Agenda item

Interview with Annette Hinton, Manager of Maidstone Mediation Centre

Presentation from representatives from Kent Youth Offending Service

The Chairman moved on to the next item Alternative Sentencing Powers of Magistrates and welcomed Annette Hinton, Manager of Maidstone Mediation Centre, her colleague Kim Salisbury and Charlie Beaumont, Effective Practice and Performance Manager, Youth Offending Service (YOS).The topic was introduced in relation to the Ministry of Justice’s Green Paper: Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, in particular the chapters focused on Youth Justice and Working with Communities to Reduce Crime.

Mr Beaumont explained that he thought from the Youth Justice perspective the paper was an evolution. Mr Beaumont began with a presentation to illustrate some of the challenges faced by Youth Offending Services. He explained that there was a significant skills and education deficit. The entry of young people into the justice system reflected their disadvantage. In Maidstone; Parkwood, Shepway North and the High Street Ward have remained areas where most of the young people come from since he began working in Youth Justice in 1978. Through his presentation Mr Beaumont addressed many of the changes proposed in the Green Paper and how they were already being addressed in Maidstone through the use of Restorative Justice methods such as Mediation which was a tool used in Youth Justice that gave reparation or ‘payback to victims’ and also provided the ‘effective use of sentencing’ addressed in the Paper. The purpose of these methods he explained was to achieve low reoffending rates.

 The Committee were presented with the performance measures and the outcomes used by the YOS. In terms of process measures these included: reducing the need for custody; education, training & employment; and suitability of accommodation. The outcomes measured were the number of first time entrant to the Youth Justice System and the rate of reoffending. The Statistics provided showed a 31.9% reduction in offenders for Maidstone. For first time entrants it showed a 43.3% reduction for Maidstone since October 2008. The YOS processes used to achieve this included Kent Police’s commitment to diversion and the use of restorative processes, prevention and multi agency partnership working which linked criminal justice, social care and education.  In terms of Restorative Justice it was the provision of support for victims though Victim Liaison Officers, community based reparation to achieve ‘payback’ and the opportunity for victim/offender mediation. To reduce the rate of reoffending and to reduce the need for custody the increasing need for education, training and employment and suitability of accommodation were highlighted. The housing issues which Mr Beaumont explained were being addressed presently by the Howard League for Penal Reform.

The 43.4 drop in reoffending by first time entrants was reemphasised in relation to the proposals set out in the Green Paper as it was said that the further young people go into the system the more likely to it was for them to reoffend. Discouraging the use of first disposals was discussed as the effect these could have on lifetime employment. Mr Beaumont explained that Kent Police were committed to diversion and the use of restorative justice. The removal of automatic escalation was important in keeping young people out of the judicial system. Prevention Initiatives were brought to the Committee’s attention as being something the YOS were dependant on. Also highlighted was the good communication with Community Safety at Maidstone Borough Council.

Members questioned the use of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and whether these would be used in the future. Mr Beaumont explained that these needed intervention and policing. In terms of addressing anti-social behaviour it was a matter of occupying a young person’s time in a constructive way, as often the origins of low level crime could stem from boredom.

Referral orders (restorative conferencing) were explained to the Committee. First time offenders would appear before a panel with the YOS and two volunteers and a contract would be negotiated with the young person. Other sentencing would involve the YOS writing a report and a sentence would be imposed on that basis. The use of referral orders Mr Beaumont explained had contributed to a significant drop in offending in Kent and when custody was used it was for more serious offences. Another aspect of the government proposals explained was Integrated Offender Management which the Committee were advised was happening in Maidstone with the courts working closely with YOS and young people in the community. Groups were targeted by the police and YOS through this method causing disruption of networks such as those involved in drugs. The awareness of being watched made young people think and was again part of the Community Safety jurisdiction and subject to funding cuts.

Aspects of the Green Paper that were described as unknown by Mr Beaumont were the role of the new Police and Crime Commissioners. The Green Paper gave cause for optimism according to Mr Beaumont.

The Committee questioned the role of drugs and alcohol and it was explained that there was often a link between young offenders and abusive parenting, bereavement, and an obvious link to aggression with alcohol and drugs. It was felt that mental health was dealt with most ineffectively and health care intervention was needed to deal with the failures of the adult world. The Sure Start Programme was highlighted as a method of early intervention.

Members also questioned prolific offenders and whether there was a family history and asked what could be done. A family intervention project introduced under the last government was discussed which Kent Police and Community Safety were reviewing. The need to bring services together to have the opportunity to intervene and pool budgets to break cycle of deprivation summarised the overall needs. Members questioned whether the YOS experienced delays in referral times particularly in area of substance misuse and mental health. The witnesses explained that this was not a particular problem with substance misuse however; self harming was a priority and an area of significant concern that was disproportional represented in the Justice System. Members expressed concern regarding the intermediately age group of 16 and 17 year olds, Mr Beaumont responded by explaining that the YOS looked at an under 21 approach overall.

The Committee thanked Mr Beaumont for his presentation and invited Annette Hinton, Manager of Maidstone Mediation to the meeting.

Ms Hinton began with a presentation to help demonstrate what was working in Maidstone with regard to restorative justice and how this would fit in with the Green Paper. It was explained that the broad use of terminology used: mediation; restorative justice; restorative conferencing; restorative practice; reparation; victim/offender mediation; and neighbourhood panels were all mediation/restorative practice.

Neighbourhood panels (an element discussed in the Green Paper) had been in place in Maidstone for 20 years using members of the community. Ms Hinton explained peer mediation and that there were 36 schools now trained in Maidstone, the use of Restorative Justice Conferencing for minor assaults was common and the police were also trained in and used mediation techniques.

With reference to the statistics already provided to the Committee in the earlier presentation. Ms Hinton explained that restorative justice had been used for the last 10/11 years and worked well, it could be seen as a contributing factor to crime reduction. Ms Hinton told the Committee that it was proven that restorative practice increased victim confidence, helped them to receive amends, and helped young offenders rehabilitate. The use of restorative practice was being increased and the Committee was informed of a conference in London last year regarding extending the work done with adult offenders.

An example of where restorative justice has been used with serious cases was given; the victim was taken to the prison in Nottingham to meet the offender who had slashed their hands. The victim had said how powerful and important this meeting was to their emotional recovery. Ms Hinton explained that part of the effectiveness of this was because excuses were thinner when challenged. For the offender it gives them the opportunity to make amends and shows them how they can live their lives differently, a great tool for the YOS. Members questioned whether victims ever had reverse outcomes. Ms Hinton explained that a great deal of preparation went into the process and there was never any coercion. Adult work was mainly driven by the victims to answer the many questions that remain after a crime and only the offender could answer these.  Ms Hinton highlighted to the Committee that even in the case of a young person whose response may be ‘I don’t know why I did it’ this gives the victim an answer. Receiving a genuine apology helps the victim let go of damaging anger and reduces fear. Both parties grow with the mediation process.

With regard to the implications of the Green Paper Ms Hinton explained that a great deal had been achieved already in Maidstone. Kent was looking to become a specialist Restorative Justice Court. Ms Hinton agreed with Mr Beaumont’s earlier statement describing the Green Paper as an evolution and that Maidstone would be building on what was already working well. Her only issue was with capacity but she surmised that with crime levels reducing it should be something that could manage.

Members questioned the public’s awareness and understanding of Restorative justice. Ms Hinton responded by advising that Maidstone had been working with restorative Justice for 20 years and were well placed for this. She also explained that through the Peer Mediation in 36 schools parents and the community’s awareness of restorative justice was prevalent. Members queried the involvement of mediation in parenting orders. Ms Hinton explained that they were there to help young people and parents communicate and this was achieved though Parent and Teenage Mediation. She emphasised that Restorative Justice was not a soft option and it was about challenging a person’s behaviour, offenders find it to be the hardest thing they have ever done.

Kim Salisbury, Restorative Justice Coordinator at Maidstone Mediation Centre explained that YOS had a service level agreement to deliver restorative justice to young people going through the courts and that from the age of 10 a young person was responsible for their action.

With reference to the Green Paper the Committee asked the witnesses what further involvement could come from communities with regard to youth justice. The witnesses responded with the following suggestions:

raising awareness of the services available to attract volunteers; Local Authorities looking at Housing provisions for 16 and 17 year olds; youth activities and opportunities for young people to give them the opportunity to see themselves succeed; and the need for education and investment in young people.

Members expressed their thanks to the witnesses for attending and praised mediation and restorative justice as being an effective tool.

Visiting Member Councillor Vizzard spoke to the Committee from his position as a Magistrate. In reference to the discussion he explained that the in court service was very much a backstop and a final place to go. The guidelines that Magistrates have to work within set the parameters for restorative justice and the work done by the witnesses present.  Councillor Vizzard presented to the Committee a response (Appendix A) from John Fassenfelt, Chairman of the Judicial Policy Committee, via an enquiry made by the Scrutiny Officer on behalf of the Committee to the Magistrate in the Community Project (MIC) regarding the use of Restorative Justice.  The response cited the Green Paper as a Liberal Democrat Proposal taken from their Manifesto. The response questioned the example given in the Green Paper in relation to the Neighbourhood Justice Panel set up in Chard stating that ‘it is rather ironic that this Panel was set up under pressure from the local people after the local court house was closed some years back.’ Mr Fassenfelt wrote that as Chairman of the Judicial Policy Committee he would be asking members to the look at this issue as part of their review of the Green Paper.

Ms Hinton explained that there was no statutory panel in Maidstone, it was local people facilitating through mediation so in effect they had no authority. Ms Hinton agreed that Neighbourhood Panels should not be an alternative to Magistrates. Through Members questioning it was established that YOS already worked closely with Magistrates and Ms Hinton suggested Mediation training for Magistrates.

Members concluded on the topic by agreeing that the root causes were not going to change if the issues highlighted to them were not addressed such as education and housing through programmes such as Sure Start as well as by supporting young parents and changing their aspirations. Particular note was made of the point made by Charlie Beaumont about the same areas of deprivation remaining problem areas in Maidstone for the last 30 years and how this could change.

Mr Beaumont thanked the authority for continuing its support of the Maidstone Mediation Centre which in turn support YOS.

With regard to the Green Paper it was concluded that a lot of the proposals were already being achieved in Maidstone. Members decided that they would respond to the questions in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the Green Paper: Youth Justice and Working with communities to reduce crime on the basis of the discussion and information presented as a way of letting Government know of the good work being done in Maidstone.

Resolved that:

·  The Scrutiny Officer will arrange for the Committee to be provided with the Presentation from the Youth Offending Service and request the YOS Management Information Pack and distribute to the Committee when available;

·  The Scrutiny Officer will request on behalf of the Committee a breakdown of the Offending figures referred to by the YOS relating to the three main of areas of deprivation so that Committee can highlight the issues to Local Councillors in these areas;

·  The Committee wish to raise the profile of the services who presented; Maidstone Mediation and Youth Offending Service and other voluntary services such as Women’s Support Services. Scrutiny to investigate this with Communications; and

·  The Scrutiny Officer draft a response to the consultation questions in Chapter 5 and 6 of the Green Paper based on the information presented.