Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment ... · Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill...

Queensland Parliamentary Library

Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld)

The Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) proposes to give Queensland courts the discretion to allow the naming of juveniles who are convicted of serious and heinous crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery. Since taking office in 1998, the Queensland Government has indicated that it intended to review the blanket prohibition in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to respond to public concern that young offenders who commit those types of crimes were shielded by their anonymity from public accountability.

Initial proposals to introduce laws to allow courts to identify serious juvenile offenders were raised by the Government in 1998 and those, together with a comparative survey of the position in other Australian jurisdictions at that time, were dealt with in the Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Bulletin Identification of Juvenile Offenders RB No 9/98.

This Brief will deal only with those parts of the Bill that relate to the naming of young offenders. The Bill also makes a number of other important changes

to the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, some of which are dealt with in Research

Brief No 2002/23.

Nicolee Dixon

Research Brief No 2002/22

Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Publications and Resources Section

Ms Karen Sampford, (Acting) Director (07) 3406 7116

Mr Wayne Jarred, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7422

Ms Nicolee Dixon, (Acting) Research Publications Officer (07) 3406 7409

© Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2002

ISSN 1443-7902 ISBN 0 7345 2832 9 MONTH 2002

Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library.

Inquiries should be addressed to: (Acting) Director, Research Publications & Resources Queensland Parliamentary Library Parliament House George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Ms Karen Sampford. (Tel: 07 3406 7116) Email: [email protected]

Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/publications.htm


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

2 IDENTIFYING YOUNG OFFENDERS.......................................................... 2

2.1 THE QUEENSLAND JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 1992 ............................................. 2

3 BACKGROUND TO NAMING PROPOSALS .............................................. 3

3.1 AMENDMENTS TO ENABLE IDENTIFICATION................................................... 4

3.1.1 Exercising Discretion................................................................................ 5

3.2 OTHER CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS .......................................................... 5

3.3 REACTION TO PROPOSALS.............................................................................. 7

3.3.1 Some Arguments for Not Identifying Juvenile Offenders............................ 7

3.3.2 Some Arguments for Identifying Juvenile Offenders................................... 9

4 COMPARISON WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS.................................... 11

4.1 NEW SOUTH WALES .................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Court Proceedings................................................................................. 11

4.1.2 Diversionary Processes.......................................................................... 13

4.2 VICTORIA .................................................................................................... 14

4.3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA...................................................................................... 15



4.4 WESTERN AUSTRALIA ................................................................................. 17



4.5 TASMANIA .................................................................................................. 20


4.5.2 Diversionary Processes...........................................................................21

4.6 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY...............................................................21

4.7 NORTHERN TERRITORY.................................................................................22

4.8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM ...........................22

APPENDIX A– POLICIES, ALP (QLD) 2001 ......................................................25

APPENDIX B – MINISTERIAL MEDIA STATEMENT...................................28

APPENDIX C – NEWSPAPER ARTICLES .........................................................29

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2002...........................................32

Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) proposes to give Queensland courts the discretion to allow the naming of juveniles who are convicted of serious and heinous crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery. Since taking office in 1998, the Queensland Government has indicated that it intended to review the blanket prohibition in the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) to respond to public concern that the anonymity given to young offenders who commit those types of crimes shielded them from public accountability.1

Initial proposals to introduce laws to allow courts to identify serious juvenile offenders were raised by the Government in 1998 and those, together with a comparative survey of the position in other Australian jurisdictions at that date, were dealt with in the Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Bulletin Identification of Juvenile Offenders RB No 9/98.2

Since that time, this issue has been part of the general major review of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 and broad consultation with stakeholders and the community during 1999-2000, resulting in the release of a draft Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill in 2001 for targeted consultation. The draft Bill sought, also, to respond to a number of findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions (the Forde Report) about treatment of young people in detention centres and to deliver on commitments made by the Government in the lead up to the February 2001 State election.3

The above process culminated in the introduction of the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) (the Bill) into the Queensland Parliament on 19 June 2002 by the Hon Judy Spence MP, Minister for Families.

This Brief will deal only with those parts of the Bill that relate to the naming of young offenders. The Bill also makes a number of other important changes to the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, some of which are dealt with in Research Brief No 2002/23.

1 Hon P D Beattie, Queensland Premier, ‘Young offenders named under new laws’, Queensland Media Statement, 26 May 2002.

2 Karen Sampford, Identification of Juvenile Offenders, Research Bulletin No 9/98, Queensland Parliamentary Library, 1998.

3 Queensland. Queensland Government, Department of Families, Youth Justice Directorate, ‘Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2001 – Consultation Draft’, Information Paper, 2001, p 1.


2 IDENTIFYING YOUNG OFFENDERS

There is a general rule that the administration of justice should be done and seen to be done and that the media should be entitled to report the proceedings to those members of the public who have the right to a fair and accurate account of what has occurred.4 This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that apply where there is a good reason for closing proceedings. One such recognised competing interest to that of open justice is the protection of child or vulnerable adult witnesses, victims of sexual offences, and children against whom the proceedings are brought.

Legislation in Australian states and territories contains provisions to impose some restrictions on the extent to which a juvenile offender can be identified.

2.1 THE QUEENSLAND JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 1992

At present, s 62(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 prohibits the publication of information that would enable the identification of a child involved in a criminal proceeding. The maximum penalty for an individual is $7,500 or up to 6 months imprisonment. A corporation may incur a penalty of up to $15,000.

To publish information means to publish in Queensland or elsewhere to the general public by means of television, newspaper, radio or any other form of communication.

Generally speaking, a child is a person who has not turned 17 years of age.5

Identifying matter means –

(a) the name, address, school, place of employment or any other particular likely to lead to the identification of the child charged in the criminal proceeding; or

(b) any photograph, picture, videotape or other visual representation of the child or of another person that is likely to lead to the identification of the child charged in the criminal proceeding.

This would prevent, for example, the media disclosing the name of a child offender or displaying his or her image on the television, although a representative of the mass media may be permitted to attend a proceeding in the Children’s Court.6

4 See, eg United Kingdom. Society of Editors and Judicial Studies Board and the Newspaper Society, Reporting Restrictions in the Magistrates’ Court, July 2001, Judicial Studies Board, p 5. Downloaded from http://www.jsboard.co.uk/publications/rrmc/index.htm

5 See Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 5.

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/publications/rrmc/index.htm


3 BACKGROUND TO NAMING PROPOSALS

By late 1998, concern about violent child offenders remaining anonymous through identification restrictions appeared in both Government and Opposition polices.7 This coincided with an incident involving charges being laid against a 12 year old girl for the alleged shooting and killing of her mother. However, according to the Queensland Victims of Crime Association president, youth crime was growing and that case was not alone in fuelling support for change.8

In addition, in the Fifth Annual Report of the Children’s Court, tabled on 9 December 1998, former President of the Children’s Court of Queensland, Judge McGuire, indicated that judges should be given the discretion to name juvenile offenders where it was warranted.9

The latest Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Queensland – Eighth Annual Report 2000-2001 – tabled in April 2002, indicates that, during the 2000-2001 financial year, 7,865 juveniles had their cases disposed of in Queensland courts. This represents an increase of 1.9% from 1999-2000, with the most common types of offences being unlawful entry and theft related crimes (48% of all charges). The President, Judge John Robertson, stated that the statistics do not support any significant increase in juvenile crime. He considered that the substantial decrease in the number of defendants appearing before the Children’s Court (a 35% decrease following a large increase the previous year) and District Court (a reduction of 23%) suggests a reduction in more serious crime by juveniles.10

When introducing the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) into the Parliament, the Minister for Families indicated that the Bill delivers on the Government’s promise that young people who commit the most serious violent offences will no longer be able to hide behind the shelter of confidentiality provided by the Juvenile Justice Act 1992.11 The

6 Children’s Court Act 1992 (Qld), s 20(2)(c) (unless it is a proceeding under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld)).

7 See Karen Sampford, Identification of Juvenile Offenders, RB No 9/98.

8 Roy Eccleston, ‘Courts battle identity crisis: Anonymity protects young offenders from public shame and scrutiny’, Australian, 8 December 1998, p 8.

9 Children’s Court of Queensland, Fifth Annual Report 1997-1998, pp 73-74.

10 Children’s Court of Queensland, Eighth Annual Report 2000-2001, p 3.

11 Hon JC Spence MP, Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld), Second Reading Speech, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 19 June 2002, pp 1894-98 at p 1895.


amendments will provide courts (other than a Children’s Court Magistrate) with the power to allow the identity of a child found guilty of an offence of violence serious enough to carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment to be publicly disclosed when the court decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so. In this way, the Bill seeks to impose a greater degree of public accountability on these serious offenders. 12

The safety of the community is also to be addressed through proposed measures to allow the chief executive to release details about a child for public information if he or she is satisfied that it is required to protect a person’s safety. In addition, victims will now be able to ascertain the name of the child who committed a crime against them.13

3.1 AMENDMENTS TO ENABLE IDENTIFICATION

Clause 97 of the Bill proposes to insert a new Subdivision 5 into Part 5, Division 7 (which deals with Sentencing and Detention Orders) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 to deal with Publication Orders .

A proposed new s 191C will set out the circumstances in which the court may order that identifying information about the child may be published. Those circumstances are –

• where the court is making a sentence order in relation to a child convicted of a life offence (ie an offence for which a person sentenced as an adult would be liable to life imprisonment);14 and

• the offence involves the commission of violence against a person; and

• the court considers –

• that the offence is a particularly heinous offence having regard to all the circumstances; and

• it would be in the interests of justice to allow the publication of identifying information about the child: proposed new 191C(1) and (2).

Identifying information is defined in the proposed new Dictionary as information that identifies the child, or is likely to lead to the identification of the child as a child who is being, or has been, dealt with under the Act. Examples given include the child’s name, address, school or place of employment; or a photograph, picture, videotape or other visual representation of the child or someone else.

12 Hon JC Spence MP, Second Reading Speech, p 1895.

13 Hon JC Spence MP, Second Reading Speech, p 1898.

14 See definition of ‘life offence’ in s 5 Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld).


Note that the court cannot exercise its discretion to authorise publication until the appeal period has expired or before any appeal proceeding has been concluded: proposed new 191C(3). The ‘appeal period’ is a period of one calendar month from the date of conviction or sentence mentioned in the Criminal Code s 671.

To remove any doubt, it is made clear that the provision does not apply to a Children’s Court constituted by a Children’s Court magistrate (proposed new s 191C(4)). The Children’s Court magistrate hears simple offences and the less serious indictable offences.

3.1.1 Exercising Discretion

In jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, where reporting or publication of proceedings and identifying matter by the media and others is permitted at the court’s discretion, some courts and judicial bodies have issued guidelines to assist in determining the types of public interest considerations relevant to the exercise of that discretion.

For example, a joint UK Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department publication provides some guidance and examples to Youth Court justices.15 It suggests lifting restrictions where –

• the offending of the child is persistent or serious or has impacted on a number of persons or the community in general;

• where alerting other people would help prevent further offending.

It further suggests that the Youth Court should maintain contact with the media to encourage the publication of informative articles about youth justice and the workings of the Court. It suggests also, that prior to making an order to restrict publication, the Court should invite submissions from media organisations.

3.2 OTHER CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

A proposed new Part 6A will be inserted into the Juvenile Justice Act to deal with confidentiality issues: cl 109. The Act already deals with those to some extent by providing that persons involved in administration of the Act must not record, disclose or use confidential information about a child dealt with under the Act (s 226) and by restricting disclosure of identifying information about a child cautioned under the Act or who has entered into community conference agreements (ss 18K-18P). The Bill

15 UK Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department, The Youth Court 2001-The Changing Culture of the Youth Court: Good Practice Guide, March 2001.


consolidates and amends those provisions in accordance with other changes made to the Act.

Generally speaking, persons who gain information through involvement in the administration of the Juvenile Justice Act (eg police officers, a convener of a conference, court reporters, departmental officers etc)16 are prohibited from disclosing confidential information about a child being dealt with or who has been dealt with under the Act.

There are, however, a number of exceptions which the Bill will broaden. Under proposed new s 224AH those exceptions include (but are not limited to) disclosures for the purpose of permitting the functions of the police service not involving publication of the information; or for statistical purposes without revealing identifying information; or where the court has made an order permitting the naming of the child under proposed new s 191C.

The Bill also inserts some additional new exceptions which include (but are not limited to) where the child provides informed consent to disclosure; disclosure to approved foster carers and other carers if the child is being placed in licensed care or foster care under the Child Protection Act 1999; and where the chief executive authorises a person in writing to disclose confidential information about a child if satisfied that disclosure is necessary to ensure a person’s safety: proposed new ss 224AH-AM.

More specifically, in relation to cautions and youth justice conferences and agreements, certain disclosures will be permitted. Some are already provided for under the Act (eg parents of the child; complainants; the child’s lawyer) and are picked up by the new laws. There are some additions and modifications to the permitted disclosures as follows –

• disclosure to interstate law enforcement bodies, provided that it would not result in revealing a diversionary process to an interstate court that would be inadmissible in a proceeding against the child in Queensland;

• disclosure for research purposes under written undertakings to preserve confidentiality and anonymity of the person to whom the information relates;

• disclosure by a conference coordinator or convener in specified circumstances, eg for a report to a court or to a referring police officer: proposed new ss 224AN-AP.

Other provisions deal with confidentiality in relation to employees of youth detention centres who report harm to a child held at a centre to the Chief Executive: proposed new ss 224AQ, 224AS.

16 See proposed new s 224AD.


At present, s 15 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 allow victims of crime to request law enforcement officers to advise them about matters such as the progress of the investigation of the crime, the name of the person charged, bail arrangements etc. If the crime involved personal violence or is a sexual crime, additional information can be requested by the victim such as the length of the sentence, the fact that the offender disappears before trial, or escapes from custody, or is eligible for parole. Currently, s 15(3) prevents such advice being given to victims where the offender is a child under the Juvenile Justice Act 1992. Note that cl 148 removes the restriction on victims being able to obtain information about the investigation and prosecution of a child offender by omitting s 15(3) of the Criminal Offence Victims Act.

3.3 REACTION TO PROPOSALS

Since proposals to alter the Juvenile Justice Act to allow serious juvenile offenders to be identified began in 1998, there has been strong mixed reaction.

3.3.1 Some Arguments for Not Identifying Juvenile Offenders

A number of civil liberties organisations and legal bodies oppose identification of child offenders.

A rationale sometimes offered for the current legislative provisions restricting the identification of juvenile offenders is that they are consistent with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice to protect the privacy of children in the criminal justice system and the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (CROC).

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice state –

40 State parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused as, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and … assuming a constructive role in society.

The CROC provides –


No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.17

Dr Kathryn Cronin, a member of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), who assisted in the 1997 Report Seen and Heard: Priority for Children In the Legal Process,18 claims that society is becoming too tough with measures such as mandatory sentencing and ‘three strikes and you’re in’ laws and believes that the push to identify juveniles is part of that. Dr Cronin did not believe that naming children would make them accountable or assist in their rehabilitation but would merely confirm them as offenders. That opinion is supported by a former senior judge of Adelaide’s Youth Court who commented that identification might act as a spur for future crime for some children who enjoy the notoriety. For others, it labels them as criminals at a formative time of their lives when there is a likelihood that they may not offend again. Criminologist Paul Wilson, of Bond University, agrees that public naming with the idea of shaming the child into reform does not work as a deterrence mechanism.19

It has also been argued that juvenile crime tends to be more opportunistic in nature than adult crime, which is usually premeditated. Juvenile violence tends to occur in the course of a robbery or to revenge some perceived wrong.20

Youth Advocacy Centre director, Mr Paul Spooner, argues that the legislation was ultimately about revenge, not rehabilitation, and that identification could lead to incidents similar to those that occurred in England where vigilantes threatened the young killers of a toddler, James Bulger, who were released from prison in June 2001. Photographs of the boys were displayed throughout the media and the British Government was forced to give them new identities.21 The media was also restrained by court injunction from disclosing information about their new identities, appearance, or addresses when released from

17 See CROC articles 37-40. The CROC entered into force in Australia on 16 January 1991.

18 Australian Law Reform Commission, Seen and Heard: Priority for Children In the Legal Process, ALRC No 84, 1997.

19 Roy Eccleston, ‘Courts battle identity crisis: Anonymity protects young offenders from public shame and scrutiny’, Australian, 8 December 1998, p 8.

20 See eg comment by Dr Brent Waters, forensic child psychiatrist cited in Barbara Drury, ‘Kids that kill’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 January 1999, p 11.

21 Sue Monk, ‘Violent young criminals may be identified’, Courier Mail, 5 July 2001. Downloaded from http://news.com.au

http://news.com.au


detention and any information which might lead to their whereabouts being detected in the future.22

Mr Terry O’Gorman, of Queensland Civil Liberties Council (QCLC), has staunchly opposed any moves to name juveniles since they were first proposed. In a letter to the Editor in October 1998, Mr O’Gorman said that the rationale behind the restriction on naming child offenders was that young people are mentally and emotionally immature and that politicians around the country were turning to the naming issue having exhausted other law and order issues. He argued that naming juveniles will not help victims and that some will even wear their media notoriety as a ‘badge of honour’ rather than a stigma.23 In response to the Beattie Government’s current proposed legislative changes, QCLC president, Mr Ian Dearden, again warned that they would do nothing for the criminal justice system, or for the individual juveniles concerned, or their rehabilitation. All that the proposals will do, he indicated, is give the public someone to blame and they were merely a ‘cynical move to win public favour’.24

3.3.2 Some Arguments for Identifying Juvenile Offenders

Apart from the accepted notion that justice must be open and be seen to be done, there are a number of reasons that have been advanced regarding the need for some young offenders to be made more accountable to the community. Those who support courts having the discretion to name young offenders in certain circumstances include victims’ advocates, some members of the judiciary and legal profession, and politicians.

As noted earlier, the former President of the Children’s Court of Queensland supported courts having the power to allow the identification of young offenders in exceptional cases. He stated –

There has been a serious difference of opinion as to whether in certain circumstances the name of a juvenile offender should be made public. In my opinion, as a general rule, the offender’s name should be suppressed. However, there may be exceptional reasons for releasing the name. Exceptional reasons may include the gravity and perversity of the offence (e.g. murder) and the persistence of serious offending, especially where it

22 Edited version of the judgement of Justice Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Britain on the application from Jon Venables and Robert Thompson for continued anonymity in ‘Protecting Bulger’s killers from certain death’, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 January 2001.

23 Terry O’Gorman, ‘Let’s not nurture adult crooks’, Australian, 13 October 1998, p 6.

24 ‘Civil libertarians attack Qld plan to name juvenile offenders’, ABC NewsOnline, 27 May 2002. Downloaded from http://abc.net.au/news

http://abc.net.au/news


impacts severely on multiple members of a local community (e.g. scores of burglaries committed in a restricted locality.)

…

Although I expect in practice it would rarely be used and then only in the gravest cases, I think Queensland courts should be given a similar discretion.25

The former president of the Queensland Victims of Crime Association, Mr Ian Davies, argued that naming juveniles is not a matter of retribution but one of public safety and that he would only be advocating naming the most serious offenders who are older and just as violent as adults. At present, Mr Davies argued, the offender can come out of detention without having been rehabilitated and live wherever they wish in complete anonymity.26 Some victims have reported as having felt ‘re-victimised’ by the unfairness of the offender remaining anonymous just because of their age.27

The Opposition has indicated that it would like to see the Government consider including another category of children who are subject to the court’s discretion – the recidivist non-violent juvenile offender who may have 40, or even 60, convictions against them for less serious offences such as housebreaking but who continues to offend and endanger the community while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.28

Most advocates for laws to allow the identification of child offenders would seek only to encompass juveniles that are 16 or 17 years of age as some jurisdictions, including Queensland, treat 17 year olds as adults in criminal proceedings. Even opponents of the identification measures would not appear to have as many objections to limiting them to juveniles who are 16 or 17. 29

Although some opponents of identification refer to the matter as akin to publicly shaming juvenile offenders, ‘shaming’ is usually aimed at less serious offences (eg property offences) where, as part of a diversionary order, the juvenile is required to wear a

25 Children’s Court of Queensland, Fifth Annual Report 1997-1998, pp 73-74.

26 Roy Eccleston, ‘Courts battle identity crisis’.

27 Sue Monk, ‘Violent young criminals may be identified’.

28 Mr L J Springborg MP, Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Justice, Debate on the Report of Estimates Committee G, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 2 August 2001, pp 2200-2201.

29 See eg, Hon R S L Jones MLC, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill 1999 (NSW), Second Reading Debate, Legislative Council, NSW Parliamentary Debates, 30 November 1999, p 3835.


distinctive uniform. Naming is generally reserved for serious violent offenders who may be a risk to the public.30 An example of shaming occurred in the Australian Capital Territory during 1998 where a young boy who was caught shoplifting was made, by his parents and the store manager, to walk through the mall wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words ‘I am a thief’.31

4 COMPARISON WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS

A comparative survey of the position regarding the publication of the identity of juvenile offenders at that time was undertaken in Research Bulletin No 9/98. The following discussion provides a revision and update of the situation outlined in that Bulletin.

In each jurisdiction, there are varying degrees of statutory restriction on the publication of identifying information about young offenders. However, it appears that courts in a number of jurisdictions now have the power to permit publication in certain circumstances.

4.1 NEW SOUTH WALES

4.1.1 Court Proceedings

Section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that a child32 to whom any criminal proceedings relate shall not (unless an exception applies) have his or her name published or broadcast, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of, and even if the person is no longer a child at the time of the publication or broadcast. The section also prohibits the publication or broadcast of the name of a child who is a witness before a court in any criminal proceedings, or is mentioned or otherwise involved in any criminal proceedings.

In 2001, the section was amended to make it clear that the prohibition applies in relation to the publication of the name of a person who is no longer a child but was under 18

30 See Honor Figgis, ‘Juvenile Justice: Some Recent Developments’, Briefing Paper, New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service, No 5/99, p 31; M Flynn, ‘One Strike and You’re Out!’ Alternative Law Journal, 22(2), April 1997, pp 72-76 at p 73.

31 M Carr-Greg, ‘Teenage crime: the shame’s on whom?’, Age, 29 April 1998, p 15.

32 Child means someone under 18 years of age: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 3(1).


years of age at the time of the offence to which the proceedings relate.33 It is understood that, prior to the amendment, it was uncertain whether the prohibition applied where the child turned 18 before the matter came before the court and that a number of prosecutions were hindered as a result. However, it was always the intention that s 11 continues to apply after the person turns 18 otherwise the prohibition could be readily circumvented by merely waiting until that happens before naming them.34

For the purpose of s 11, a reference to the name of the child is stated to include a reference to any information, picture or other material which either identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child: s 11(5).

A breach of the above provision carries with it a maximum penalty of $55,000 for a corporation, or $5,500 and/or 12 months imprisonment in any other case.35

Exceptions to the publication and broadcasting restrictions are set out in ss 11(4)-(4E).

A Court, other than a Children’s Court (ie District Court or Supreme Court), has the discretion to make an order that the child’s name be broadcast or published at the time of sentencing on conviction for a ‘serious children’s indictable offence’, whether or not the child consents or concurs (s 4B). A serious children’s indictable offence is defined in s 3 to include offences such as homicide, malicious wounding, rape, or offences punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

However, the Court cannot make such an order unless satisfied –

• it is in the interests of justice to make the order; and

• that the prejudice to the child arising from the publication or broadcasting of their name in accordance with the order does not outweigh those interests (s 4C).

The burden of establishing the above matters rests with the prosecuting authority.

The Court has to tell the child, and make a record of, its reasons for making the publication or broadcasting order (s 4E).

The other exceptions to the prohibition on publication or broadcasting of the child’s name are –

33 Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (NSW), Sch 2(1).

34 Hon R J Debus MP, Attorney-General, Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 (NSW), Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, NSW Parliamentary Debates, 30 November 2001, p 19298.

35 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 11(3) and Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 17.


• publishing or broadcasting an official report of court proceedings;

• publishing or broadcasting the name of a person –

• if the person is under 16 at the time of the publication or broadcasting, with the consent of the court and the child; or

• if the person is under 16 but is incapable of consenting, and the court believes that the public interest requires publication or broadcasting of the child’s name; or

• if the person is 16 or more, with the child’s consent.

The above provisions giving the Court discretion to allow publication or broadcasting of the name of a child offender if it is in the interests of the community were introduced into the legislation in 1999 in the wake of controversy concerning whether the police and the media could name a 20 year old convicted murderer who escaped from a juvenile detention centre. The problem was that he was aged 17 when he committed the crime. The amendments also delivered on the Carr Government’s election promise to name juveniles tried before adult courts for serious crimes. At the time, the NSW Law Society and NSW Council for Civil Liberties opposed the changes. The Secretary of the Council argued that the new laws pandered to the populist idea of shaming young people which has nothing to do with juvenile justice.36

On the other hand, the president of a victims’ support group claimed that young offenders had hidden behind anonymity for too long and that it was ‘irresponsible’ for the Law Society to oppose the changes. The former Police Commissioner, Mr Peter Ryan, also argued that the children concerned were often young men of 16 and 17 and that the recent incident of the offender escaping from detention highlighted the problems when the community should be entitled to know who is at large.37

4.1.2 Diversionary Processes

The Young Offenders Act 1997 was passed to enable juveniles accused of less serious offences to be dealt with using diversionary processes such as warnings, cautions, and youth justice conferences. Confidentiality surrounding participation in the processes established by the Act is emphasised by s 65 which prohibits the publication or broadcast of identifying information about the child involved in them. The penalties are the same as for a contravention of s 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Note

36 Ellen Connolly, ‘New law to let judges name young offenders’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 October 1999, p 5.

37 Ellen Connolly, ‘New law to let judges name young offenders’.


that the prohibition does not apply if the child consents to the publication or broadcasting and is over 16 years at the time.

4.2 VICTORIA

Section 26 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 (Vic) states that unless permission has been given by the President of the Children’s Court, a person must not publish, or cause to be published, any report of a proceeding in a Children’s Court, or in a court on appeal from a Children’s Court, that contains particulars likely to lead to the identification of –

• a child against whom proceedings are being taken: s 26(1)(a)(ii); or

• the particular venue of the Children’s Court in which a proceeding was heard: s 26(1)(a)(i); or

• another party to the proceeding: s 26(1)(a)(ii), or a witness to the proceeding: s 26(1)(a)(iii).

The same restriction applies to the publication of pictures of a child or other party to, or a witness in, a proceeding: s 26(1)(b).

Where a child is the subject of a ‘custody order to the Secretary to the Department of Human Services’ (ie an order giving the Secretary day to day care and control over the child etc) or a ‘guardianship to the Secretary order’ (ie an order giving the Secretary responsibility for the long-term welfare of the child), a person must not publish any matter that contains particulars likely to lead to the identification of such a child. However, the Secretary can grant permission to do so in special circumstances, unless the court has ordered otherwise: s 26(1)(c).

The penalty for contravention of the above provisions is $50,000 for a body corporate and, in any other case, $10,000 or two years imprisonment: s 26(1).38

A child, in the context of a person who is alleged to have committed an offence, is defined as a person who at the time the alleged offence was committed, was under 17 but more than 10 years of age. It does not include anyone who is 18 or more at the time of being brought before the Children’s Court.39

38 See also Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 110, “meaning of penalty units”.

39 Children and Young Persons Act 1989 (Vic), s 3(1).


4.3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA


Under s 63C of the Young Offenders Act 1993 a person must not publish (by radio, television, newspaper or in any other way) a report of proceedings in which a child or youth is alleged to have committed an offence if the court before which the proceedings are heard prohibits such publication, or the report will –

• identify the child or youth or contain information tending to identify the child or youth; or

• reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars, picture or film that may lead to the identification of any child or youth who is concerned in those proceedings either as a party or witness: s 63C(1).

The penalty for breach is a fine of up to $10,000.

However, pursuant to s 63C(2), the court before which the proceedings are heard may, on such conditions as it thinks fit, permit the publication of particulars, pictures or films that would otherwise be suppressed from publication by the above provisions.

In addition, a victim who has suffered injury, loss or damage as a result of the offence is entitled to apply to the Commissioner of Police to be informed of the youth’s name and address: s 64.

A youth is a person who is over the age of 10 years but less than 18 years at the time of the offence: s 4.

Section 63C was inserted into the Young Offenders Act to make it clear that the publication restriction applied regardless of whether the Youth Court or a superior court is hearing the matter. Consequently, the previous s 25 of the Youth Court Act 1993 was repealed and new provisions were inserted into the Children’s Protection Act 1993 (s 59A) and the Young Offenders Act (s 63C), respectively.40

It would appear that the discretion provided to the Court by s 63C is rarely used. Two 17 year old youths were identified by an Adelaide judge as the killers of an 18 year old woman who was cruelly tortured for hours before being left for dead in a paddock in 1996. This followed an application by the media and Justice Duggan’s assessment of the

40 Hon R G Kerin MP, Deputy Premier, Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Justice Portfolio) Bill, Second Reading Speech, House of Assembly, South Australian Parliamentary Debates, 8 July 1999, pp 1826-1827.


public interest in the case, the potential deterrent value to others, and the reality that the pair had been tried and convicted as adults.41


Section 13 of the Young Offenders Act forbids publication of a report of any action or proceeding taken against a youth by a police officer (ie a caution) or family conference if the report contains identifying information about the young offender or about the victim or another person involved. This provision covers cautions and conference situations, usually where crimes are of a minor nature.

Under s 13 there is also some scope provided for the identity of a young offender to be published in a documentary or educational or research project about the juvenile justice system. However, there are a number of requirements that must be fulfilled before publication is permitted, consistent with the view taken by the Government, when introducing amendments to s 13, that many youths dealt with by cautions or conferences are relatively minor offenders who may not offend again. It said that care must be taken to ensure that they are not publicly labelled as criminals thus affecting their ability to integrate into the community.42

An application for permission to publish for the purpose of the documentary or project must be made to the Youth Court endorsed with the written consent of the youth and the youth’s guardian. The Youth Court then hears the application having given notice to the youth, guardians and other interested persons. In determining the application, the Youth Court must have regard to the welfare of the youth as a paramount consideration. To that end, it must take into account the impact of the publication on the youth, the purpose to be served by it, and the necessity of the publication to the purpose of the documentary or project, public interest considerations, and other relevant matters: s 13(1a)-(1e).

If the Youth Court makes an order permitting publication, two mandatory conditions will attach to the order. The first is that the youth and guardian must be provided with a reasonable opportunity to view the documentary or project before it is released to the public. The second is that it must not be released to the public until at least 30 days after the viewing. Other conditions may also be attached. Note that, before public release of the documentary or project, the youth or guardian may apply to have the order varied or

41 Roy Eccleston, ‘Courts battle identity crisis’.

42 Hon I F Evans MP, Minister for Environment and Heritage, Young Offenders (Publication of Information) Amendment Bill 2000 (SA), Second Reading Speech, House of Assembly, South Australian Parliamentary Debates, 31 May 2000, pp 1318-1319, p 1318.


revoked on the grounds that the report to be included is not a fair report of the proceedings, or it includes material not in the contemplation of the Court at the time the order was made, and the public release would prejudice the welfare of the youth. A hearing of the application will then occur so that the Court can determine whether to revoke or vary the original order or make any ancillary order: s 13(1g)-(1j).

Contravention of s 13 carries a maximum penalty of $10,000.

At the time the s 13 amendments were introduced, the Minister noted that it was not believed that the provision would be widely used because of its limited scope and tight criteria.43 That, to date, appears to be the case.

4.4 WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Western Australia also has both court and diversionary processes in place for young offenders.


Section 35(1) of the Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 prohibits the publication (in a newspaper) or broadcasting (by radio or television) of a report of proceedings in a Children’s Court, or in a court on appeal from the Children’s Court, that is likely to lead to the identification of a child as:

• a person against whom, or in respect of whom, the proceedings are taken;

• a witness; or

• a person against or in respect of whom an offence has or is alleged to have been committed.

However, s 36A (discussed below) provides an exception to this restriction.

A child is defined as any boy or girl under the age of 18 years.

Section 35(2) applies to proceedings in higher courts. It provides that, in criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or the District Court, the court may, after considering the public interest and the interests of the child or children concerned, order that no person shall publish or broadcast a report of the proceedings which contains anything likely to lead to the identification of a child concerned in the proceedings as a person

43 Hon I F Evans MP, Young Offenders (Publication of Information) Amendment Bill 2000 (SA), Second Reading Speech, p 1318.


against whom the proceedings have been instituted, or as a witness, or as a person against or in respect of whom an offence has been committed or is alleged to have been committed.

A breach of s 35(1) or of an order made under s 35(2) is an offence which is punishable either:

• by the Supreme Court as a contempt, or

• if the offender is convicted summarily, by a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for twelve months: s 35(4).

Section 36 provides that where a child is convicted or found guilty by the Children’s Court, or the complaint is dismissed, or the child is committed to Government care, anyone other than the child must not, in a manner which identifies or is likely to identify the child, disclose that information except in accordance with an order made under s 36A or to the bodies set out in s 36(1).

Section 36A allows the Supreme Court, after considering the public interest and the interests of the child, to make an order allowing the publication, broadcast or disclosure of the information prohibited under s 35 or s 36. Under s 36A(2), the Court, in considering the public interest and the child’s interests, may have regard to all or any of the following:

• the age, safety or well-being of the child

• the safety or well-being of a person other than the child

• the safety of the public or the protection of property

• the public interest in the apprehension of escapees for the purpose of returning them to lawful custody

• the public interest in the prevention or detection of a crime.

Any such order that the Supreme Court makes may contain any directions the Court thinks fit, including directions about:

• the content of the matter to be published, broadcast or published

• when, where and how the publication, broadcast or disclosure may be made

• the duration of the order: s 36A(4).

Only the Attorney-General or the Commissioner of Police may make an application for an order of the kind above: s 36A(3).

In introducing the amending legislation under which s 36A was inserted into the Children’s Court of Western Australia Act, Mr D L Smith MP stated:

Members will be aware of recent cases of publication of the names of juveniles who have escaped from custody. There is widespread support for


the view that, where the escapee poses a serious threat to public safety, it should be possible to publish his identity and description. …

... Members will appreciate that the Bill, in leaving the question of publication to the Supreme Court, provides the necessary safeguards and balance to protect both the community’s interests and the civil rights of the child.

Contrary to some recent public comment, the Bill does not contravene [Article 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child] . Under the provisions of the Bill, authorised disclosure of the child’s identity will not be arbitrary or unlawful. As I have indicated, the Supreme Court will protect the child’s interests and rights.44

The 1992 WA case of The Commissioner of Police v A Child provides an example of the operation of s 36A. In this case, the Commissioner of Police’s application to publicise the name and description of a child who had escaped after being detained for manslaughter was granted. In the police affidavit, it was alleged that, after escaping, the child, who had been undergoing detention on two counts of manslaughter, had committed further offences of breaking and entering dwelling-houses, and stealing motor vehicles, driving them dangerously and threatening violence. His Honour Mr Justice Pidgeon held that in the circumstances of the case the public interest transcended the interests of the child; that there was “ ... a matter of the public interest and the prevention or detection of crime and in the apprehension of the child concerned”.45

The judge ordered:

• that the name and physical description of the child be caused to be published in any newspaper and broadcast by radio and television

• that a photograph of the child be caused to be published in any newspaper and broadcast by television

• that the order continue in force until the child was in lawful custody again.

In 1995, a WA judge identified an Aboriginal youth who had, as a 14 year old in 1991, crashed a speeding stolen motor vehicle into another, killing a pregnant woman and her

44 Mr DL Smith MP, Children’s Court of Western Australia Amendment Bill (No 2), Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, Western Australian Parliamentary Debates, 29 May 1991, pp 2316-18, at p 2317.

45 The Commissioner of Police v A Child, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Pidgeon J, 3 September 1992.


small child. The youth’s identity had previously been protected but the judge used his discretion to name the young offender when he escaped from custody.46


The Young Offenders Act 1994 provides the basis for police cautioning, youth community orders, intensive supervision orders, and referral to the Juvenile Justice Teams as diversionary options for less serious offences by young persons. A young person is defined as a person under the age of 18 years: s 3.

Section 40(1) of the Young Offenders Act prohibits the publication in any newspaper or other printed medium, or the broadcasting or televising, of any information likely to identify any young person as a person dealt with by a Juvenile Justice Team. The section also prohibits anyone from publishing, broadcasting or televising any report of the proceedings of a Juvenile Justice Team.

Anyone who contravenes s 40(1) commits an offence punishable by the Supreme Court as a contempt of court or, upon summary conviction, by a fine of $10,000 or twelve months imprisonment: s 40(2). Proceedings for a breach of s 40(1) may be taken by or on behalf of the Attorney-General: s 40(3).

4.5 TASMANIA

The relevant legislation is the Youth Justice Act 1997. It provides statutory underpinning to various diversionary measures for young offenders such as informal and formal cautioning by the police and community conferencing. Serious offences like rape, murder and other prescribed indictable offences are heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.


Section 31(1) provides that if a matter proceeds to the Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division), a person must not publish in any way a report of the proceedings if the report identifies, or contains any information, picture or film that may lead to the identification of a youth who is the subject of or a witness in the proceedings. However, there is an exception to this prohibition provided by s 31(2).

46 Roy Eccleston, ‘Courts battle identity crisis: Anonymity protects young offenders from public shame and scrutiny’.


The Court may grant a person permission to publish an identity, information, picture or film subject to any conditions specified by the Court. It is an offence to publish other than in accordance with the conditions specified in respect of the permission or in contravention of a prohibition. The maximum penalty is a fine up to $10,000 or two years imprisonment.47

A youth is a person under the age of 18 years: s 3.


In relation to diversionary processes, s 22(1) forbids publication of information in respect of actions or proceedings (ie formal and informal cautions) by a police officer, Aboriginal Elder, representative of a recognised Aboriginal organisation or religious, ethnic or other community group, or community conference, if the information identifies or may lead to the identification of the youth, the victim or any other person involved. The penalty is a fine up to $10,000.

However, similarly to the exceptions existing in other jurisdictions, the prohibition in s 22(1) does not apply to the provision of information to persons such as the youth or their legal representative or guardian, the victim, the police, and other specified persons. A person undertaking research that involves identification of the youth, victim or other person involved in the process may seek the Police Commissioner’s approval for the research and obtain the consent of the persons to be identified. Other incidental exceptions are provided for in ss 22(3), (4) and (5).

Section 45(1) prohibits the publication of identifying information regarding court-ordered community conferences. The same exceptions apply as set out in the preceding paragraph: see ss 45(2), (3). The penalty for breach is a fine of $10,000.

4.6 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

In the ACT, s 61A of the Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT) forbids the publication of an account or report of a Children’s Court proceeding if that account or report discloses the identity of the child or young person, or allows the identity of the child or young person to be worked out.

A young person is a person who is at least 12 years of age but not yet an adult: s 3.

47 Youth Justice Act 1997 (Tas), s 31(1), (3) and Penalty Units and Other Penalties Act 1987, s 4.


Persons in breach of the above provision face a penalty of up to $10,000 or 12 months imprisonment: s 61A(3).

Since 1994, diversionary conferencing has been in place in the ACT in the attempt to remove offenders from court processes and to encourage some form of restitution to the victim. The Act protects what takes place at such conferences.48

4.7 NORTHERN TERRITORY

The Juvenile Court deals with young people under 17 who are charged with criminal offences. It is not closed to the public like its counterparts in most other jurisdictions. Section 23(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1983 (NT) provides that a Juvenile Court magistrate may direct that a report of, or information relating to, proceedings against a juvenile before the Court, or the result of proceedings, is not to be published except by a person performing his or her duties under the Juvenile Justice Act.

However, under s 23(3) it is not an offence against s 23(1) for a police officer, acting in the course of his or her duties, to send to the police force of another Australian jurisdiction, under arrangements for the exchange of information, information about a juvenile’s conviction.

A juvenile is defined as a person under 18 years of age. The penalty for a breach of s 23 is $200 or three months imprisonment: s 23(2).

Under amendments to the Police Administration Act 1978, the juvenile Pre-Court Diversion Scheme was implemented, with effect from September 2000, to provide for different levels of response to offending: Division 2B. Those responses include warnings, cautions, family or victim offender conferencing, and formal community based programs. Very serious offences do not qualify for the diversionary conference. It does not appear that the legislation makes specific provision for confidentiality but it is likely that confidentiality would be maintained, as occurs in other jurisdictions under such diversionary processes.

4.8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

Juvenile offenders are able to be identified in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In the USA, at least 30 States have laws allowing public juvenile court hearings, at least for certain violent or serious crimes and the majority of States allow the

48 See eg Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT), s 180.


release of the juvenile’s name, address and/or photograph to the media or general public under certain conditions where the juvenile is accused of a serious offence and tried in adult courts.49 Laws between the States vary in the types of publication restrictions imposed but a number of court decisions have held that the media can publish a juvenile’s identity that has been lawfully obtained.50

A recent highly publicised example of the identification issue in the UK context is the naming of two English youths who murdered the toddler, James Bulger. Children and young persons (under 18 years) in criminal proceedings in courts other than the Youth Court are not subject to automatic reporting restrictions but the Court has the discretion to make an order prohibiting identification. The restriction ends once the person turns 18.

In relation to Youth Court proceedings, s 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 forbids newspaper and program services publication of identifying information about the child or young person in the proceedings. However, there is wide discretion given to the Youth Court to allow the lifting of reporting restrictions, prior to and irrespective of any conviction, where it is in the public interest to do so.51 The Court must have regard to matters such as the interest in open reporting of the crime, the open reporting of matters relating to human safety or health and the prevention and exposure of miscarriages of justice, the welfare of the child, the views of the child (aged 16 or over) or, otherwise, their guardian. Submissions from the media may assist the Court, particularly if there are factors not immediately appearing that are relevant to disclosure.52

As noted earlier in this Brief, the courts and judicial bodies have provided some guidance on public interest factors to be taken into account.

49 USA. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, ‘State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996-97 Update’, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, November 1998. Downloaded from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

50 See eg Jeffries v. Mississippi, 724 So.2d 897 (Miss. 1998); 30 Globe Newspaper Co v Superior Ct, 423 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. 1981).

51 United Kingdom. Society of Editors and Judicial Studies Board and the Newspaper Society, Reporting Restrictions in the Magistrates’ Court, July 2001, Judicial Studies Board, pp 14-15.

52 Reporting Restrictions in the Magistrates’ Court, p 24.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/


APPENDIX A– POLICIES, ALP (QLD) 2001

JUVENILE NAMING STRATEGY

Key Point

We will amend the Juvenile Justice Act to give Judges the opportunity to publicly name juvenile offenders convicted of heinous violent offences liable to a penalty of life imprisonment.

Background

There has been on-going public concern that young offenders who have been convicted of particularly heinous crimes retain the protection of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prevents them being publicly identified. We will amend that Act to give judges the discretion to name those juveniles publicly.

PREVENTING JUVENILE CRIME

Everyone agrees that every opportunity should be taken to stop juveniles becoming adult criminals. In 1998 the Beattie Government promised a more balanced way of dealing with juvenile crime which included:

• Effective youth crime prevention programs;

• Holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions;

• Established rehabilitation programs that work, and;

• Recognising the right of the community to safety.

These promises have been developed through:

• Statewide implementation of the Youth Crime Prevention program;

• Funding the Community Conferencing service in high demand areas;

• Bringing juvenile offenders face-to-face with their victims to make reparation of their crime;

• Implementing the Youth Justice Service pilots in Townsville, Ipswich and Logan City targeting repeat juvenile offenders to break the offending cycle;

• Establishing new arrangements with the Queensland Police Service to minimise inappropriate detention of children in police watchhouses, and;

• Overhauling the youth detention system to provide more security, safety and opportunities for rehabilitation.

These initiatives have shown solid results. For example:

• It is estimated that one in three repeat juvenile offenders referred to the pilot Youth Justice Services did not re-offend - this is in line with world best practice;


• In record time the new 'state of the art' Brisbane Youth Detention Centre has been completed and will commence operations in February 2001, enabling the closure of the totally inadequate Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Detention Centre;

• The Cleveland Youth Detention Centre in Townsville now has effective and secure perimeter fencing and upgrading of the whole facility will be completed in August 2001;

• During the term of the Beattie Government youth detention centres have had the lowest incidence of escape ever recorded.

This is a great start but more needs to be done.

The Beattie Government is developing real practical solutions that work.

In the next term of the Beattie Government we will build on this solid

foundation by:

• Allowing the public naming of convicted violent offenders;

• Strengthening the Juvenile Justice Act.

Naming Juvenile Offenders

Though rare, some offences committed by juveniles are so heinous that the interest of justice demands that the usual requirement to protect the identity of offenders under 17 years of age to promote rehabilitation be overridden. The public is also concerned that these serious offenders are sometimes given the protection they no longer deserve.

Tough measures, including demanding a greater level of accountability from a juvenile who commits a very serious crime, are justified. The Beattie Government wants to maintain community confidence in judicial process in such grave circumstances.

Accordingly, the Beattie Government will amend the Juvenile Justice Act to give Judges the opportunity to publicly name juvenile offenders convicted of heinous violent offences liable to a penalty of life imprisonment.

As a further measure of protection, the Director-General, Families, Youth and Community Care will be empowered to release the name and details of a juvenile being dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act where it is deemed necessary to protect the safety of the public. For example, the photograph and name of a juvenile escapee could be released through a police bulletin to assist in recapture where it is known the juvenile has threatened the safety of a witness.

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice Act

The naming of juveniles who are convicted violent offenders will complement a number of other changes to the Juvenile Justice Act. It will be furthered strengthened by:

• Creating a new sentence option called the Intensive Supervision Order aimed at high risk juveniles who are too young to be sentenced to community work;


• Transferring courts the decision-making power currently exercised by public servants to revoke Supervised Release from detention;

• Preventing 'forum shopping' by abolishing a juvenile offender’s right to elect to be dealt with by a District Court instead of a Children's Court Judge;

• Incorporating a new 'Charter of Juvenile Justice Principles' that stresses:

- the accountability of juvenile offenders for their crimes;

- the responsibility of parents for the supervision of their children;

- rights of victims to have a say in the process of dealing with juvenile offenders for their crimes; and

- the duty of the Government to establish programs for juvenile offenders that promote their health and self-respect, foster their sense of responsibility and encourage attitudes and skills that will assist them to develop as constructive members of society.

Cost of New Commitments

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

- - -


APPENDIX B – MINISTERIAL MEDIA STATEMENT

Hon Peter Beattie MP, Premier and Minister for Trade

26 May 2002

Young offenders named under new laws

Juveniles who commit serious and heinous crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery could be publicly named under reforms planned by the Beattie Government.

Premier Peter Beattie said Cabinet would tomorrow consider laws to allow the naming of serious child and teenaged offenders who cannot currently be identified.

“There has been considerable public concern at the inability of judges to public identify juveniles, even when their offences are shocking,” Mr Beattie said.

“Our amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act - which fulfil an election commitment - will empower judges to name offenders aged 10 to 16, who have committed crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery.

“The law will be tough but fair and balanced, taking into consideration the circumstances of a case and whether public identification is in the interests of justice.

“A judge will be able to exercise the discretion to name an offender, after all appeals periods and proceedings have expired.

“We are also following through on an election commitment by preventing ’forum shopping’.

“We will strengthen the Childrens Court of Queensland by removing a child’s right to elect to be dealt with by the District Court,” Mr Beattie said.

Families Minister Judy Spence said the legislation recognised the need to hold young offenders accountable for their actions, and provided avenues for diversion and rehabilitation.

“A new ‘charter of juvenile justice principles’, including the basic rights of children in youth detention centres, will be part of our reforms,” Ms Spence said.

“The Government is also introducing a new option for sentencing children, called Intensive Supervision Orders.

“Intensive Supervision Orders can only be imposed on a child who has not turned 13 by the date of sentence.

“They are designed to prevent re-offending, giving intensive support to children who are at risk of being placed in detention.

"The introduction of these orders will give the courts more options when they are dealing with children under the age of 13,” Ms Spence said. Media Contact: Steve Keating (Premier’s office) 07 3224 4500

Teresa Mullan (Minister Spence’s office) 07 3224 7477


Copyright Provision: Copy recorded for Parliamentarians only. Disclaimer: No responsibility is taken for any transmission errors.

APPENDIX C – NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Title Juvenile killers to be identified

Author Peter Morley

Source The Sunday Mail

Date Issue 26/05/02

Page 5

Courts will be able to publicly identify juvenile murderers and rapists under reforms to be approved tomorrow by State Cabinet.

Ministers will ratify a package that also sets a new option for sentencing children under 13 and removes a child's right to be dealt with by the District Court.

A new charter of juvenile justice principles will set out the basic rights of children in youth detention centres.

The overhaul of the Juvenile Justice Act follows public disquiet at young offenders escaping identification even when they commit shocking offences.

Victim of crime organisations back the changes but they are opposed by civil

libertarians.

Premier Peter Beattie said "tough, fair and balanced" laws were proposed.

"They will take into consideration the circumstances of a case and whether public identification is in the interests of justice," he said.

"Juveniles who commit serious and heinous crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery can be named.

"A judge will be able to exercise the discretion to name an offender after all appeal periods and proceedings have expired."

Mr Beattie said the Children's Court would be strengthened by a change that means juveniles could not opt to be dealt with by a higher court.

Families Minister Judy Spence said the legislation recognised the public demand that young offenders be held accountable for their actions but it also provided avenues for rehabilitation.

"The charter of juvenile justice principles sets out the basic rights of children in youth detention centres," she said.

"We are introducing a new option for sentencing children called intensive supervision orders, which applies only to a child who has not turned 13 by the date of sentence.

"These orders are designed to prevent re-offending, giving intensive support to children who are at risk of being placed in detention.

"It will give courts more options when dealing with very young offenders."



Title ‘Heinous’ juvenile criminals to lose anonymity

Author Chris Jones

Source The Courier-Mail

Date Issue 12/02/02

Page 7

Queensland judges would be allowed to name violent juvenile offenders publicly within months, Premier Peter Beattie said yesterday.

Mr Beattie said amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act would enable judges to name minors convicted of "heinous violent crimes" with a life imprisonment penalty.

Mr Beattie's comments followed Opposition criticism that the Government had taken too long to approve the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act.

Opposition justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg yesterday questioned why the Beattie Government still had not introduced the legislation to State Parliament, since Cabinet endorsed the draft legislation in 2000.

"Not even a lethargic Labor government acting at its very slowest could possibly take 14 months to open up its word processor, take the word draft off the legislation, print it out and put it into Parliament," he said.

But Mr Beattie said the delay had been caused by the consultation process, and the Government remained committed to amending the legislation by the end of this year.

"This is unprecedented for Queensland and it is controversial, but we have made it clear we have a mandate to do it and we will do it," he said.

In Queensland during the 2000-01 financial year, 91 juvenile offenders were found guilty of armed robbery, 36 of serious crimes such as rape and attempted rape, and five of attempted murder.

In late January last year - in the middle of the state election campaign – Mr Beattie pledged to allow judges to name minors convicted of serious crimes.

At the time, Mr Beattie said the amendments would be introduced to State Parliament along with new sentencing options for high-risk juvenile offenders who were too young to be sentenced to community work.

He said the community was concerned juvenile criminals were protected from publicity and avoiding the consequences of their actions.

Cabinet approved the draft legislation in late 2000 after an extensive 12-month review and much agonising behind closed doors, but concern with other amendments to the Act forced the Government to conduct further consultation last year.

RECENT PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2002

RESEARCH BRIEFS

RBR 2002/01 Fire Safety and Budget Accommodation: The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001)

Jan 2002

RBR 2002/02 The Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2001 Jan 2002

RBR 2002/03 The Public Records Bill 2001 Jan 2002

RBR 2002/04 The Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Bill 2001: Recognising the Importance of Education, Vocational Education and Training on Student Retention Rates

Feb 2002

RBR 2002/05 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 2001 Feb 2002

RBR 2002/06 Minimising the Harm of Illicit Drug Use: Drug Policies in Australia Feb 2002

RBR 2002/07 Public Liability Insurance Mar 2002

RBR 2002/08 Stock Theft Provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld)

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/09 Residential Services (Accreditation) Bill 2002 (Qld): Standards and Accreditation

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/10 Residential Services (Accommodation) Bill 2002 (Qld): Rights and Obligations

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/11 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2002: Clarifying the Rights of Consumers in Maters of Credit

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/12 The Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2002: Restricting the disclosure of information provided about, and sought by, jurors

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/13 Reprisals against Jurors, Witnesses and Judicial Officers: The Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld)

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/14 Fire Ants and the Animal and Plant Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld)

Apr 2002

RBR 2002/15 Transport (Compulsory BAC Testing) Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) May 2002

RBR 2002/16 Legal Profession Reform in Queensland: changing the divide between barristers and solicitors?

May 2002

RBR 2002/17 National Uniform Admission and the Legal Profession May 2002

RBR 2002/18 Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002: Confronting bad and nuisance road behaviour

June 2002

RBR2002/19 Time for Tort Law Reform? June 2002

RBR2002/20 Drugs Misuse Amendment Bill 2002 June 2002

RBR2002/21 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2002: Extending Police Powers to Order Blood Alcohol Tests

July 2002

A Subject Index to Research Publications is available at the following site: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/bysubject.htm Parliamentary Library - Research Publications & Resources Telephone (07) 3406 7108 Orders may be sent to Carissa Griggs, [email protected]

Research Papers are available as PDF files: • to members of the general public, the full text of Research Briefs is now available on the

parliamentary web site, URL, http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/publications.htm

• http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Library/Query.exe – e-Documents & e-Articles – Quick display of

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/bysubject.htm


http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Library/Query.exe

This Publication:

RBR 2002/22 Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2002 (QPL July 2002)

Related Publications: RBR 2002/23

Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment ... · Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill...

Documents

Transcript of Naming Juvenile Offenders – Juvenile Justice Amendment ... · Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill...