Aid too little, too late for young offenders

Press, 26 May 1977, Page 6

Aid too little, too late for young offenders

Young offenders stand a good chance of being inadequately represented in court, several people told the Royal Commission on the courts in! Christchurch yesterday. Social-worker reports could contain bias or prejudice that affected sentence, and sometimes young people appeared in court with no defence. Three of the seven submissions heard by the commission in its second day of sittings in Christchurch yesterday concerned themselves with a “too little, too late” accessibility to the helping professions — social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists — when defence was being constructed for young offenders. Legal counsel was inclined to leave the “social side” to I the probation officer, and too often accepted that the social welfare officer had properly investigated the case, said Mr L. M. O’Reilly, a Christchurch barrister and solicitor. “Many reports are done far too hastily, yet have a profound effect on the judgment of the court. It is 'ot going too far to sav that the reporting agency actually assumes the sentencing role,” he said.' “But I have often heard the!

words, in the absence of legal counsel, ‘This is an honest court. We have the report (social worker’s). Let us proceed. /‘These officers are. dedicated. and have considerable ability, but the system allows only a superficial investigation,” Mr O’Reilly said. A Social Welfare Department officer could bring a prosecution, lay the charge, and be the guardian of the child, said Dr R. Hewland, a consultant psychiatrist at Sunnyside Hospital. There needed to be a counsellor, not seconded from the department, who would be independent to the court. It was well apparent that the local judiciary' and the legal profession took little advantage of the counselling expertise available, said Dr K. D. Zelas, a child and family psychiatrist. There was also a lack in some “judicial officers” of the personal attributes, aptitudes, and attitudes, that fitted them to work with children, young people and families. All submissions said that legal representation for children and young people should be mandatory. At present there was statutory provision for this, but some offenders

.appeared before the Magistrate with no legal counsel. I They wanted more remand [homes —to reduce the practice of holding persons below •the age of 16 in adult prisons :—more personnel, facilities | to supervise community work ' and adequate remuneration of [solicitors working on legal laid. At present the Governjment was paying these about [one-quarter of the professional charge, said Mr O’Reilly. All three parties wanted district family courts set up, with two divisions; one for all matrimonial matters, the other for young people under 17 charged with offences. The presiding judicial officers would be appropriately qualified and specialised, and the other officers would put the legal system’s convenience second to the child’s immediate need for security, accommodation, emotional needs and schooling. The officers should ensure that a child or young person charged with the offence was treated at the level of his reading age and intelligence, and that all persons submitting reports to the court i allow scrutiny of their training and opinions.