*/
During the annual Authorisation to Practise process, the Bar Standards Board requires a declaration for Youth Court work. The regulator has also published specific competences relating to Youth Proceedings. Yet still, there remains no monitoring of advocacy standards of those representing children in the criminal justice system.
Recognising the critical need for a child-focused approach, set out in specific Sentencing Guidelines for Children, the Overarching Guideline and the Youth Defendant Bench Book, in 2020 the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) established a working group to develop a bespoke training course for the Bar, targeting the representation of children in the criminal justice system.
The ICCA working group set out to draw together myriad resources to better equip practitioners to fulfil their regulatory duties and to continue its push for advocacy for children to be a specialist area of practice. There is too much at stake for those who are poorly represented, which leads to unjust and life-altering outcomes that can be averted.
The approach to representing and sentencing children and young people who commit offences requires careful preparation and consideration. In developing this new course – Advocacy for Children in Conflict with the Law (ACCL) – we wanted to highlight the need for specialist psychiatric and psychological reports, an awareness of the growing body of research into and brain development and trauma, and issues relating to racial disparity in sentencing and outcomes. We tackle issues of maturity as well as the impact on children and young people of lived-experiences, mental health issues and educational setbacks, which contribute to their criminality. We explore what other jurisdictions have achieved internationally. The ACCL course has the endorsement of the senior judiciary.
The ACCL course is centred around a case study concerning four children who come before the Youth Court, three of whom progress to the Crown Court. They have committed the offence of ‘Robbery in a Dwelling’ for which there is a specific child sentencing guideline. We take learners through the issues of diversion, preparation for Youth Court hearings, bail, remand, remittal, PTPH in the Crown Court and sentence, and we deal too with the difficult cliff-edge sentencing exercises for those over 18, (‘Full maturity and all the attributes of adulthood are not magically conferred on young people on their 18th birthday’).
Many practitioners misunderstand the specific rules that apply in the Youth Court. To assist learners, we have commissioned a Legal Overview Paper providing relevant resources to arm practitioners with expert knowledge. We commissioned hard-hitting films from leading youth justice specialist practitioners. The ACCL course includes guidance on intermediaries, applying for reasonable adjustments and applications for a certificate for an assigned advocate. Delegates are taken on an e-learning journey from charge through to sentence, working through a realistic set of papers before being asked to prepare a Welfare Note – a requirement on the PTPH form that few are aware of – and a Sentencing Note. Preparation takes up to two days (depending on the learner’s prior knowledge). The in-person element, delivered by highly trained and experienced barrister tutors, is a half day.
The ACCL course was fully developed long before the decision in ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. This appeal concerned the correct approach to sentencing children and young people. Three of the appellants were 15 years old at the time of offending which included an offence of conspiracy to rob (by chance in essence the same offence that ACCL utilises in the case study). None of the advocates at first instance referred in sentencing notes or otherwise to the specific Sentencing Council Guideline ‘Robbery, Sentencing Children and Young People’.
The appellate court determined that:
‘ full and accurate sentencing notes from prosecution and the defence are critical in ensuring that the judge›s deliberations are directed correctly by reference to material considerations set out in the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, together with reference to important assistance with sentencing and the sentencing process located in the Criminal Practice Directions and a youth-specific Judicial College publication...›
The court found that there had been a failure to have regard to the Youth Robbery Guideline and the overarching Youth Guideline. As to the issue of maturity and what drives young people to offend, it was emphasised that it has long been recognised that young adolescent brains are not fully developed until the age of 25. The court went on to acknowledge that adverse childhood experiences, educational difficulties and mental health issues can negatively affect the development of thought processes, including the ability to appreciate the consequences of one’s own and others’ actions.
At para 82 the Court of Appeal noted that the appeal:
‘ has generated a number of lessons to be learned when sentencing children and young people, especially when they have been tried together with older co-accused, as the appellant was here. An entirely different approach to sentence is required than that which courts routinely apply to adult offenders… ’ ( emphasis added )
A checklist is provided for both listing and advocates for ‘what are invariably complex and difficult sentencing exercises.’ We do not replicate that here but it in many ways, this judgment is a blueprint of the ACCL course. There have been other recent appeal cases considering the correct approach to be taken when age is in issue (R v TS [2024] EWCA Crim 382; R v RH [2024] EWCA Crim 404).
The course is for everyone who practises in criminal law. Many criminal barristers will think this course is not applicable to them because they ‘do not go to the Youth Court’, where funding is an ongoing issue. It remains the case that children are regularly tried in the Youth Court for the most serious of offences and they are often represented by the most junior advocates. That said, children also appear regularly before the Crown Courts, often tried with adults, as in ZA. We therefore believe that this course is fundamental training for anyone who prosecutes or defends children.
The course was initially developed for established practitioners and then expanded to a day-long course for pupils. As with the Advocacy for Vulnerable People and Children course, the goodwill of members of the Bar is vital, both those willing to train and to be trained. With the help of an exceptional cadre of volunteers, some of whom were members of the original working group, the course has already been successfully delivered to five groups of pupils in London, Leeds and Birmingham. Feedback has been excellent with pupils telling us that without this training they doubt they would have been properly equipped to undertake this work properly.
Towards the latter end of the 2024 we will roll out training for the practising Bar. We are seeking to recruit extra facilitators to assist; if you would like to register your interest to become a trainer, or to access the online materials and undertake this training, please contact info@icca.ac.uk.
During the annual Authorisation to Practise process, the Bar Standards Board requires a declaration for Youth Court work. The regulator has also published specific competences relating to Youth Proceedings. Yet still, there remains no monitoring of advocacy standards of those representing children in the criminal justice system.
Recognising the critical need for a child-focused approach, set out in specific Sentencing Guidelines for Children, the Overarching Guideline and the Youth Defendant Bench Book, in 2020 the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) established a working group to develop a bespoke training course for the Bar, targeting the representation of children in the criminal justice system.
The ICCA working group set out to draw together myriad resources to better equip practitioners to fulfil their regulatory duties and to continue its push for advocacy for children to be a specialist area of practice. There is too much at stake for those who are poorly represented, which leads to unjust and life-altering outcomes that can be averted.
The approach to representing and sentencing children and young people who commit offences requires careful preparation and consideration. In developing this new course – Advocacy for Children in Conflict with the Law (ACCL) – we wanted to highlight the need for specialist psychiatric and psychological reports, an awareness of the growing body of research into and brain development and trauma, and issues relating to racial disparity in sentencing and outcomes. We tackle issues of maturity as well as the impact on children and young people of lived-experiences, mental health issues and educational setbacks, which contribute to their criminality. We explore what other jurisdictions have achieved internationally. The ACCL course has the endorsement of the senior judiciary.
The ACCL course is centred around a case study concerning four children who come before the Youth Court, three of whom progress to the Crown Court. They have committed the offence of ‘Robbery in a Dwelling’ for which there is a specific child sentencing guideline. We take learners through the issues of diversion, preparation for Youth Court hearings, bail, remand, remittal, PTPH in the Crown Court and sentence, and we deal too with the difficult cliff-edge sentencing exercises for those over 18, (‘Full maturity and all the attributes of adulthood are not magically conferred on young people on their 18th birthday’).
Many practitioners misunderstand the specific rules that apply in the Youth Court. To assist learners, we have commissioned a Legal Overview Paper providing relevant resources to arm practitioners with expert knowledge. We commissioned hard-hitting films from leading youth justice specialist practitioners. The ACCL course includes guidance on intermediaries, applying for reasonable adjustments and applications for a certificate for an assigned advocate. Delegates are taken on an e-learning journey from charge through to sentence, working through a realistic set of papers before being asked to prepare a Welfare Note – a requirement on the PTPH form that few are aware of – and a Sentencing Note. Preparation takes up to two days (depending on the learner’s prior knowledge). The in-person element, delivered by highly trained and experienced barrister tutors, is a half day.
The ACCL course was fully developed long before the decision in ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. This appeal concerned the correct approach to sentencing children and young people. Three of the appellants were 15 years old at the time of offending which included an offence of conspiracy to rob (by chance in essence the same offence that ACCL utilises in the case study). None of the advocates at first instance referred in sentencing notes or otherwise to the specific Sentencing Council Guideline ‘Robbery, Sentencing Children and Young People’.
The appellate court determined that:
‘ full and accurate sentencing notes from prosecution and the defence are critical in ensuring that the judge›s deliberations are directed correctly by reference to material considerations set out in the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, together with reference to important assistance with sentencing and the sentencing process located in the Criminal Practice Directions and a youth-specific Judicial College publication...›
The court found that there had been a failure to have regard to the Youth Robbery Guideline and the overarching Youth Guideline. As to the issue of maturity and what drives young people to offend, it was emphasised that it has long been recognised that young adolescent brains are not fully developed until the age of 25. The court went on to acknowledge that adverse childhood experiences, educational difficulties and mental health issues can negatively affect the development of thought processes, including the ability to appreciate the consequences of one’s own and others’ actions.
At para 82 the Court of Appeal noted that the appeal:
‘ has generated a number of lessons to be learned when sentencing children and young people, especially when they have been tried together with older co-accused, as the appellant was here. An entirely different approach to sentence is required than that which courts routinely apply to adult offenders… ’ ( emphasis added )
A checklist is provided for both listing and advocates for ‘what are invariably complex and difficult sentencing exercises.’ We do not replicate that here but it in many ways, this judgment is a blueprint of the ACCL course. There have been other recent appeal cases considering the correct approach to be taken when age is in issue (R v TS [2024] EWCA Crim 382; R v RH [2024] EWCA Crim 404).
The course is for everyone who practises in criminal law. Many criminal barristers will think this course is not applicable to them because they ‘do not go to the Youth Court’, where funding is an ongoing issue. It remains the case that children are regularly tried in the Youth Court for the most serious of offences and they are often represented by the most junior advocates. That said, children also appear regularly before the Crown Courts, often tried with adults, as in ZA. We therefore believe that this course is fundamental training for anyone who prosecutes or defends children.
The course was initially developed for established practitioners and then expanded to a day-long course for pupils. As with the Advocacy for Vulnerable People and Children course, the goodwill of members of the Bar is vital, both those willing to train and to be trained. With the help of an exceptional cadre of volunteers, some of whom were members of the original working group, the course has already been successfully delivered to five groups of pupils in London, Leeds and Birmingham. Feedback has been excellent with pupils telling us that without this training they doubt they would have been properly equipped to undertake this work properly.
Towards the latter end of the 2024 we will roll out training for the practising Bar. We are seeking to recruit extra facilitators to assist; if you would like to register your interest to become a trainer, or to access the online materials and undertake this training, please contact info@icca.ac.uk.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
