Wendy O'Brien

‘Cemented in their cells’: a human rights analysis of Blessington, Elliott and the life imprisonment of children in New South Wales

In 2010, two Australians, convicted in childhood of rape and murder, lodged a joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release. We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in Victoria (Australia): Examining Stakeholders’ Views and the Need for Principled Reform:

In Australia, children as young as 10 are charged, convicted and sentenced for breaches of the law. Drawing on interviews with youth justice professionals in Victoria, this study finds that inconsistencies in practice undermine the extent to which the common law presumption of doli incapax offers an effective legal safeguard for very young children in conflict with the law. This article advocates that the Australian minimum age of criminal responsibility be increased to 14, that the principle of doli incapax be applied consistently to all persons under the age of 18 and that justice responses be supplanted by therapeutic supports for children and families.

Youth Justice: Challenges in Responding to Young People Convicted of Sexual Offences

The clinical and criminological literature on adolescents who have committed sexual offences indicates that the pathologisation of young people and a labelling or overly punitive response is likely to be more harmful than rehabilitative. Accordingly, therapeutic counselling and diversionary schemes are seen as preferable to custodial terms in most instances. For adolescents convicted of sex offences, clinicians identify the benefits of comprehensive therapeutic care which involves family and is sensitive to the young persons context and culture. The benefits of this approach are documented and, although data are limited, indications are that recidivism is reduced where adolescents are provided with specialised counselling to encourage positive and non-abusive behaviours. In Australia, each state and territory has provisions for youth justice clients serving custodial or community orders for sexually abusive behaviours. Yet each jurisdiction experiences challenges in ensuring the delivery of equitable and comprehensive therapeutic services, particularly to regionally and remotely located youth. This paper draws on data from a national study of the therapeutic services to children and adolescents with sexualised or sexual offending behaviours. With attention to the difficulties in providing services to regionally and remotely located adolescents, this paper highlights challenges around lengthy remand terms, the provision of pre-offence diversionary programs, and the provision of specialised supervision for young people serving community orders. For example, jurisdictions with the largest geographic service areas face enormous difficulties in providing specialised supervision for community-based orders. At present, there are several jurisdictions where regionally and remotely located adolescents may serve the duration of a youth justice order without receiving specialised counselling to assist them in modifying their behaviours. The paper identifies the risks where specialised counselling cannot be provided, but also identifies specific initiatives designed to fill these gaps in service provision to youth justice clients.