The Gazette 1973

A NEW SYSTEM OF JUVENILE COURTS IN SCOTLAND by Diane Morgan

wittingly, towards attracting confident, sympathetic articulate people. Subsequently, panel members have been dogged by a "middle-class" tag, and criticised as "socially distant from the majority of families with whom they are dealing." "The fact is," Robert Munro, teacher and press agent to the Aberdeen City Panel, says, "several of our mem- bers have lived for many years in conditions of hard- ship and poverty, and some of us have lived in families which know only too painfully the problems of delin- quency." What arc their young clients like? "Confused, re- jected kids." Bill Knight, a panel member, says, "invari- ably with poor home backgrounds." "Offences tend to outnumber the neglect cases," Robert Pearson says. "Our main group are boys in the 12-to-13 age group. Shop-lifting, shop-breaking, and truancy are fairly common. And next year, when the school-leaving age is raised, most of us are likely to be busier. Unsettled boys and girls are quite liable to get into trouble during their last years at school." But each panel has its own specific problems. Glasgow is the busiest, hard-pressed by problems of violence and gang warfare. The city has 40 per cent of the national case load, and 90 panel members deal with about 130 cases each week. In the far north Shelagh Dicks, chairman of the Shet- land Panel, rejects the suggestion that young people of the islands are at the opposite end of the crime scale doing nothing more vicious than tossing fish boxes into Lerwick harbour. "Shetland's economy is booming these days. It's be- come a sort of Shangri-la. But affluence brings its own problems—drugs, under-age drinking, more cars around to drive off and we have the additional problem of isolation." But even after a year, it is possible to assess the hearing's advantages over the juvenile courts. There is more time, more information, cases are dealt with more quickly. Even in Glasgow the waiting time of six to nine months for the juvenile court has now been cut to five weeks or so. There is no question of a criminal record for a child under 16, nor does the hearing have to wait for a minimum age before intervening. In Glasgow Fred Kennedy, the city's Reporter, finds parents generally willing to cooperate, ready to discuss their circumstances with the hearing. "I've had experi- ence of the juvenile court, and there is a higher inci- dence of both parents attending hearings." "An offence," the lecturer says, "is only the symptom of a deeper problem. We must probe below the surface and prescribe accordingly. As a result, we often arrive at different solutions for children who may have joined forces to commit the same offence." Everyone concerned with hearings had a major criticism to make. Although the system is now treat- ment-orientated, there has been little evidence of an expansion of rehabilitative facilities, essential if trans- formation is to take place in fact as well as. theory. Across Scotland came a plea for more resources— teenage psychiatric units; residential schools; small family group units; schools for maladjusted children. No one is rash enough to predict a long-term success for the hearings. But it is a bold and adventurous social reform. {The Guardian) 42

Robert Pearson is Reporter to one of the Scottish children's panels and he and his colleagues are the anchormen of a new system which has transferred the care of young people in difficulties from the Scottish courts to the community. The word "client" has taken on another shade of meaning as well. Pearson's clients are "juvenile delinquents" and their parents. The Kilbrandon Committee, examining the way Scots law treated not only young offenders but children in need of care and protection and those beyond parental control, had found the juvenile court unsatisfactory. Its two functions—court of law, and specialised agency to help children in need—were irreconcilable. Its report, published in 1964, expounded a fresh and informal approach, which was faithfully translated into law by the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act, Part III of the Act came into force on April 15, 1971, and since then, no child under 16 has been brought before a court unless he has committed a serious crime, such as murder. Instead, information (from any source) on children who appear to be at risk is investigated by the reporter serving the appropriate local children's panel. At his own discretion he will decide if the child is in need of compulsory measures of care, and arrange for him to attend a children's hearing with his parents, on a week- day, an evening, or a Saturday morning. If they wish, the family can bring along a representa- tive, friend, neighbour, or teacher to help express their views. The reporter and a social worker, armed with background reports, will also be present at the hearing, but the ultimate decision on the best course for the child will be made by three members of the local children's panel. They are members of the public who have volun- teered their services and undergone a mini-social work course. The problem is discussed in a friendly, unhurried way—hence the need for ten or so comfortable chairs, a large table and a cheerful room. "We're getting more adept at putting the right questions to clients these days," one panel member, a university lecturer, said. "The children leave the room if they want to discuss anything that might shock or upset them, but they come back, and we arrive at a decision with everyone present. In fact the solution usually emerges during the dis- cussion." There is no statutory restriction on the conditions a hearing may impose. Rein can be given to flexible, varied decisions, tailored to suit the child's needs— helping the elderly attending evening classes, taking up a sport, attending a psychiatric clinic. Decisions have no time limit, at least until the child reaches 18. The guide line is simply that measures of care are continued as long as necessary, in the best interests of the child. During this period, the hearing, and indeed the family, have a continuing right of review, to reappraise progress. The measures of care will be altered if the circumstances warrant it. Each social work authority has its own children's panel, and ideally, its members should represent all sections of the community, the sole yardstick for appointment being a genuine interest in children, and absence of bias. But the selection procedures, formulated by the children's panel advisory committees attached to each local authority, demand lengthy form filling, interviews and group discussions, and are loaded, however un-