News

During the past 10 years, governments have committed themselves to ending the practice whereby juveniles on remand are incarcerated in prisons and every one has failed. Rachel Downey questions why this practice continues, while Clare Jerrom interviews the new chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers.

In 1990, the then Conservative government pledged to abolish the use of prison for juveniles on remand after 15-year-old Philip Knight killed himself in Swansea Prison.

More than a decade later and the number of children remanded to prison has tripled. In the first six months from April 1992 a total of 440 boys were remanded in prison. In the first six months of last year, the figure had risen to 1,284.

Along the way there have been new governments, new laws, new sentences, and new management structures. One thing has remained consistent - the use of prison for 15 and 16 year-old boys awaiting trial. Girls under 17 are deemed vulnerable and cannot be held in prison.

So why have successive governments failed?

The Criminal Justice Act 1991 was introduced to end the practice of sending children to prison while they were awaiting trial. The plan was to give courts powers to order local authorities to place these children in secure units rather than prison. This would be enacted once sufficient local authority secure places were opened. Initially, the Home Office estimated 30 to 35 new places would be needed but by 1994 the estimate had risen to 170.

Meanwhile, the political atmosphere was changed dramatically by the murder of two-year-old Jamie Bulger by two ten-year-old boys. The case horrified the nation and resulted in a major setback to plans to protect children who get mixed up in crime. The provisions of the 1991 Act had been quietly ushered in under the then Conservative administration. But youth crime was now a political football. The media was howling for tough action against young offenders and that meant any proposal to improve their lot would be sidelined. The use of custody for under-18s soared in the months following the Bulger conviction. As custodial sentences for under-18s increased, the juvenile remand population rose by 86 per cent between 1993 and 1994.

Newspaper stories of persistent young offenders abounded. In response the government brought in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which extended court ordered secure remands to include 12 to 14 year-olds and introduced child jails. Any plans to build secure accommodation took second place to erecting secure training centres.

When New Labour came to power, it made youth crime one of the top issues of its first term. One of its weapons was the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced the detention and training order for under 18s, replacing the secure training order. This was supposed to be a progressive measure, which would ensure juvenile offenders spend just half of their sentences in either prison or secure accommodation. Crime reduction charity Nacro argues that in practice it results in young people spending longer in prisons. The legislation also restricts the application of remands to local authority secure units to "vulnerable" 15 and 16 year-olds. But even if a boy is deemed to be vulnerable under the law, the court cannot order a secure remand if one is not available.

The government maintains it is still committed to abolishing remands to prison custody for this group - once sufficient secure accommodation is available. But there are never enough and local authorities are under constant pressure to come up with places to keep 15 and 16-year-old remands out of prison. Roy Walker, chairperson of the Secure Accommodation Network, says the 400 beds in secure children's homes are almost always occupied.

Campaigners fear that further legislative changes will again increase the number of juvenile remands to prison. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will allow judges to remand 15 and 16 year-olds to custody if they are charged with an offence that carries a prison sentence. All the judge needs to do is reason that the young person is likely to reoffend while on bail. This legislation was slipped through parliament just before the end of the last session.

The Home Office estimates that this change could mean an extra 4,900 young people a year are remanded, but claims that new intensive supervision and surveillance programmes will reduce this number.

So where do we go from here? And what hope is there that the pledge to end juvenile remands to prison will be honoured?

A two-pronged approach is under way. The first is to reduce the number of 15 and 16-year-olds who are remanded to any form of custody by increasing the use of alternatives, such as bail support schemes, remand fostering, and new intensive supervision and support programmes. In September, the Youth Justice Board, which became responsible for all custodial accommodation for young people in June 2000, wrote to youth offending teams and youth court magistrates urging them to think very carefully before they recommend or issue a custodial response.

The second is to extend the use of secure training centres. Initially, set up for children aged 12 to 14 sentenced to secure training orders, their remit is being widened to include remands in that age group, and 15 and 16-year-olds remands. The Youth Justice Board is encouraging the development of secure training centres planned. Four more are proposed: Milton Keynes, Brentwood in Essex, an unidentified location the north-west, and somewhere in Wales. On top of this, two of the three existing secure training centres are being expanded. The plan is for 400 more places to take the pressure off secure children's homes and reduce the use of prison custody for 15 and 16-year-olds boys. Two secure training centres are currently acting as pilots for 12 to 14 remands.

In the meantime improvements have been made to young offenders institutions. All have segregated the under 18s from those over 18. Since April 2000, young offenders institutions (YOIs) have been required to appoint a child protection co-ordinator and to set up, in conjunction with the local area child protection committee, arrangements for acting on allegations of significant harm. There is general agreement that the prison service has begun to tackle conditions for under-18s and has received substantial funding to do so. "The prison service has made an impressive effort in improving conditions for under-18s but prison is not suitable for this group," says Prison Reform Trust director Juliet Lyon.

But despite the reforms, conditions are still appalling. On average, more than 34 per cent of young offenders in YOIs are assaulted. And often the young men are a long way from their families - the average under 18 is held 54 miles from home. Nor have the reforms stemmed the ongoing tragedy of self-harm and suicide in these institutions.

"I'm worried that when young people are seen to be at severe risk that because of the shortage of adolescent inpatient services in the country, there's a possibility of using prison as a secure setting for their protection," says Lyon. "That's a misuse of prison." No child should be in prison whether on remand or on sentence, she adds. "But for children who in everybody's view need to be contained, a placement other than prison is needed, particularly as what that imprisonment does is to confirm a criminal identity that will stay with them for life."

A "hell hole" is how Helen Redding describes Brinsford YOI, where her son Anthony killed himself just over a year ago. He was 16 and had been sentenced to a detention and training order for stealing a car. "To me Anthony was still a baby. I did not bring him into the world for just 16 years. If they have got to send young lads there, they should be looked after."

On his way to Brinsford, Anthony tied his laces together and tried to cut off his breathing in the escort van. On arrival at the YOI, he was placed in the health care unit. When he was told he would have to move to a single room as his dormitory bed was needed, he tied his bedsheets together and dangled himself out of the low windows. When he was found, he was still alive. On arriving at the hospital, Helen recalls seeing blood vessels sticking out of his face, which was badly swollen. His brain had already been badly damaged. He died the next day.

It was Anthony's second visit to Brinsford. He had served a detention and training order the previous year again for stealing a car, during which time he attempted suicide. His first visit to Brinsford had a lasting effect on him - he began bedwetting, which continued after his release. Since his death, his parents have discovered that he attempted suicide a number of times while in Brinsford for the first time, but it is unclear how many. Helen says she was only informed about one incident, after which Anthony promised her he would not do it again.

Campaigners want children in prison to benefit from the protection of the 1989 Children Act. However young offenders institutions are exempt from this legislation because they are the property of the Queen and the Queen is above the law. This archaic rule was uncovered by the former chief inspector of prisons Sir David Ramsbotham - who revealed the dreadful conditions at many YOIs in his damning reports - after questioning the Home Office.

Kathy Evans, acting head of social policy at the Children's Society, argues that a cultural revolution is needed. "We have got to challenge our understanding about what's going on in youth crime when we have children aged 10 being treated the same way as adults aged 42. In order to make a real change, there must be a root and branch change so criminal law recognises the difference between juvenile culpability and adult culpability."

Last month the consultation document on the new children's rights director was issued. Their power and protection will extend through the education, health and care systems. But the children who through a mistake, or bad luck, or the postcode lottery of the judicial system, end up in prison will remain outside this protective cordon.  

Suicide and self harm

Since 1990, 19 children under 18 have killed themselves in prison. There is a disproportionately high number of suicides by young people on remand in prisons compared with those living in the community. A 1997 study for the Office of National Statistics shows that 38 per cent of young offenders on remand had considered suicide in their lifetime, 30 per cent in the past year, and 10 per cent in the week prior to interview. A total of 20 per cent of those on remand said they had attempted suicide at some time, 17 per cent in the week before interview, and 3 per cent in the previous week^.1

Rates of self-harm in YOIs have increased significantly in the past five years, according to the Prison Reform Trust. Between 1998 and 1999 there were 944 officially recorded incidents of self-harm,² and campaigners argue that many more incidents go unreported. The Office of National Statistics study found that nine out of ten YOI inmates showed evidence of at least one of more of the following: personality disorder, psychosis, neurotic disorder or substance misuse. Between 41 and 67 per cent experienced significant levels of neurotic symptoms, compared with 11 per cent of 16-19 year-olds living in the community.

¹ D Lader, N Singleton, and H Meltzer, Psychiatric Morbidity Among Young Offenders in England and Wales, The Stationery Office, 2000

² F Farrant, Troubled Inside, Prison Reform Trust, 2001