Inquiry hears about children held for years in "youth prison"

Tuesday 21 June 2016

A damning indictment of Jersey’s childcare system was delivered today, as it was revealed a boy of just 12 years was detained in what was called a “youth prison” for over three years.

The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry today heard that the boy, who cannot be named, spent over three years at a children's home while on probation.

The £23m inquiry, which is to hear its final public statements this week, was told that numerous children in care were detained for long periods - without their cases going to trial. 

It was claimed that the children were kept at the Les Chenes Home for excessive periods, effectively turning it into a “youth prison.”

The comments came as part of the evidence given by Jersey Care Leavers' Association spokesman Alan Collins. He suggested that children were being imprisoned “by the backdoor” - during a period from 1999-2002. 

“Another example which might be considered even more striking is the sentencing of a 12-year-old boy, in 2000, to a probation order with a condition of residence which apparently lasted 1,272 days. Once again at this juncture this child could not be sentenced to any form of custody because he was not old enough, he was under the age of 15 and so could not be sentenced to a Youth Offenders’ Institute.”

Other examples that Mr Collins gave included the following cases where children spent long periods on remand: in 1999 a 15-year-old-boy who spent 242 days on remand at Les Chenes; in 2001 a 14-year-old boy who spent 616 days on remand; in 2002 an 11-year-old boy spent 105 days on remand.

Mr Collins said: “These are substantial periods. There may be reasoned explanations behind each example but this is irrelevant because of the absence of a statutory basis. These remands were in effect custodial sentences by the backdoor. In any event, if this was not the case, it is submitted that such lengthy periods would be contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights.

“In the examples given, neither the 11 or 14-year-old boys could be sentenced to any form of custodial sentence because they were too young, unless convicted of a crime carrying a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment that carried a term of imprisonment of 14 years plus.”

Mr Collins added: “The issue here is the de facto use of remands in custody as substitute sentences. There is the apparent absence of a lawful provision sanctioning such a policy, or any other lawful basis, for the child to be remanded in custody.”

The two-year inquiry, costing up to £23million, is in its final stages this week, with a report expected later this year. 

He said: The Jersey Care Inquiry is invited to consider how it was possible that this state of affairs came about? Why should the Inquiry trouble itself with the methods and policies adopted by the States of Jersey in relation to those young people in trouble ‘with the law?’ 

“First of all because the terms of reference require it to do so, but secondly, in order to understand how many children came to be abused over so many years. The attitude of the state to children ‘in trouble’ provides a window enabling us to look in, in an attempt to understand the culture that allowed so much to go, so tragically wrong for so many.”