Response to the NIO’s Consultation on draft guidelines for community-based                                                                              restorative justice scheme

                                                                          Children’s Law Centre
                     

                                                                            March 2006

Contents

Introduction                                                                                           3

Consultation                                                                                         3

General Comments                                                                            5
International Standards                                                                      5
Right to a Fair Trial                                                                              7
Delays                                                                                                    8
Low Level Crime                                                                                  8
Ensuring Participation and Access to Information                        9
Right to Separate Legal Representation                                        11
Child Protection Concerns                                                                11
DNA and Fingerprinting                                                                     12
Relationship with ABC’s and ASBO’s                                             12
Conclusion                                                                                           13


Introduction
The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation established in September 1997 which works towards a society where all children can participate, are valued, have their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve their full potential.
We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young people and we run an advice/ information/ representation service. We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young people called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth@clc.
Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular:
• Children shall not be discriminated against and shall have equal access to protection.
• All decisions taken which affect children’s lives should be taken in the child’s best interests.
• Children have the right to have their voices heard in all matters concerning them.
From its perspective as an organisation, which works with and on behalf of children, both directly and indirectly, the Children's Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission to the NIO and to offer assistance and comment on the draft guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes.
Consultation
Following on from our letter on the 10th February 2006, we wish to reiterate our serious concern that the draft guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes contain no commitment to carrying out the required screening process or an Equality Impact Assessment of the potential adverse impacts that the implementation of the guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes will have on any of the nine groups detailed in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act as per the NIO’s statutory duty. The draft guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes clearly fall into the Equality Commission’s definition of a ‘policy’ within its “Guidance for Implementing Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”. The Equality Commission’s Guidance states that,

“...the term policies covers all the ways in which an authority carries out or proposes to carry out its functions relating to Northern Ireland.” (Para 2.13, “Guidance for Implementing Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998” Equality Commission – Revised February 2005)

The NIO’s approved Equality Scheme states that,

“The Department will assess over a five year period the extent to which each of its current and future policies has an impact on the promotion of equality of opportunity and the promotion of good relations within the terms of section 75 of the Act. This will be done first, through an inclusive and interactive process of screening policies, in consultation with representatives of affected groups, and second, through equality impact assessments” (para 2.1)

The Children’s Law Centre, as a representative group, should have been consulted at the screening process stage in relation to the draft guidelines. We are unaware of any screening process, despite having requested this information and the relevant data in our letter of 10th February 2006. The NIO should carry out screening of the guidelines as per its statutory duty immediately. If screening has taken place, we wish to know why consultation on the screening process has not taken place as stated in the NIO’s approved Equality Scheme. Again, we request all documentation which relates to the screening of the guidelines and a thorough and comprehensive equality impact assessment being carried out in accordance with the NIO’s section 75 statutory duties.

It is with disappointment that we request such information, particularly in light of the fact that the Children’s Law Centre and nine other organisations lodged a complaint under Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act, stating that the NIO, upon introducing the ASBO legislation, did not discharge its section 75 obligations correctly. The Equality Commission, in its decision approved on 27th April 2005, found that the NIO did not apply its screening criteria correctly, did not carry out an Equality Impact Assessment despite recognising the potential for differential impact on the grounds of age and gender and did not record any reasons for its decision not to carry out an Equality Impact Assessment, failing to properly ‘consider’ as required by para 3.2 of its approved Equality Scheme. Similarly, we have no doubt that failure to carry out a thorough screening exercise, poor application of screening criteria and/or a failure to carry out an equality impact assessment would result in the Equality Commission reaching a similar conclusion in this instance. It is vital that the NIO carries out a full and comprehensive screening process and equality impact assessment on draft guidelines as a matter of urgency. Failing to do so will clearly be in breach of the NIO’s statutory duties and its equality scheme.

We would be grateful if you would provide us with details of how you have or intend to consult directly with children and young people as one of the groups likely to be impacted upon most by the implementation of the new guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes. Such consultation is essential not only in ensuring compliance with section 75, but also in ensuring the Government’s compliance with Article 12 of the UNCRC, one of the principles of the Convention - Respect for the views of the Child. In examining the government’s compliance with Article 12, the UNCRC Committee recommended that the government,

“...take further steps to promote, facilitate and monitor systematic, meaningful and effective participation of all groups of children in society.” (Para 30 CRC/C/15/Add.188).

We would be grateful if you would forward copies of your child accessible format of this document.

We would also be grateful if you would also furnish us with details of the system which you intend to use to analyse responses to this consultation process including the degree of weight which will be attributed to both individual and organisational responses. This is a vital element to drawing conclusions from responses and progressing with identified areas for immediate action. For this reason, we would appreciate information both on the system itself and on its operation for the purposes of analysis.

General Comments

The Children’s Law Centre is supportive of children being diverted away from what can very often be harmful contact with the formal justice system which fails some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our society. We are supportive of community-based restorative justice schemes in that we see them as a positive response to youth crime which avoids the formal retribution of the criminal justice system. In respect of the guidelines, the Children’s Law Centre is concerned with ensuring that the rights of the children and young people likely to be impacted on are upheld. We offer our comments on the basis of ensuring the promotion of the rights of the child and compliance with domestic and international child and human rights standards in the operation of community-based restorative justice schemes. We hope that the NIO takes our comments into account in finalising the guidelines to ensure that the schemes are child centred, have the best interests of the child at their core and uphold children’s rights throughout their operation.

International Standards

It is our view that any discussion about community based restorative justice schemes which will impact on children and young people should be set within the framework of the UNCRC, the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act, the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines and also should take into consideration all relevant recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The UK Government has an obligation to ensure that all children and young people have their rights promoted and upheld. In ratifying the UNCRC the Government has committed to compliance with a set of non-negotiable and legally binding minimum standards and obligations in respect of all aspects of children’s lives and also to the implementation of the terms of the Convention by ensuring that United Kingdom law, policy and practice relating to children is in conformity with UNCRC standards. The UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report on the UNCRC described the obligations the UNCRC places on government as follows;

“It should function as a set of child- centred considerations to be used by all departments of government when evaluating legislation and policy making.”

We are extremely disappointed to note a complete lack of reference to the UNCRC in the draft guidelines and strongly advocate that the guidelines be revisited to include the UNCRC, particularly in light of the fact that community based restorative justice schemes will most likely be used disproportionately with children and young people. We wish to see the UNCRC included as the underpinning standards in the production of the final draft of the guidelines to ensure that Government’s obligations to uphold children’s rights under the UNCRC are met. The UNCRC Committee’s General Comment No. 5 states that in order to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are being fully implemented in law, policy and practice there is a need for a process of continuous child impact assessment and child impact evaluation (CRC/GC/2003/5 para.45). In order to ensure that the NIO is in compliance with its obligations under the UNCRC, we strongly advocate that child impact assessments of the guidelines are carried out as a matter of urgency to ensure that they promote and uphold the rights of children and young people as per the UNCRC.
The principles of the UNCRC are all relevant to this discussion of the operation of guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland. The Government needs to ensure the rights of all children not to be discriminated against (Article 2), their best interests are upheld (Article 3), they can survive and develop to their maximum potential (Article 6) and they are able to meaningfully participate in all aspects of their lives (Article 12). More specifically, Article 40 of the UNCRC deals with the administration of juvenile justice. It states that a child in conflict with the law has the right to treatment which promotes the child’s sense of dignity and worth, takes the child’s age into account and aims at reintegration into society. The child is entitled to basic guarantees and appropriate legal or other assistance. Article 40 states that:-
“1. State parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.

2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, State Parties, shall, in particular, ensure that:

a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;
b) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:
i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance, and unless it is considered not to be in the best interests of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess to guilt; to examine of have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;
v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law;
vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.

3. State parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of or recognized as having infringed the penal law and, in particular,

a) the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law
b) whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected.

4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counselling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well being and proportionate both to their circumstances and their offence.”

We are pleased to note the NIO’s reference at para 6 in the guidelines to the UN Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Practices in Criminal Matters. We are concerned however that the NIO only makes reference to the sections which it sees as relevant in the Basic Principles. We are at a loss as to why certain sections of the UN Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Practices in Criminal Matters have been considered relevant and others have been omitted or paraphrased. We recommend that the NIO includes the Basic Principles in full in the guidelines and affords due weight to all sections as well as undertaking to comply with all international child rights standards in the operation of community-based restorative justice schemes.

Right to a Fair Trial

The UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations in 2002 recommended that the Government should establish a youth justice system which fully integrates into its legislation, policies and practices the provisions and principles of the Convention and all other relevant international standards. (CRC/C/15/Add.188). The Committee welcomed the youth justice initiatives which introduced restorative justice and other constructive community based disposals for juvenile offenders. The Committee however expressed concern about the privacy of children involved in the criminal justice system which was not always protected (para 59, CRC/C/15/Add.188). It is vital that children who have their cases dealt with through community-based restorative justice schemes have their right to a fair trial upheld. There is a need to ensure that children and young people engaging in the schemes receive the same protection as those children and young people in the formal criminal justice system. Equivalent, formal checks and balances need to be introduced and stringently adhered to in order to ensure the child’s right to a fair trial, child protection standards which are equivalent to those in operation in the formal criminal justice system and compatible with the UNCRC and the child’s right to privacy and confidentiality are upheld.

It is fundamental that children and young people only become involved in community-based restorative justice schemes after giving their informed consent to become involved. We strongly advocate that every measure is taken to ensure the informed consent of the child as is the case with the formal criminal justice system. The Beijing Rules state that,
“11.3 Any diversion involving referral to appropriate community or other services shall require the consent of the juvenile, or her or his parents or guardian, provided that such decision to refer a case shall be subject to review by a competent authority, upon application.”
The Commentary on Rule 11.3 in the Beijing Rules states that,
“Rule 11.3 stresses the important requirement of securing the consent of the young offender (or the parent or guardian) to the recommended diversionary measure(s). (Diversion to community service without such consent would contradict the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention.) However, this consent should not be left unchallengeable, since it might sometimes be given out of sheer desperation on the part of the juvenile. The rule underlines that care should be taken to minimize the potential for coercion and intimidation at all levels in the diversion process. Juveniles should not feel pressured (for example in order to avoid court appearance) or be pressured into consenting to diversion programmes. Thus, it is advocated that provision should be made for an objective appraisal of the appropriateness of dispositions involving young offenders by a "competent authority upon application".”

To ensure compliance the child must give her/his informed consent to taking part in community-based restorative justice schemes. We note that the guidelines state that there must be an admission of guilt, confirmed by a police investigation; however we have concerns about a child’s involvement in the schemes for the reasons expressed in the above commentary on rule 11.3 of the Beijing Rules. We concur with the commentary and wish to see the issue of ‘informed consent’ being objectively appraised by a “competent authority upon application.” There should also be an independent appeals mechanism set up to deal with complaints by young people who the PPS decide that it is inappropriate for participation in a scheme.

Delays

While the guidelines state that the PSNI and PPS will “seek to fast-track the consideration of cases forwarded by schemes”. Under Article 40(2)(b)(iii) of the UNCRC, children and young people have a right to be dealt with in the criminal justice system without delay. We see the potential for delay in the operation of the schemes and the administration of due process as detailed in the guidelines as a result of the high level of bureaucracy being introduced into the operation of community-based restorative justice schemes. All delays in the operation of schemes and the administration of due process should be kept to an absolute minimum to ensure that the child or young person’s rights are upheld as per Article 40 of the UNCRC. We advocate that the NIO gives a much clearer indication of the timescales envisaged in dealing with scheme referrals and the administration of due process and stress that these are reasonable and proportionate and in line with the UNCRC.

Low Level Crime

We wish to query what is meant in the guidelines by, “low-level crime”. In order to ensure equity of treatment for all children and young people in contact with the criminal justice system, it is essential that the NIO develop clear guidance about when it will be appropriate to use community-based restorative schemes and the types of crime which is defined as “low level” as well as specifically outlining the roles and responsibilities of each agency involved. This guidance needs to be very clear and transmitted to all staff involved in community-based restorative justice schemes, the PSNI, the PBNI, the YJA and the PPS. Any guidance produced relating to the operation of community-based restorative justice schemes should be screened in, an equality impact assessment carried out and extensively consulted on, including direct consultation with children and young people as per section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Article 12 of the UNCRC. Training on the guidance should be promptly provided for all staff as part of a comprehensive training programme which includes training on child rights, human rights, child protection and communication and consultation with children. This training should form part of a comprehensive induction programme for all staff involved in referring to and working with or in the schemes.

We also wish to query the impact that engaging in a scheme will have for a young person’s criminal record as no information has been provided. We would welcome further information on what is required to make an informed comment. We assume that failure to engage in a scheme or the breakdown of arrangements while engaging in a scheme will not put the child or young person at a disadvantage. Participation in a scheme should be on a completely voluntary basis with no additional punishment or inferences being drawn from the scheme failing to work for a young person.

Ensuring Participation and Access to Information

The UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations in 2002 recommended that the Government should ensure that the, “...best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration in all legislation and policy affecting children and young people, notably in the justice system.” (Para 26, CRC/C/15/Add.188) The Committee also recommended that the Government should take steps to ensure that legislation governing procedure in courts and administrative proceedings ensured that children capable of forming their own views had the right to express those views and that they would be given due weight (para 30, CRC/C/15/Add.188). Community-based restorative justice schemes must have the best interests of the child at their heart and must allow children and young people involved in the schemes to have their views heard and taken into account as per the Committee’s recommendations and Article 12 of the UNCRC.

We note that the guidelines state at para 10 that once a scheme becomes aware of an offence or an offender it will communicate promptly to a police officer, the PBNI or the YJA the details etc. The scheme should,

“...indicate in broad terms how it would plan to deal with the offence and offender if these were referred to it.”

This decision of how the scheme would deal with the offender/offence will, if the guidelines are followed, be in contravention of Articles 12 and 40 of the UNCRC and Article 6 - the right to a fair hearing of the ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. No decisions should be taken without consultation with the child or young person having her/his say in relation to the alleged offence and to indicate how a scheme intends to proceed without such consultation with and informed consent from the child undermines the child’s right to a fair trial. We wish to see this removed and replaced with a statement that unequivocally states that no decisions will be made about how to deal with the offence/offender until informed consent has been obtained, the facts are objectively assessed and extensive consultation with the child and her/his parents and/or guardians and legal representative has taken place.

It is essential that children and young people involved in community-based restorative justice schemes must be able to fully participate and understand proceedings at all times in line with articles 2 and 40 of the UNCRC and Article 6 - the right to a fair hearing and 14 – non-discrimination of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is clearly established in the case of T & V v UK (1999) that in order for children and young people to have a fair hearing in criminal cases they must be able to participate in and understand the proceedings in which they are involved. In this case, the lawyers for the child defendants successfully argued that the mode of trail breached their Article 6 rights. It is suggested from recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights that the twin concepts of understanding and participation as essential factors in the guarantee of a fair hearing for children should be read across into all judicial and administrative proceedings relating to children and young people. This will also apply to the provision of accessible information to children and young people engaging in the schemes. The Guidelines make no reference to the provision of information to children and young people and to ensuring that such information is child accessible and takes the specific circumstances of the child into account. It is imperative that the NIO is explicit in its arrangements for those who have difficulty understanding written English language, either due to literacy problems, learning difficulties and/or language barriers, to ensure compliance with the relevant international standards. Children and young people engaging in the community-based restorative justice schemes need to be fully informed and it is vital that all information given to the child is understood at all stages in the process to ensure compliance with Articles 12 and 13 of the UNCRC and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Following on from this, we are concerned about the absence of information around procedures which will be put in place for the participation and understanding of children in community-based restorative justice schemes with a mental health or learning disability. In the European Court of Human Rights case S.C v UK (2002) an 11 year old boy with a significant learning disability was tried for attempted robbery in the Crown Court. The Court put in place measures such as no wigs and gowns, not requiring him to sit in the dock, frequent breaks etc. The European Court of Human Rights found a breach of Article 6 (1) ECHR and found that the right of the accused to effective participation in his or her criminal trial generally included not only the right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings. In the case of a child it was essential that he or she be dealt with in a manner which took full account of his or her age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capabilities and that steps were taken to promote his or her ability to understand and participate in the proceedings, including conducting the hearing in such a way as to reduce as far as possible his or her feelings of intimidation or inhibition. The Court was of the view that the applicant had not been able to participate in this trial to the extent required by Article 6 (1) ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights has made it very clear that those operating within the criminal justice system must ensure that children can participate in and understand proceedings in which they are involved. This applies to administrative as well as judicial proceedings in which they are involved. It applies in the decision making processes relating to community-based restorative justice schemes and the operation of the schemes. Steps must be taken to ensure that all children and young people, including those with mental health and learning disabilities, involved in community-based restorative justice schemes have their right to a fair hearing upheld. The NIO needs to ensure that detailed procedures are put in place to enable all young people, including those with a mental health and/or learning disabilities, to fully participate in community-based restorative justice schemes and to receive information in a way that they fully understand.

Right to Separate Legal Representation

There needs to be a much greater emphasis in the guidelines on the child’s right to separate legal representation in the guidelines. Children have the right to have their voices heard in relation to legal proceedings and this is also the case with community-based restorative justice schemes. The UNCRC Committee expressed its concerns about the incorporation of Article 12 with regard to this and stated,

“…the Committee is concerned that the obligations of article 12 have not been consistently incorporated in legislation... the Committee is concerned that the right of the child to independent representation in legal proceedings… is not systematically exercised.”

There is a need for the development of child sensitive procedures and independent advocacy services for children and young people engaging in community-based restorative justice schemes in compliance with Article 6 of the ECHR - the child’s right to a fair trial. We wish to see an explicit reference to the child’s right to independent, separate legal representation included in the guidelines immediately.

Child Protection Concerns

We have a number of concerns in relation to child protection issues in community-based restorative justice schemes. In relation to recruitment of staff to the schemes, it is necessary to check all potential members of staff not only with POCVA, but also with the Department of Education’s List 99. Any staff found to be unsuitable to work with children and young people as a result of these checks should not be employed to work on a scheme. All children and young people should be guaranteed the same level of anonymity as should be afforded to children and young people going through the formal criminal justice system and all staff involved in a scheme or working on a scheme should have regular, comprehensive child protection training. It is also vital that all staff involved in a scheme have regular and comprehensive training in communicating with children and young people. While the sharing of information among parties is necessary in some instances, this should be kept to an absolute minimum, with all staff respecting the rights of the child both to privacy and confidentiality.

There are potentially huge implications on child protection if confidentiality is not ensured by schemes and any involved partner bodies from the outset. A failure to ensure confidentiality to a child involved in a scheme identifies children to non-state forces with an interest in ‘policing’ which will have potentially grave implications for the child’s safety. This will impact on a number of the most basic rights which Government undertook to ensure for children and young people through the ratification of the UNCRC, namely Articles 3 – the best interests principle, 6 – right to life, survival and development, 16 – right to protection of privacy and 37 – the right not to be subjected to torture, cruel treatment or punishment. There is also the potential for breaching Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR – the right to life and the right to live free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. It is vital that children and young people engaging with community-based restorative justice schemes have their right to their case being treated confidentially in compliance with the European Court of Human Right’s decision in T & V v UK (2000) where anonymity was viewed as vital to protecting the child’s rights given their age and vulnerability. Also, the Children (NI) Order 1995 places strict reporting restrictions on children’s cases and we would expect similar standards to apply in all cases involving children and young people in the schemes. We recommend that the guidelines be amended to reflect the emphasis on safeguarding the child through ensuring anonymity and respect for the rights of the child in relation to child protection, confidentiality and privacy.

DNA and Fingerprinting

We also have grave concerns in relation to the proposed use of fingerprinting and DNA evidence gathering techniques on children engaging with the schemes. Fingerprinting and taking DNA from a child is entirely disproportionate, unjustifiable and in clear breach of children’s rights standards. We strongly recommend that these practices be halted immediately within the formal criminal justice system and any intention to fingerprint or take DNA from children engaging with community-based restorative justice schemes be abandoned in line with children’s rights standards.

Relationship with ABC’s and ASBO’s

There is no reference to the inter-relationship that community-based restorative justice schemes will have with anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO’s) and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC’s). We wish to reiterate our belief that ASBO’s and ABC’s are a clear breach of children’s rights, human rights and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As community-based restorative justice schemes apply only to behaviour which is criminal, albeit low level, the potential exists for young people being subject to an ASBO or an ABC as a result of behaviour which is not criminal in nature but is subjectively and arbitrarily viewed as “anti-social”, thus refusing them access to such schemes. Given that if an ASBO is breached, and in England and Wales, more than one in three are, a young person could potentially serve up to five years in prison for behaviour that wasn’t criminal to begin with. We wish to query whether breach of an ASBO will be viewed as ‘low level crime’ and young people in breach of an ASBO can access the schemes at this stage. There is also very clearly a need for formal relationships to be established between the NIO, the PSNI, Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and the Councils to ensure that children are not discriminated against through inconsistent application of the criteria for engagement in community-based restorative schemes as a result of the NIHE and Councils having the power to apply for ASBO’s, but no power in relation to community-based restorative justice schemes. There is huge potential for a child or young person being subject to an ABC or ASBO for behaviour which is low level crime which it may more suitable to have dealt with under the community-based restorative justice schemes. Further there is a risk of discrimination, if for example, this behaviour is in relation to housing in an area where access to the schemes are limited, there is every likelihood that access to the schemes will be denied and the child discriminated against as a result of geography and the particular powers of the NIHE. There need to be very detailed guidance developed in relation to the roles of each of the authorities to ensure that such a scenario does not occur and all children have equal access to the schemes to make an informed choice about how to have their case dealt with. Such guidance needs to take into account all the above considerations in relation to the child’s right to confidentiality and privacy in dealing with information about her/his case. Decisions dealing with the behaviour of children and young people must be child-centred, non-discriminatory and have the child’s best interests at its core as per Articles 2 and 3 of the UNCRC. There should be no denial of access to a scheme because of the area in which a child lives. All children and young people should have equal access to the schemes and stringent guidelines should be in operation to ensure that all children are treated consistently fairly, appropriately and with the child’s best interests being paramount.

Conclusion
The Children’s Law Centre welcomes the NIO’s consultation on the draft guidelines for community based restorative justice schemes. We hope that the issues we have raised in this response are helpful and will contribute to the further development of the guidelines and community-based restorative justice schemes in general. We wish to see the issues we have outlined addressed and would be happy to meet with an appropriate representative from the NIO to discuss anything raised in this response.