyte, J. (2006). The free time and leisure needs of young people living in disadvantaged communities. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency Working Paper Series 06/02. Available at www.combatpoverty.ie (20 February 2010).
  6. 6.
    Children Act, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Children Act, 2001 (Commencement) Order, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2003). General measures of implementation General Comment No 5 CRC/C/GC/5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). Concluding observations: Ireland, CRC/C/IRL/CO2. Available at www.ohchr.org (20 February 2010).
  10. 10.
    Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2007). Children’s rights in juvenile justice, General Comment No 10 CRC/C/GC/10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conway, V. (2009). A sheep in wolf’s clothing? Evaluating the impact of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Irish Jurist, 43, 109–130.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of Europe. (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec (2008) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions and measures. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dennis, J., Easton, D., & Easton, S. (2007). Children in the political system: Origins of political legitimacy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldson, B. (2000). Wither Diversion? Interventionism and the New Youth Justice. In B. Goldson (Ed.), The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russel House.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griffin, D. (2005). Restorative justice: a real alternative? Irish Criminal Law Journal, 15(4), 2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hinds, L. (2007). Building police-youth relationships: the importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 195–209.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Irish Youth Justice Service. (2008). The national youth justice strategy 2008–2010. Dublin: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kilkelly, U. (2006). Youth justice in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic, in press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kilkelly, U. (2007). Reform of youth justice in Ireland: The “New” Children Act 2001 part 2. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 17(1), 2.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kilkelly, U. (2008). Children’s rights in Ireland: Law, policy and practice. Dublin: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAllister, S., Scraton, P., & Haydon, D. (2009). Childhood in transition experiencing marginalisation and conflict in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth justice? The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), 315–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDermott, P. A., & Robinson, T. (2003). Children Act 2001. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Children’s Office. (2000). Our children their lives: National children’s strategy. Dublin: Department of Health and Children.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quinn, K., & Jackson, J. (2007). Of rights and roles. Police interviews with young suspects in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 234–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    United Nations General Assembly. (1985). The standard minimum rules on the administration of juvenile justice (the Beijing Rules), adopted by general assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    United Nations General Assembly. (1990). Guidelines for the prevention of juvenile delinquency (the Riyadh guidelines). Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walsh, D. P. J. (2005). Juvenile justice. Dublin: Round Hall.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walsh, D. P. J. (2008). Balancing due process values with welfare objectives in juvenile justice procedure: some strengths and weaknesses in the Irish approach. Youth Studies Ireland, 3(2) (2008).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waters, I. (2007). The policing of young offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 635–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations