Ms Niamh McCormack:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for inviting us to provide observations on the general scheme of the children (amendment) Bill. While the IPRT welcomes this Bill’s purpose and intent, there is currently a missed opportunity to align with our international human rights obligations and address repeated calls from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14. Children do not possess the same cognitive abilities or developmental capacity as adults. Research shows they are influenced by impulsivity, suggestibility and a lack of both future orientation and risk aversion. The State is obliged to protect children, including those who have perpetrated harm. Criminalising a child as young as ten is inappropriate and it is important that the legal framework adopts a child rights and evidence-based approach to children who offend. We therefore recommend amending head 3 to explicitly raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years for all offences.

We welcome the proposal to disallow custodial remand of a child where there is no place available in Oberstown, a situation which is increasingly common. The principle of detention as a last resort - under the 2001 Act - must be upheld. However, the disproportionately high rates of remand custody for children are concerning. The largely successful bail supervision scheme, which is an intensive intervention that has been proven to reduce reoffending, currently only operates in Dublin, Limerick and Cork but is regularly used by judges in those areas and should be extended nationwide. Head 9 should be amended to provide that a child must not be remanded to detention where an alternative order is available to the court, including a bail supervision order.

The proposed expansion of deferred sentence supervision orders under head 19 is welcome to address the current deficit around suspended sentences for children, which would be inappropriate if applied in the same way as adults. Where a child complies with the order in the year before a resumed hearing takes place they will be diverted from detention entirely as the court can suspend all or part of the sentence and propose a community sanction instead. For serious offences where detention is the only suitable option, a detention and supervision order provides for a period of probation supervision to assist young people to reintegrate into society upon release from detention. The IPRT welcomes the flexibility of dealing with individuals on a case-by-case basis but cautions against any unintended consequences resulting in a young person spending a disproportionate length of their sentence in detention. The IPRT recommends amending head 21 to explicitly require that rehabilitation and reintegration are the primary considerations when calculating the length of a detention period.

Finally, the IPRT believes the children’s rights principles underpinning these proposals should continue to apply for young adults. Ageing out of the youth justice system can have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation due to the cliff edge effect that occurs when someone turns 18 and loses access to age-appropriate interventions and supports overnight. The IPRT recommends extending youth justice sanctions and standards up to the age of 24, as happens in other jurisdictions.

My colleague, Ms Brady, and I are happy to answer the committee's questions.