Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the witnesses for coming in. When listening to the stats from the IPRT, I was struck by how much they reminded me of research published in 2007 by the Association for Criminal Justice Research and Development in regard to young people in the Children Court. The study looked at 400 children in the Children Court at that stage. Although the language in it is slightly dated, it is exactly the same story. I am sure many of the witnesses are familiar with it. I will refer to some of the bullet points from the study. Young people who were before the Children Court were predominantly male, living in specific and recurring disadvantaged localities in each of the areas examined and were not in full-time mainstream education. Some 86% of those for whom education data were available on the District Court files had no engagement with mainstream education. By far the most common offences were road traffic offences, theft offences and public order offences. In the case of the public order offences, the circumstances were overwhelmingly linked to alcohol consumption. As in the case of current experience in courts, young people waited on average six months for their first court appearance. The approximately 30% who had a court appearance within a month and had their case concluded within six months had made, on average, eight court appearances in respect of each charge. This is a system that brought young children to the Children Court and kept them there for a period as they were brought before the court again and again.

It was notable on the files that one of the most common bail conditions applied by the Children Court at the time was not to attend at court 55, the Children Court in Smithfield, because it was apparent that young people were turning up too often, essentially, and were not in education. It was becoming too routine for them to be there. It is disturbing to hear that little has changed in that regard. On the other hand, it is very welcome to hear about the change to the Garda youth diversion programme, GYDP, and its opening up to children as young as eight, which is so important.

Having noted all of that, I want to ask about the impact of the pandemic on the operation of the GYDP. I apologise for arriving slightly late to the meeting and if the witnesses have already addressed this, there is no need to respond. One of my particular concerns about the GYDP is that when the office decides not to take forward a prosecution and insists on a welfare-based referral with Tusla, there is no oversight of how or even whether that is delivered. I would like to hear our guests' perspective on that. It seems to me that there is not much point in the Garda office deciding not to refer a child for prosecution because what that child needs is a welfare-based intervention while not having any certainty that such an intervention, whether it is anger-management, sexual therapy or some other referral that the child needs, actually happens and is effective or successful.

If we have time, I would also like to hear their views on the impact of the victim's directive on restorative justice programmes and about the application of an extension of the Joint Agency Response to Crime, JARC, to 18 to 24 year olds. Ms Joyce might be able to address the latter issue. I ask her to outline the practicalities of that. We may have identified young people in that age category who are committing a lot of offences but that is also the time of greatest vulnerability for them. It is essential that JARC be extended so that they get more supports throughout that period.

What I am really concerned about, if I am to get any responses today, is the follow-up on welfare-based referrals.