| Media Release
Friday 02/Oct/2009 (0854 hrs CST) Diversion Failing Aboriginal Youth
MEDIA RELEASE
Friday 2 October 2009
Diversion Failing Aboriginal Youth
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) expresses its concern following the Australian Institute for Criminology (AIC) report highlighting the gross inequities for Aboriginal young people in the Northern Territory (NT) in accessing youth diversion (reported by the ABC on 29 September 2009).
The Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT) makes clear that “criminal proceedings should not be instituted or continued against a youth if there are alternative means of dealing with the matter.” With only 41% of Territory youths being offered these alternatives to court, compared with as much as 71 % in some other states, many young people who should be diverted from the criminal justice system are not being diverted.
We are especially concerned because this grossly impacts upon Aboriginal young people. The AIC report highlights the appallingly disproportionate contact Aboriginal young people have with the Police compared to non-Aboriginal young people. In the NT, police data from 2009 shows that of the young people police took into custody, around 80% are Aboriginal. No other jurisdiction came anywhere close to this (WA was second, where police arrests of Aboriginal young people are 49% of all young people arrested). Moreover, in the NT in 2008, a far higher proportion of non-Aboriginal youths were offered diversion (41% of Aboriginal youths apprehended by Police were dealt with through diversion, whereas 51% of non-Aboriginal youths were dealt with by diversion). NAAJA notes that not only do Aboriginal young people come into contact with Police more often, they are not given the same chances as non-Aboriginal youth to participate in diversion.
It is important to note that under the Youth Justice Act, police have the discretion to decide who should be referred to diversion. The main criteria for refusing diversion are where the youth is facing a ‘serious offence’, if they have twice before been through a diversionary process, if their prior history makes diversion unsuitable or if they have some ‘other’ history that makes a referral for diversion inappropriate.
NAAJA is concerned that young Aboriginal people are being inappropriately refused diversion.
Example 1
In one recent case, a teenager from a remote community who was only 12 and 13 at the time of offending was denied diversion for matters that occurred in mid 2008 and were not brought to court for approximately 12 months. He had never previously been offered diversion. On this occasion,he had allegedly committed 3 separate offences. He was considered a ‘recidivist’ offender even though he had no prior history at that time and the offences were not “serious” offences. However, since 2008 he had been through a separate Community Court process that had led to significant changes in his life, and no further offending since March 2009. Whereas diversion could have been utilised to great effect for the 2008 matters, police have pursued the three matters as criminal charges to proceed in the Youth Justice Court.
Example 2
We are concerned that police are using diversion as a ‘carrot’ to induce young people to make admissions which can later be used against them in court proceedings. This undermines the right to silence for young people in the Territory. The Youth Justice Act does not require young people to make formal admissions before being diverted, however police appear to be punishing young people who exercise their right to silence by refusing them diversion. This is contrary to the purpose and spirit of the Youth Justice Act.
It is alarming that only 39% of Territory youths are being offered diversion as an alternative to court. With the Northern Territory having the highest rate of youth incarceration in Australia, and Aboriginal youths accounting for the vast majority of those in detention, NAAJA calls for the following immediate action to improve access to diversion:
1. limiting police discretion to refuse diversion,
2. requiring police to provide written reasons for refusing diversion
3. including procedures to allow for a decision to refuse diversion to be appealed;
4. ensuring that diversionary processes be meaningful and effective, and to that end should include where possible meeting with victims, writing apologies, making direct reparation and conferences
Ends
For further information please contact: Glen Dooley (08) 8982 5189 or Samantha Taylor-Hunt (08) 8982 5135 Back |
Latest News
Search Site
|
