Youth Justice in England and Wales - Research Paper Example

1) What is your understanding of the current legal system applicable to youth justice in England and Wales and how has the media been influential in shaping it? The central pieces of legislation regulating the youth justice system in England and Wales are the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and more recently the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA 2008) implemented as a result of media pressure and public perception of the need to combat the proliferation of youth crime. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the current legal system applicable to youth justice in England and Wales and consider the influence of the media in shaping youth justice initiatives and sentencing. To this end, I shall primarily consider the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the provisions leading up to the implementation of the CJIA 2008. I shall also consider the impact of globalisation on the youth justice system, particularly in light of the increasing number of foreign nationals in the youth justice system. In general terms, the concept of law reform is often intertwined with policy and is reactive to socio-political and economic factors. Indeed Eddey & Darbyshire comment that “New Governments want to make their mark1”, which will inherently be correlated to public opinion. Furthermore, the media plays a significant part in shaping public opinion. For example, Pickford posits that “the media commands a central ideological role in modern, urban societies…..the dominant class have privileged access to the media but their views ….. are “disguised” as the interests of everyone in society”2. Pickford provides the examples of sensationalised newspaper headlines claiming “Blighted children who find hope in heroin”3 Therefore, the media clearly plays a significant role in shaping public opinion on crime, which is evidenced by the “mass manipulative” theory pertaining to the relationship between mass media and public opinion. From a contextual perspective, Pearson argues “that fear of the young is almost endemic to society, suggesting that an over-dramatised sense of threat is always close to the surface in public media consciousness.”4 A prime example is the media reporting of the James Bulger murder in 1993, where the defendants were aged ten at the time of the murder. The media reporting of the case provoked public outcry and supports Pickford’s proposition that the media shapes public opinion by the depiction of a dangerous youth. Indeed, Smith highlights that “perceptions of the pattern of youth crime are unbalanced, “media portrayals of persistent juvenile offenders and the continuing influence of the James Bulger murder on the public psyche….. are the most likely cause.5” This triggered the issue of youth crime to the forefront of the political agenda, which was evidenced by the “Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime” paper undertaken by the Audit Commission (AC) in 19966, proposing a radical overhaul of the Youth Justice System. This further culminated in the Home Office White Paper “No More Excuses7”, which set out the Government’s programme of reform for the youth justice system, which was then embodied in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 37 of the 1998 Act established the central purpose of aiming to prevent repeat offending and as such, the 1998 Act imposed a duty on all agencies and bodies working under the youth justice umbrella to have regard to it in carrying out their duties8. Moreover, the “No More Excuses” paper proposed address repeat offending by identifying factors that were correlated to juvenile crime. For example, Graham and Bowling posit that factors such as troubled home life and poor attainment at school, contribute to the risks of youth offending9. Therefore the Government intended to adopt a socially contextual approach by attempting to address the myriad of triggers increasing the risk of repeat offending. A prime example is the 1998 Act’s vesting the police with new powers to confiscate alcohol from children in public. Additionally, the 1998 Act introduced the drug treatment and testing order10. Ashford further observes that between 1999 to 2007 grants were made to develop youth crime prevention initiatives to an approximate cost of £100 million pounds11. Notwithstanding the cost, the Ashford Report indicates that these prevention programmes by youth offending teams were generally effective12. Indeed, Burrows comments that the Youth Intervention Programme was noted to be successful in reducing arrest rates and the gravity of repeat offending13. However in 2004, the AC recommended that youth crime prevention would be more effective if schools, health services and other agencies assumed increased responsibility for young people14. Additionally, the statutory aim of the 1998 Act was to make offenders and their parents address offending behaviour and take responsibility. To this end, the 1998 act abolished the doctrinal presumption of Doli Incapax for 10-14 year olds and introduced parenting orders to help parents control the behaviour of their children15. In terms of parenting responsibility, Ghate and Ramella’s study of 42 parenting projects was an extremely useful insight into the range of behavioural improvements as well as lowered reconviction rates brought about by the 1998 Act16. However, the 2004 AC report highlighted that the use of parenting orders varied between areas and was not consistently enforced17. This was amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, by introducing parenting contacts and parenting orders available with referral orders; and by providing additional funding. Additionally, the No More Excuses White paper proposed that the youth justice system should improve public confidence as a result of the public perception of youth crime, which in turn highlights the influence of the media. For example, Hough and Roberts18 posited that whilst actual figures indicated that youth crime figures had not increased in recent years, three out of four believed it had. Furthermore, Bala et al’s observations of the public perception further highlight the influence of sensational media reporting on opinion. For example, Bala et al comment that a significant proportion of people were completely unaware that 80% of custodial sentences resulted in reconviction within two years and that community sentences are three times cheaper than custodial sentences, which may contribute to prevention of repeat offending19. Moreover, the public’s lack of understanding of the machinations of the youth justice system is highlighted by the various surveys as studies demonstrate that “most people feel that the courts are too soft with offenders20” with public confidence being low. Indeed, Hough and Roberts observe that the public tends to want harsh penalties, which are rooted in misconceptions regarding sentencing practice21. Additionally, the AC report indicated that the confidence in the youth justice system fell from 25 to 21% after the inception of the 1998 Act22. This in turn has a detrimental impact as the AC indicates that nearly fifty per cent of magistrates take into account public opinion when sentencing23. However, this arguably represents a disproportionate representation of youth sentencing practice and patterns of youth crime. For example, Hough and Roberts comment that “three quarters of the population thought that youth crime was rising, when there was little evidence for this. They cited the media as the main source of information that led them to this belief”24. This is further compounded by the failure of the media to address the restorative justice aspect of the 1998 Act in preventing repeat offending. For example, the 1998 Act introduced measures geared towards risk factors in first time offending and introduced child safety orders and local child curfews to protect children under 10 from becoming involved in crime. Additionally, the Audit Commission surveys suggest that the restorative measures of youth justice reform have been effective in practice25. Prime examples under the 1998 Act include reparation orders, final warnings, action plan orders and amendments to existing supervision order provisions26. Furthermore, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 developed a restorative justice approach with the creation of referral orders.27 Referral orders are claimed to “bring home to young offenders what they have done”28. They are directed at young people without any prior convictions and hailed as “one of the most important forms of restorative justice in the Youth Justice System”29. Under the referral orders system, the offender will attend a Youth Offending Panel whereby the panel agrees a programme with the offender to make reparation and tackle the root of their offending30. These can include a number of activities such as curfews and programmes of community reparation31. With regard to reparation orders, the Home Office Report demonstrates that during 2002 over half of all youth offending team interventions were restorative with 68% of victims claiming to be satisfied from the process32. Moreover, the rises in the UK prison populations has rendered the consideration of restorative justice to the fore as a viable alternative within the youth justice system33. Moreover, from a youth offending perspective, Hudson posits that restorative justice system would seem better equipped for juveniles committing minor offences34. Additionally, the National Audit Office research into these final warnings and reprimands argued that they were effective in preventing re-offending patterns. Fifty seven per cent of magistrates rated these programmes as good or excellent in providing sufficient supervision and eight out of ten felt it was beneficial in providing an appropriate response to the first time offenders35. However, the quality of the orders varies locally and concerns were expressed about delays, between court hearing and a panel meeting36. Additionally, the Youth Justice Board’s Annual Statistics37 indicate that the required target for Final Warning performance is being met, and those which used intervention programmes have improved thinking and behaviour in attitudes to offending38. However, the AC suggested that a lack of training is jeopardising the system39. Therefore, the Government Green Paper “Youth justice – the next steps40”, which is the companion to the “Every Child Matters” paper41 felt that substantial improvements had been made into the youth justice system under the 1998 Act, however recommended the strengthening of parenting interventions and community intensive supervision as the main response to repeat and serious offending. Many of the recommendations were embodied in the CJIA 2008, which implements new procedures of youth rehabilitation orders for offenders under the age of 18. Moreover, procedures regarding referral orders and custodial sentencing have been bolstered42. Additionally, the globalisation of the business marketplace and erosion of international borders has fuelled increased economic migration. This is particularly evidenced by UK’s membership to the EU, where the original Treaty of Rome 1957 officially created the European Union (EU), with the promotion of social and economic harmony as its primary objective. The Treaty of Rome has been revised three times and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty created a new European Union radicalising the notion of European Economic Community and the European Single Market into European Community law43. This was subsequently ratified by the Treaty of Amsterdam (the Treaty) which updated and amended the provisions on free movement of goods44. Additionally, 11 EU member states entered into the third stage of the Economic and Monetary Union in 199945. Furthermore, the free movement of goods is a fundamental cornerstone of the EU defined under the Treaty as an important pillar of the internal market in Article 14: “The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty”. This influx of economic migration from both the EU and outside the EU clearly has implications for the youth justice support systems in terms of resources for additional interpretation service requirements. On the other side of the spectrum, the changing nature of contemporary warfare has led to increased recourse to the UK asylum laws as evidenced by refugees fleeing war torn countries such as Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and Somalia46. However, Barry highlights the point that “when they arrive in the UK, their journey to safety and security will have only just begun, as they must then start the process of integration and seek inclusion in UK Society.”47 Barry further highlights that a significant issue that arises relating to young refugees is stress related illness, mental health, discrimination and social exclusion:48 “the situation for young asylum sekkers is particularly poor, partly because there is not even an acknowledgment of the need to bring about their social inclusion”49. Indeed, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) highlights the point that asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable by being at risk of trafficking, prostitution and crime.50To this end, YJB further asserts that “as well as the needing for protection from direct discrimination and racism, they also need special consideration from all agencies to ensure that their needs are assessed and met. 51 Concomitantly, this clearly places extra burdens on the youth justice system with the increased requirement for interpreters and social support services and the YJB in particular recommends the need to ensure “close liaison with local social services departments”52. The CJIA further addresses the reality of increased foreign offenders within the youth justice system. Muncie further highlights the example of the “asylum seeker” and the “dangerous foreigner” and Venkatesh et al assert that these “have become typically constructed as prime targets for sustained punitive intervention53”. Section 93 of the CJIA54 addresses the status of “foreign criminals” and section 134 of the CJIA provides that Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall apply to any offenders subject to a claim for asylum in relation to support services55. Additionally, Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1998 in particular addresses appeals, rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, deportation orders, claims for asylum and removal to “safe countries”56. Additionally, in dealing with foreign youth offenders there will be potential asylum and deportation issues, whereby the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)57 will be relevant. From an immigration policy perspective, the most important rights relied on in immigration cases have been the Article 5 right, which prohibits detention without trial and the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment under Article 3. Additionally, Article 14 guarantees rights under the ECHR. For example, in Chahal v UK58 it was held that an individual could not be deported in breach of the Article 3 right where deportation to an end destination may face violation of human rights59. Article 1 of the ECHR provides that every member state shall secure the rights and freedoms defined in Part One of the Convention to everyone within their jurisdiction60. In the case of Soering v United Kingdom61, the European Court held that a decision of a member state to extradite a person might engage the responsibility of that state under the ECHR where there are substantial grounds for believing that if extradited such a person will be subject to breaches of Article 362. Therefore, the increase in foreign offenders within the youth justice system clearly requires further considerations of human rights issues in detention, particularly with regard to asylum applicants. The above analysis highlights the complex issues contributing to youth crime. Moreover, it is evident that the media representation of youth crime clearly informs public opinion, which can be misguided in its perception of youth crime offender patterns. This in turn leads to a public opinion heavily in favour harsh penalties, whilst ignoring the potential benefits of restorative justice in addressing repeat youth offending patterns. This is further highlighted by the dichotomy between public opinion and results of surveys considering the efficacy of the 1998 Act provisions in practice. To this end, it is submitted that the Government legislative measures whilst undoubtedly motivated by public opinion have been welcome in attempting to address the complex factors contributing to youth crime. However, somewhat ironically the Audit Commission surveys suggest that it is the custodial sentences and concomitant impact of rehabilitating the offender post incarceration that has proved most problematic for the youth court system in preventing repeat offending. Accordingly, it is submitted that more consideration should be given to the restorative justice paradigm in the youth justice system. Whilst by no means a panacea, it may work towards increasing efficiency within the youth court system with the resultant impact of increasing public confidence in the system. 2) The factual scenario raises various issues under childcare law relating to Shane and his brother. In Part I, I shall firstly evaluate Shane’s position, followed by a discussion of the legal and social welfare principles applicable to his younger brother in light of Shane expressing concerns for his welfare. In Part II I shall consider the options available to Shane regarding housing, education and welfare benefits. Part I In considering Shane’s position under childcare law and guiding principles it will be necessary to do so in accordance with the central five principles of the Children Act 1989 (CA) looking at how they relate to social care practice issues. Firstly, in considering future action regarding Shane’s position, the Department of Health Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families suggests “a three fold framework”, namely: 1) Child Development Needs; 2) Parenting Capacity; and 3) Family and environmental factors. Moreover, section 8(1) of the CA 1989 provides that “When a court determines any question with respect to a …child… the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”63. Shane has been in care since the age of 12, rarely attends school and there are clearly mental health issues due to his behavioural problems and the self harming issues and diagnosis of ADHD. As such, it is likely that the initial appropriate course of action would be for a social care worker to undertake a risk assessment under section 16A of the CA 1989. With regard to Shane’s condition and health issues, there should be liaison with the relevant healthcare authority in light of the statutory requirement under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, which provides that “A local authority has a duty to investigate where they “have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives or is found, in their area is suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm”. Also Shane should independently be interviewed and explained that an assessment is required under s. 47(1) of the CA 1989. With regard to assessments of adolescents under the Act, studies emphasise the importance of social care staff finding time to engage in direct work with young people and attempting to get to know them, whilst the realistic chances of developing trust may nevertheless be difficult64. Moreover, the social care worker should interview Shane’s brother independently and Shane’s mother to gain further insight into their home life and address Shane’s concerns regarding his brother65. Moreover, David Howe in his book “Attachment theory for Social Work Practice” asserts that “we cannot generate psychological understandings of people without taking note of their current and past social contexts. Who we are and what we do is based upon a lifetime of relationship experiences”66. Furthermore, conflict exists in adolescence between the wish to be an adult and the wish to remain like a child, often referred to as the “Peter Pan” syndrome67. This is further demonstrated by case studies of children growing up in conflict and neglect circumstances. Additionally, the separation process is problematic68, which is clearly pertinent to Shane’s predicament and feelings of separation from his brother. The social welfare principles have to be considered in context of the CA 1989’s provisions and the key principle of the 1989 Act is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, which is the paramount consideration when the court makes an order in connection with Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (care and supervision orders). Other principles of the CA1989 include minimum intervention by the courts and the recognition that delays are likely to be prejudicial to the welfare of the child. Furthermore, Department of Health guidelines expand these to include the philosophy that children are best brought up with their families. If this is not possible then every effort must be made to preserve continuity with their race, colour, religion and language69. Given that the primary concern of the CA is the welfare of children, this must also be the principle practice issue in the current scenario. In particular as Shane is already in care and under section 17, Local Authorities have a duty to provide services for such children. Moreover, Section 17 of the Act is important for social workers, providing them with “… opportunity to take a proactive and supportive approach to meeting the needs of social workers to attempt to interpret the notion of “welfare” as widely as possible and to use the legislation to obtain appropriate services for children….”70. Accordingly, Shane’s welfare should be paramount. A further significant principle of the CA is that of minimum intervention. Section 1(5) of the Act states that “…no order should be made unless the court considers making an order to be better for the child than not making one…”and in practice, this means that the court will only make an order if it believes it will have a beneficial impact on the welfare of the child Furthermore, the concept of minimum intervention is in line with the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers to operate in a way that promotes the independence of service users while protecting them from harm71. The concept of “empowerment” is the key element here, practising in a way that recognises the limitations of social work role, enabling services users to receive services “within a context of consent and co-operation…”72. A significant contribution to the achievement of empowerment is to work in partnership with families73. Whilst the term “partnership” is not expressly included in the CA 1989, it is arguably implied, as a result of the application of sections 22 and 61, which require local authorities to “…consult with the child, the parents and any other relevant persons before making any decision in relation to the child…” The concept of partnership working is a relatively recent one in social work, and it signifies a shift from a situation where workers tried to resolve problems on behalf of families and impose solutions, to one involving more consultation, consent and co-operation. It requires the use of a key social work skill which is the ability to ask “…about and listen to the wishes and feelings of families and children…” The shift to partnership working was partly influenced by practice experience and research that demonstrated how a more co-operative approach can ultimately help to promote the welfare of the child74. Linked to the principles of minimum intervention and welfare is the principle in section 1(2) of the Act which asserts that “…delay in determining issues is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child…” The principle of minimum delay applies to the current scenario as action may need to be taken to protect Shane on health grounds and his brother and this can be achieved by the provision of temporary voluntary accommodation under Section 20 of the CA 1989. Another key principle of the CA is that wherever possible, children should be brought up by their families75. The term “family” is construed in the widest possible context76. The concept is based on “…. A cumulative knowledge of the importance of families to children’s sense of identity and the relevance of secure, continuing attachments to children’s development…” as well as the consideration of the negative effect of the alternative which is to grow up cared for by outsiders77. The problem in the current scenario is that Shane’s mother does not appear to want Shane back home and he is displaying problems in care and playing truant. Therefore one option would be to make a section 20 voluntary accommodation order. Additionally, section 22 of the CA1989 provides a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote their welfare. Furthermore, section 23 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation and maintenance for any children in care. Additionally, an application could be made for an education supervision order (ESO). If the local authority applies for an education supervision order, they will have to notify the social services committee under section 36(8) of the CA. Under section 36(1) the court can make an ESO where it is satisfied that the child is of compulsory school age and is not being properly educated. Moreover, as Shane is in care since the age of 12, the local authority has legal responsibility for him and thereby assumes parental responsibility. Therefore as Shane has been diagnosed with ADHD and has been self harming, the local authority may undertake a mental health assessment, which may result in a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983. Additionally, section 43(1)(b) of the CA enables local authorities to make an application into the state of a child’s health or development, which is clearly pertinent to Shane’s diagnosis. Alternatively, as Shane has expressed concerns for his brother’s welfare this arguably requires an independent risk assessment of Shane’s brother in light of the provisions under section 47 of the CA 1989, requiring local authorities to investigate a risk of significant harm. In particular, section 31(1) of the CA provides LA’s with the right to apply to the courts for the imposition of a care order, which transfers legal parental responsibility to the LA. However, section 31(2) provides that “a court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied- a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm; and b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to – (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control”. Accordingly, with regard to Shane’s brother, the LA would have to establish on the balance of probabilities that section 31(2) threshold has been crossed to justify the imposition of an order. Section 31(9) defines “harm” as ….ill treatment or the impairment of health and development” and health includes physical or mental health. However, the word “significant” is not defined and the Department of Health guidelines suggest that it can be a single event or “a compilation of significant events.”78 PART 2: In considering Shane’s position with regard to education, housing and welfare, as he is currently of compulsory school age and in care, the local authority have a duty to provide Shane with schooling and can apply for an ESO under section 36 of the CA 1989. However, as Shane is 15, he will soon be able to leave school at the age of 16, which raises issues as to housing and welfare and education as an ESO will no longer be relevant. With regard to accommodation, the Housing Act 1996 imposes a duty on local authorities to provide permanent houses for homeless. Additionally, the Homelessness Act 2002 amends the Housing Act 1996 and inserts section 213A which provides that the social services and local authority must cooperate with applicants under the age of 18 facing homelessness. Additionally, the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation)(England) Order 2002 SI 2002/2051 amended homelessness legislation to include 16-17 year olds within the categories of priority need. Joint assessments must be undertaken by the housing and social services department under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. Additionally, as child welfare legislation is administered by the social services through the CA 1989; the 1990 Act sets out procedures for co-operation between various authorities and community services. Additionally, section 11A of the Housing Act 1985 provides that a local housing authority may in connection with accommodation services provide welfare services. However, with regard to welfare benefits after the age of 16, if Shane is not a dependent child living at home, he will not be entitled to child benefit and if he is unemployed and not in school, he will prima facie not be entitled to a training allowance. Therefore, it is clearly in Shane’s interest to work with him to find some viable training option after he turns 16. If Shane can remain in education, he will be entitled to an education maintenance allowance79 as the Social Security Act 1986 withdrew most supplementary benefit entitlements to 16 and 17 year olds. Alternatively, as Shane clearly has health issues and some potential mental health issues, he may be entitled to income support under Regulation 42A and Schedule 1B of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 on the basis that does not have to be available to work due to living away from home, the estrangement with his mother and risk to his physical or mental health. As Shane is in local authority care, he will only be only able to claim income support if sick or disabled. Alternatively, he may qualify for discretionary severe hardship payments of jobseekers allowance under section 16(1) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, which are usually paid on grounds of homelessness, inadequate accommodation or vulnerability. Additionally, as Shane is in care, under section 22-23 of the CA 1989, the local authority have duties to care for looked after children and therefore he will be entitled to financial assistance by social service departments under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldgate., J (2001). “Safeguarding and Promoting the Welfare of Children in Need Living with their families” in L-A Cull and J Roche. The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice. Basingstoke Palgrave Ashford (2007). Towards a Youth Crime Prevention Strategy, London: Youth Justice Board. Audit Commission (1996). Misspent Youth, Young people and crime. London: Audit Commission. Audit Commission (2004). Criminal Justice National Report, Youth Justice 2004: A review of the reformed youth justice system. London: Audit Commission. Auld, J., D., Dorn and N. South (1986). “Irregular work, irregular pleasures: heroin in the 1980s, in R. Matthews and J. Young (eds), Confronting Crime, Sage London. Bainham, A. (2005). Children – The Modern Law. (3rd Edition). Bala, N, Hornick, J., Snyder, H. & Paestch, J. (2002). Juvenile Justice: International Comparisons of Problems and Solutions. Thompson Educational Publishing. Barry, M. (2005). Youth Policy and Social Inclusion: Critical Debates with Young People. Routledge Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Volume 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books (reissued 1999). Buchanan, A., (1995). Young people’s views on being looked after in out of home care under the Children Act 1989. Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 17, no 5/6, pp681-696. Burrows (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme, End of Phase One Report. London: Youth Justice Board. Crawford. A., & Newburn, T (2002). Recent Developments in Restorative Justice for Young People in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 2002 Volume 42, No. 3 Culll., L.A., (2001) “Family Breakdown” in L-A Cull and J Roche (eds). The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave. Dance, D., and Rushton, A. (1999) Sibling separation and contact in permanent family placement. In “We are family: sibling relationships in placement and beyond”, Mullender, A. (ed), London: BAAF. Penny Darbyshire, & K.J. Eddey., Eddey and Darbyshire on the English Legal System. (7th Edition Sweet & Maxwell 2002). Department of Health Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families- pack. (DOH 2000)and Work Practice Handout 7: The Children Act 1989: Thresholds Diduck, A. & Kaganas, F (2006). Family Law, Gender and the State: Text Cases and Materials. (2nd Edition) C. F. Doebbler (2004) International Human Rights Law: Cases and Materials. CDP Publishing. El-Agraa, M. (2007). The European Union: Economics and Policies. Cambridge University Press. Farmer, E., Moyers, S., and Lipscombe, J., (2001). The fostering task with adolescents, Bristol: University of Bristol. Jane Fontin (2003). Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. Cambridge University Press Ghate, D. & Ramella, M., (2002). Positive Parenting. London: Youth Justice Board. J. Graham & B. Bowling (1995). Young People and crime. London: Home Office. Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales. London Home Office. Home Office (2003). Restorative Justice: The Government’s Strategy. A Consultation Document on the Government’s Strategy on Restorative Justice. London Home Office. Horgan, G., and Sinclair, R., (1997) “Children and young people’s participation in reviews” in Planning for Children in care in Northern Ireland, Horgan, G and Sinclair R (eds), London: National Children’s Bureau Hough & Roberts (2003). Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales: ICPR research paper no.1 London: ICPR. Howe., D. (1995). Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Jordan., L,. (2001). “Practising Partnership” in L-A Cull and J Roche (eds). The Law and Social Work, Contemporary Issues for Practice. Basingstoke Palgrave. Lowe, & Douglas. (2006). Bromley’s Family Law. (10th Revised Edition). Masson, J. & Bailey Harris, R. (2008). Cretney’s Principles of Family Law. Sweet & Maxwell. Morris., S. & Wheatley., H.(1994) Time to listen: The experiences of young people in foster and residential care, London: Childline. J. Muncie. (2009) Youth and Crime. Sage Publications Padbury, P., & Frost, N. (2002).Solving problems in Foster care: Key issues for young people, foster carers and social services, London: Children’s society Jane Pickford (2000). Youth Justice: Theory and Practice. Routledge at p.118. Probert, R. (2006) Cretney’s Family Law. (6th Revised Edition) (2006) Sweet & Maxwell Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C., and Mayes, D. (1997) Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Research issues and evidence. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol 2, no 3 pp393-413. Reich, N. (2003) Understanding EU Law: Objectives, Principles and Methods of Community Law. Intersentia. Shapland, J., A. Atkinson, E. College, J. Dignan, M. Howes, J. Johnstone, R. Pennant, G. Robinson, and A. Sorsby (2004). Implementing Restorative Justice Schemes: A Report on the First Year. Home Office Online Report 32/40. London Home Office, at www.homeoffice.gov.uk Sinclair, I., Wilson, K., and Gibbs, I. (2001). A life more ordinary: what children want from foster placements. Adoption and Fostering, Volume 25 No 4 pp.17-26 R. Smith (2007). Youth Justice: ideas, policy and practice. Willan Publishing at p.16. Thoburn, J., Chand, A., and Procter, J (in press). Child Welfare Services for Minority Ethnic Families: The Research Reviewed, London: Jessica Kingsley. Venkatesh, S. A. & R. Kassimir (2007) Youth, globalisation and the law. Stanford University Press Ward., H. (1995) Looked after children: Research into practice. London HMSO Whitaker., D & Cook., J, (1984). “The experience of residential care from the perspectives of children, parents and caregivers” unpublished research report, Department of Social Policy and Administration, University of York, York. Legislation & Websites: Housing Act 1985 Social Security Act 1986 Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 Children Act 1989 NHS and Community Care Act 1990 Family Proceedings Rules 1991 Jobseekers Act 1995 Housing Act 1996 Family Act 1996 Human Rights Act 1998 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 Homelessness Act 2002 Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation)(England) Order 2002 SI 2002/2051 Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2005 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 European Convention of Human Rights available in full at www.hri.org www.dh.gov.uk www.homeoffice.gov.uk www.opsi.gov.uk Read More