In Conversation with Intermediaries for Justice
AYJ member Intermediaries for Justice (IfJ) are a charity working across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with international members in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. IfJ campaigns for an accessible justice system in which vulnerable people can understand what is asked of them, and share information about their experiences.
We spoke with Raymond Lyons - IfJ member, nurse, registered and Court Appointed intermediary - about why children have so many obstacles to communication and equity throughout their contact with the youth justice system. Here we discuss the approach of Intermediaries for Justice, and some of Raymond’s personal opinions arising from his experiences.
Tell us about IFJ, and the role of an Intermediary.
The IfJ motto is to give a ‘Voice for the Voiceless’; we are communication specialists. Our organisation provides supportive spaces for intermediaries to share their experiences and views, and we input into policy consultations across the criminal justice system. We also offer Continuing Professional Development training.
In youth courts, intermediaries can help children going through police interviews and court proceedings to understand what is being asked of them, and to express themselves. Victims and witnesses in the youth court are entitled to intermediary assistance, depending on a range of traits identified as vulnerabilities, such as age, mental health issues, and learning difficulties.
Registered Intermediaries work with vulnerable witnesses. Whilst both prosecution and defence vulnerable witnesses are eligible for assistance from a registered intermediary, it is rare that vulnerable defence witnesses receive this assistance.
Court Appointed intermediaries work with vulnerable defendants, and in theory vulnerable suspects (although this work is rarely funded).
What communication obstacles do children in contact with the youth justice system face?
For a child to participate meaningfully in the youth justice system, they must understand what questions they are being asked, and what is expected of them during court proceedings.
I believe that there are three main barriers for children to have meaningful participation in the youth justice system:
Legislation:
There is very little provision for children to have intermediary support. The 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act outlined the necessary provision for children to have this support in courts. From this Act, the right to a registered intermediary was enacted for vulnerable prosecution and defence witnesses (usually alleged victims). But defendants have no statutory right to assistance from an intermediary – the court rarely grants this.
2. A lack of child-friendly communication:
Within the youth and criminal justice system, children are treated as ‘mini-adults’. Court documents are not written to be child-friendly. Not understanding important documents or statements can be confusing and distressing for children who are already in an anxiety-inducing environment.
Many professionals don’t realise that language is still developing throughout the adolescent years. Some children also lack the social confidence and skills to admit when they do not understand - or aren’t aware when they’ve misunderstood.
Bryan et al (2007) found that 60-90% of children who offended had communication difficulties. Unless the court system adapts to the child’s communication difficulties, that child will not be able to understand court processes, what is required to comply with contracts or the intervention work presented to them.
3. Emotional dysfunction and trauma:
Even if a child understands much of what is being communicated to them in court, stress can hinder the communication brain centres for understanding language, or block responses that would normally come naturally.
In my experience, almost without exception, children in contact with the youth justice system had experienced some kind of trauma, such as family complications and abuse. Many of them are from marginalised or oppressed communities; they frequently have high levels of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). We are culturally punishment-focused – with a harsh distinction between good and bad. But the reality is a lot more complicated!
Children that we label ‘perpetrators’ have often been societally victimised themselves. A young person may receive the intermediary assistance they require as a vulnerable witness/victim, but not as a vulnerable suspect/defendant; yet their communication or mental health needs have not changed.
I observed a Youth Offending Team that I worked with running ‘Empathy Sessions’ for the children that they worked with. I found this upsetting and absurd; if the children lacked empathy, it was for complex reasons related to their painful life experiences and/or differences in their neurological processing. These children live in a society that shows them little empathy.
How would you reimagine youth courts?
For me, the whole justice system needs a complete philosophical restructure. Ideally, it would support children and young people to develop long-term trusting relationships with adults as a basis for all proceedings. This would require a compassionate, care-focused system. The children and young people would be supported to develop their education, skills and emotions.
Boundaries ensure that children do not harm themselves or others. But healthy individuals have skills of interdependence – which can only be cultivated with safety and care. It isn’t the failure of children when this isn’t realised; it is a failure of society as a whole.