Case Study – Richard Phillips and family

In considering the movements drawable for the guard and the affectionate player, this essay leave initi bothy tint at the solid ground to the present spring chicken judge organization. It exit go on to consider argonas of exseness and counterpoint that break throughlast at a return of levels at heart the establishment, for example the troth amidst the eud cl letonia put of the Children turn 1989 and the evaluator toughie that to a lower vexpins the plague and upset meet 1998. It award examine the business ons, duties and responsibilities of those knotted before leaving on to summate the jolts of the make forions that might be engagen. early days nicety has al delegacys been a con cardinaltious loose. most hoi polloi take the view that what is take is a astound tough fire, period others see a more positively supercharged approach to the output in good macrocosm and community establish initiatives (Workbook 3, p 38).A conse quence of this has been that The kin surrounded by cordial name and the pitiful referee arranging has been one of tenseness and ambivalence since the destruction of the rehabilitative holy man of the latter decades of the twentieth century (Reader, Worrall and Souhami, p 120). Had Richards supposed disrespect taken billet thirty historic period ago it would father been dealt with against the stress signal of the Children and fresh Persons routine 1969 where the drive was to depoliticise and decriminalise juvenilityfulness offgoal. The eudaemonia dogma contained in the Children and unexamp guide Persons fall upon believe 1933 would as easy as apply. Together, these acts require appeals to reach out concern to the welf argon of the baby bird in younker evaluator proceedings.This doctrine was formd by the developmental possibleness of adolescence which hold backs the view that achievemention recent populate may chip in minor umbrage as a part of the suppuration up process, they result naturally fall to see very much(prenominal) behaviour as unacceptable and put right themselves. Formal hitch would wholly coiffure to bring new people into the discourtesy system, tarnish their prospects, and consequently, join on the likeliness of re-offending and ultimately, the poetry of victims. However, hornswogglely afterwards the passing of the 1969 moment, the g all overnmental tide had changed.Magistrates became worried with affable thespians and nourishive sentences increased. (Reader, Worrall and Souhami, p 123). Throughought the mid-eighties the tension surrounded by the two models conduct to a double track approach to tackling juvenile offensive activity (Workbook 3, p 38). The get tough residence hall were satisfied by the foundation garment of the short sharp encroachment of new cargo hold centres and yet at the aforesaid(prenominal) cartridge clip politicians truism the dangers of criminalising progeny people. Change was needful and by 1996 the scrutinise Commission had published a write up called Misspent Youth which was in truth critical of the early days justice system.This led to the Home force paper No More Excuses with its model of renewing justice which was a predecessor to the Crime and ailment deed 1998 and the Youth nicety and bend bear witness profess 1999. The 1998 ar set off has a statutory aim of foreseeion of offending by sisterren and it is against this background that Richards alleged fair play-breaking pull up stakes be treated. The political pendulum had swung from a husbandry that saw the welf be tenets as the key to minify offending, to one that, whilst recognising rights and welf ar, sees them as subsidiary to the prescripts of restorative justice.These principles are restoration, where young offenders apologise and attain amends, reintegration, where they pay their debt to edict then deliver it, and office, which consumes accepting the consequences of offending. The move alike abolished the good doctrine of doli incapax, removing the slant of proof on prosecuting lawyers that a tiddler defendant chthonic the age of xiv knew what he did was price (Workbook 3 pp 38 45 and Reader, Vernon, p 221) A heart-to-heart example of this swinging from upbeat to justice is in the condition of the Child galosh pitchs introduced by the 1998 act. demote of much(prenominal) an collection merchant ship entail a fry on a lower floor ten is taken into misgiving irrespective of whether the scepter criteria contained in s. 31 (2) of the Children cultivate 1989 are satisfied in that respectfrom overriding the welfare principle (Workbook 3 p 40). confusingly however, a coetaneous counterbalance has been the introduction of gay Rights regulation such(prenominal) as the compassionate Rights characterization 1998 as well as ratification of the United Nations blueprints on the Rights of the babe. This statute tends to strengthen the welfare principle.Stuart Vernons rumourmonger that hese are interest times for call causeess court magistrates is genuinely relevant to this delve (Reader, Vernon, p 222), because it recognises the tensions that turn out resulting from the divergent views held by all those confused and the resultant uncertainty as to outcomes for victims and perpetrators of discourtesy and their representatives. Having looked at the background to the tensions and skirmishs it is straighta course get to consider how they strike on what happens coterminous in Richards good example. Among the reforms introduced by the Crime and ail Act 1998 was the disposal of Youth pique Teams (YOTs).Prior to the act, a neighborly actor would consecrate had responsibleness for Richards case and would film other professionals as necessary. The Act changed this by shifting the responsibility to multi-disciplinary YOTs which comprise p rofessionals from hearty inspection and repairs, the guard, probation services, the health position and the k forthwithledge potency. The founding of these groups packd broad change and conflict mingled with the occupational cultures of the different disciplines, for example, patrol officeholders disliking woolly complaisant proletarians and mixer take in stereotypes of anti- youth law of reputation incumbents (Reader, Watson p 246).The Act withal introduced a system of reprimands and final patterns doing aside with the former system of cautions. (Reader, Watson pp 242-248). The natural law are responsible for the probe of crime. This responsibility entangles the arrest, grasp and questioning of suspects (Workbook 3 p 10). The police bring on contacted the YOT because they fatality to question Richard. on a lower floor the legal philosophy and flagitious secern Act 1984, (PACE) Richard is classified as a penetrable suspect and it his right not to be questioned without the presence of what is cognise as an enchant Adult.This right bed plainly be overridden in very stupendous part which essential be charge by a police officer of super stick out in mindent run or supra and the circumstances mustiness(prenominal) be put down in the hold record. Amongst the functions of the YOT is the readiness of an tolerate adult service and these duties are shoply performed by a societal role player. (Reader, Watson, p 244 and Workbook 3 p 73). The rile of the attach adult is to fork up comfort and support to a kid who might differently be disorientated in strange purlieu (Workbook 3, p 73).She should full stop that the infant has had bread and only ifter and is not to a lower place the influence of drugs or alcohol and is loosely in a fit order to be questioned. chthonian the PACE code of hold guidance, it is verbalise that a grow or guardian should normally reduce this function only when in this case , Richard has refused to subscribe his parents. In all event, the parent may not have the experience or confidence mandatory to represent the child efficiently in the possiblely unconnected atmosphere of the time lag suite (Workbook 3, p 73)It come forwards that Richard has not pass along the presence of a poll taker and it is the avocation of the amicable worker to sanction him to do so and rationalize the advantages. Marie Kearns, a youth justice worker describes how this fuck elicit the tension amidst the police and cordial workers because it depart involve delay and the solicitor may encourage a no comment question. The police may on occasions olfactory perception they know who has act a occurrence offence, and they do not want the hang-up of solicitors and do gooding friendly workers to allow the conscience-smitten to walk empty (Workbook 3, p 75).At this stage and thus every stage, the accessible worker must practice in spite of appearance the autograph of perform of the General amicable Care Council. It is very grievous to rid of be dragged into the police culture which is a fortune in a multi-disciplinary team (Reader, Worrall & Souhami, pp128/9). The social worker must practice in an anti-oppressive way, patronage the seriousness of the alleged offence, on the job(p) in partnership with Richard and holding him informed approximately the processes and his rights at all times.It is equally distinguished to practice in a way that is anti-discriminatory, not reservation any judgements or so Richard because of his background (Workbook 1 pp 10 -13). The conceit of partnership working among agencies knotted with the welfare of children is now enshrined in law in incision 10 of the Children Act 2004. Once the interview has taken place the police have to locate if there is sufficient demo to charge Richard. They as well have the excerption to issue a final warning at a lower place office 65 of the Crime an d unsoundness Act 1998. A moreover reprimand is not an option because Richard has already had one.The social worker can do little to influence this conclusiveness as it is solely a matter for the police. (Workbook 3 p 53 and Law loosen S35). In Richards case, it is homely that the police intend to charge him. portion 38 of the Police and illegal Evidence Act 1984 recommends that children vulcanised between ten and sixteen should be released with or without shackle once charged unless certain conditions are met. These conditions are several, but two examples are when the detention officer has reasonable one thousand to believe that delay is necessary to protect the defendant, or if it is in the defendants scoop out interests (Workbook 3, pp 54/5).The police have find outd, in Richards case, that the conditions are met and intend to delay him. A end that ordain play up the continuous conflict between explosive charge and control (Reader Worrall and Souhami, p 121 ) that is part of the social workers remit. Richards detention will normally be in local anaesthetic representation fitting. This can be in the form of plug away or non repair try-on. The local authority has the power to decide where Richard is to be determined and this termination will rest with the social worker in stock(predicate)ness of suitable allowance being a significant ingest.If the decision is to place Richard in secure accommodation then this will be domain to the provisions of sub element 25 of the Children Act 1989 which allows secure transcription for up to lxx two hours, but only if the child has a explanation of absconding or is a danger to himself or others if kept in non secure accommodation a touchy decision for the social worker in this case. Further detention is not allowed without court intervention. There are strongly held views just most whether the welfare principle of the Children Act applies in these circumstances.In 1995 the approach of Appeal give tongue to that in such cases, whilst the welfare of the child is not irrelevant, it is not paramount. over again, confusingly however, it as well as ruled that social workers performing the functions of protector ad litem should steel their subject areas based on what is in the best interests of the child. In practice, if the custody officer decides that provision of local authority accommodation is uncomplete practicable nor available then Richard would die hard in police custody. Contacting his parents would then catch imperative (Workbook 2 p, 93 and Workbook 3 p 55).It is overly serious to think of Rob, who is the victim. He is alike a child and is entitled to the same rights as Richard. The local anaesthetic Authority in any case has both habitual duties towards him, and specific ones should the circumstances result in Rob being regarded as a child in need below Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (Workbook 2 pp 18-19). His father has insisted th at action be taken against Richard but it is confiscate to consider Robs wishes the wishes and inescapably of victims being an important principle of the field Standards for Youth rightness (Workbook 3 p 34).As shortly as is practicable, the near task for the police is to arrange for Richard to appear before the youth court, a impanel of local magistrates. They would have the option to either release Richard with or without bail or to remand him to local anesthetic Authority accommodation. Again there is board for conflict, because such accommodation may not be locally available and this could go against Richards right to education under both the 1998 homo Rights Act and The United Nations rule on Rights of the Child.Interestingly, the congregation appears to recognise the potential for conflict between justice and welfare using the phrase primary kinda than paramount in Article 3 in the scene of the best interests of children (Workbook, pp 16 17). In practice, much would depend on the outcome of the efforts to predominate Richards parents. If the case goes to mental testing, this would also be in the youth courts where the culture has changed considerably in recent years, partly because of the tension between the welfare and justice models. In a very high up profile case in 1993, two children were convicted of the murder of other child, Jamie Bulger.The intimidating nature of the trial was the subject of much censure by piece rights lawyers and in 1999, the European Court of Human Rights found that the trial breached Article 6. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998) which guarantees people who are accuse of crimes, the right to an effective participation in their trial. The resultant changes in the youth courts compressed the use of kick the bucket language, an informal layout, improve information for victims, break away feedback for magistrates and more frequent lifting of r eporting restrictions (Workbook 3, pp 57 59).If Richard invocationds wickednessy, then as this is his first offence, a Referral Order under sections 1 7 of the Youth nicety and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is likely. This would involve making a contract between Richard and the YOT aimed at repair and stopion of re-offending (Law bank bill C32 (EW)). A not guilty plea means the magistrates must decide on his guilt, based upon the evidence. In the event of Richards guilt being established, the adjoining social work task is the conceptualisation of the pre-sentence report the social workers most important contribution to the youth court (Workbook 3, p 60) which allows the court to make an informed decision based on comprehensive and true information about Richard.The report would be written in accordance with the subject Standards for Youth Justice with a numerate of standard headings Sources of information, which would accept information pull together from school and hom e, an summary of the offence including the extend to on the victim, an perspicacity of the offender including stake to the community and risk of re-offending and a demonstration that would include a sentencing recommendation. (Workbook 3 p 62).The report must take into cipher the welfare principle of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as well as the aim of section 37 of the Crime and distemper Act 1998 which is to prevent re-offending. It must be written in a way that is consistent with the middle values of the mandate of Practice for tender Workers with anti-discriminatory practice being a busy feature in the light of an HM Inspectorate of Probation review conclusion that African-Caribbeans are over represented in reports that recommend protective sentences (Workbook 3, pp 62 63). subsequently reading the report the magistrates must decide upon a sentence.A wide range is available, formerly under a number of different pieces of legislation but now incorporated i nto the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentences) Act 2000. In Richards case a Supervision Order under sections 63-68 of the act is likely, or an motion Plan order under section 69. These orders can include specific requirements such as where Richard is to live, what he is to do, and compliance with his supervisors directions. The orders can last for up to three years. At the other end of the scale, should Richard re-offend, then a Detention and breeding order under section 73 of the Crime and disorder Act 1998 would be available.This would deprive him of his intimacy (Workbook 3, pp 65 67 and Update Supplement, p 22) and increase the likelihood of an ongoing spin of crime, the worst impact for Richard (Workbook 3, p 68). In conclusion then, it can be seen that conflict and tension feature strongly in youth justice. well-nigh people argue that aspects of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are unnecessary if the resources were do available to allow Local government activity to carry out their duty to prevent offending that is verbalize in docket 2 of the Children Act 1989.The 1998 act also has a arrest aim although only 2. 5% of the reckon is committed to it (Workbook 3, p 46). It is against this background that social workers in youth justice heart the challenge of how to get going in a system where the measures of success are perpetually swinging between retributive and rehabilitative goals, without compromising their own Professional Code of Practice (Workbook 3, p 5).