Transcript Presentation to Portfolio Committee for Justice and

Presentation to Portfolio Committee for Justice
and Constitutional Development
The CSIR Crime Prevention Centre supports the introduction of
the Child Justice Bill and congratulates the Minister and
Department of Justice and in particular the UN Child Justice
project for the rigorous research and development process that
has resulted in the Bill under consideration.
We also support the submission made to this committee by the
Child Justice Alliance, of which we are a part. We will not repeat
or duplicate any matters raised in that submission.
Our submission today is based on our concern that this Bill
should be adequately supported in implementation and should
succeed and contribute to a safer South Africa for all.
Presentation to Portfolio Committee for Justice and
Constitutional Development
•
Three issues:
– The principles underpinning the Bill and how these will be
mainstreamed into the CJS and the thinking and behaviour of the
South African people
– Street children and how we ensure equity for the most
disadvantaged children
– One Stop Centres as delivery mechanisms for Child Justice
Preamble
•
We support the principles of the Bill but urge that particular attention
must be paid to extend the intended benefit of the Bill equally to all
children accused of committing offences.
•
Failing such attention we believe that children who are already
disadvantaged and/or marginalised will be further marginalised or even
victimised by the Bill.
•
In this regard we do not believe that the Bill provides adequately for so
called “street children”. We refer specifically to the need for an
“appropriate adult” to attend various processes and propose that the
state should be required to appoint such an “appropriate adult” where
there is not one available to the child.
Preamble
•
The Bill sets out to “entrench the notion of restorative justice in
respect of children”.
•
We believe this to be a very important principle of the Bill and regard
the introduction of the Bill as an opportunity to shift the mindsets of
service providers and the South African people from a punitive to
restorative bias. Yet we believe that this is a massive challenge.
•
The people of South Africa have suffered a depth and breadth of
victimisation that has resulted in a combination of anger and fear. Much
of this is directed at our young people, especially young men. Young
men in South Africa are most vulnerable to becoming both victims of
violence and offenders.
•
Whilst not all victims of violence go on to offend, it is known that well
over 90% of violent offenders first experience violence as victims or
bystanders to violence. Thus we know that in many cases the victim
and the offender are one person.
Preamble
•
Early intervention on their behalf is an essential tool in breaking the
same cycles of violence that make it hard for people to accept the
notion of restorative justice.
•
For this Bill to achieve its goals it will require widespread understanding
of these concepts – and belief in restorative justice as a mechanism for
long term safety. Our exposure to service providers and communities
alike leads us to believe that we are a long way from either
understanding or belief.
•
It is likely that the majority of South Africans believe that the Criminal
Justice system does not deal harshly enough with criminals. In such a
climate the introduction of this Bill is surely threatened by a lack of
willingness to support its basic principles.
•
We cannot find in the supporting documentation (Budget and
Implementation Plan) an indication of either capacity or budget that
will be made available for change management in this regard.
Preamble
•
Budget and individual departmental responsibility for training has been
allocated but this is not enough.
•
In work done in support of the Bill during the course of the last year,
we have encountered resistance from service providers (in particular
the police) and community workers alike, warning that they will be
vilified in communities if young men are arrested and then diverted into
programmes that are perceived to be a “soft option”.
•
On the first day of this process the chair referred to such programmes
as “getting some air” – it is difficult for us as a community to attribute
value to programmes that are often hard to measure as they are based
on qualitative rather than quantitative action and their real benefits are
often long term rather than immediate.
•
Many sectors in our society
Preamble
•
The Bill should be supported by a communication campaign that is
based on a scientific understanding of community perceptions and the
concerns of service providers.
•
Failing such support the Bill will encounter resistance and be much
harder to implement.
•
The communication campaign should introduce the concepts of
restorative justice, allow for debate regarding the consequences of
restorative versus punitive justice, examine the long term material and
social costs of punitive justice, educate regarding diversion and expose
diversion successes.
Chapter One
•
2b (i) Greater thought should be given to street children in terms of
“fostering children’s sense of dignity and worth”
•
2b (iv) There is no indication of how communities will be involved. This
is an opportunity to define clear and practical roles for community,
rather than falling into the common trap of demanding support and not
providing guidance in terms of what support means. Is there a budget
allocated anywhere for community involvement?
•
3 (i) (h) No indication of how children lacking in family support will
have equal access.
•
3.(3) (c) Should add: “access to adequate sanitation and hygiene”. (It
is known that street children for instance are often dirty and smell bad.
It is impossible to claim that their sense of dignity and worth, or their
access to services, will be equal absent an opportunity to be clean.
Chapter Three
•
7. (3) (iv) There should be an adult available to every child.
•
11. (1) (b) An appropriate adult should be appointed by the state.
Failing this the child who has no such adult available is disadvantaged.
•
16. Release of child to place of safety. There is a generally
acknowledged shortage of places of safety. This clause will again
disadvantage the most disadvantaged children.
It is noted that in certain sections there is reference to “the child’s legal
representative” – 28(3) – the more disadvantaged the less likely a child
will have representation of any kind – concerns about equity.
Chapter Four
•
21(2) An appropriate adult must attend the assessment of the child
failing exemption according to 22(3).l
•
Propose that 22(6)(b) should read: “If all reasonable efforts to locate a
parent or an appropriate adult have failed, the probation officer must
appoint an appropriate adult to attend the assessment in support of
the child”.
•
All other sections regarding the presence or role of an appropriate
adult should be read in this light.
One Stop Centres
•
•
•
•
•
An assessment of Stepping Stones One Stop Centre was undertaken at
the end of 2001. The intention of the report was to provide
management support in terms of understanding the infrastructure,
capacity and resource requirement of such a centre and to measure
this against its potential as a delivery mechanism for Child Justice.
A series of semi-structured interviews to provide qualitative information
Comparisons of views to achieve a balance between factual input and
opinions based on own context and experiences.
The findings were presented to the stakeholders and participants of
Stepping Stones at two workshops in order to confirm the analysis and
recommendations.
Impact was assessed against:
– Previously three different court buildings
– 13 police stations where children in conflict with the law were
serviced
One Stop Centres
Stepping Stones has reduced:
• transport time and costs
• chaos of finding a child and case in the system
• time taken to follow up and chase documentation
• incidence of children ‘falling through the system’.
Success indicators:
• centre (departmental relationships, co-ordination
effectiveness and efficiency)
• benefits to children in conflict with the law
(success rate, diversion, efficiency of service).
• Secondary impact of the services can be seen on
the family, parents and the community
One Stop Centres
•
•
•
•
•
The inclusion of a secure care facility as part of the facilities of a onestop centre would greatly enhance the provision of probationary and
social development services, as well as facilitating the speedy and
efficient process of children in conflict with the law through the system.
In addition, no programme is currently available for youth that reoffend.
Diversion services would be greatly enhanced if; firstly, a reform school
was available in the province.
Secondly, a bridging programme was available for children to assist in
coping with the diversion programmes.
Thirdly, correctional supervision was included as part of the coordinated services of the centre facilities and services.
One Stop Centres
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Psychological services,
Trauma counselling and victim support,
Remedial assessment and occupational therapy,
Clinic services,
Access to a doctor for confirmation of age assessments (the
involvement of the Department of Home Affairs would assist further).
SAPS need to include a Detective Unit to facilitate the speed of cases
appearing before court. Currently detectives from all 13 police stations
in the magisterial district are required to investigate cases and appear
before court.
The assistance of the Department of Education is required to assist in
reintegrating children back to schools and to undertake crime
prevention education and intervention programmes.
One Stop Centres
•
Components integrate functions and case management.
•
Working relationships have been established over time and through respect for
individuals.
•
The members work together as a “family” towards a common vision, and
recognise their individual growth (maturity, insights, assertiveness, competence
and expertise in the field) over the past few years.
•
Members are committed to their professions and demonstrate this through the
service delivery, innovation, leadership and self-development. (But members feel
that their departments do not support them adequately nor recognise their
professionalism).
•
Common values include compassion, patience, respect for rights of the child and
a commitment to make a difference with children in conflict with the law.
One Stop Centres
•
Key infrastructure required for a One-Stop Child Justice Centre
includes:
– a facility for all four components to work together,
– appropriate design and layout of the facility,
– clarity of roles and responsibilities – acknowledge the difficulty of
integrating across departmental line functions and hierarchies
– guidelines protocols and service agreements,
– participatory management,
– clarity on centre resources (vehicle, computers etc) – how to share,
– a data management system
– clear and transparent appointment processes.
– It is proposed that a facility is made available for correctional
supervision to be included as part of the integrated services.
Conclusion
The task ahead is complex and difficult. It is vital that lessons learnt are
mainstreamed into implementation:
• The Bill is based on some sophisticated concepts and principles; there
are those, particularly at centres such as Stepping Stones, who
understand and are already implementing the actions that flow from
these principles. They should be regarded as role models and
encouraged and motivated to continue their good work. (This requires
careful and clever Human Resource management).
• We must ensure that the Bill does not suffer as a result of lack of
understanding and change management. We cannot assume
compliance at any level and there must be extensive support for
entrenching both the principles and procedures of the Bill.
• Integrated approaches are obviously sensible but rarely work. We must
enable clear leadership and minimise conflict of interest and duplication
of effort.
• We must not underestimate the importance of community support,
without which implementation will be even harder.