juveniles in detention special needs groups - the NSW Juvenile ...

Information and Evaluation Series No 3 

JUVENILES IN DETENTION 

SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS: 

Young Women, Aboriginal 

and Indo-Chinese detainees 

By 

Michael Cain 

Senior Policy Officer 

Department of Juvenile Justice 

1994


© 1994 Copyright New South Wales Department of Juvenile Justice 

Re-published 2005 by the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice 

Level 24, 477 Pitt Street 

HAYMARKET NSW 2000 

(PO Box K399 

HAYMARKET NSW 1240) 

ISBN for this volume: 0 7310 3641 7 

© Copyright NSW Department of Juvenile Justice 

This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions 

prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any means 

(electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) be 

reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. 

Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers. 

2

JUVENILES IN DETENTION SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS: 

Young Women, Aboriginal and Indo-Chinese detainees 

Acknowledgements 

The author wishes to thank the following people who contributed to this report: 

Kerry Bannister, Marie Cozens, John Egan, Rosanna Ganino, Ian Graham, Tim 

Keogh, Susan Hill, Rudolf Salzmann, Dick Smith, Jill Spooner, Joli Tie, Elena 

Torday, Chris Waters and Ernie Zibert. 

The views expressed in this paper are purely the views of the author. They do not 

necessarily represent any official views of the Department of Juvenile Justice, nor 

are they necessarily shared by members of the staff of the Department of Juvenile 

Justice. 

iii


Cautionary Note on the Use of Statistics 

As the statistics in this report provide a quantitative description of the variables and 

factors under analysis, caution should be exercised in drawing firm conclusions from 

findings which relate to the sentencing process. While statistical analyses of this 

kind are important, the complexity of the sentencing process must be recognised. 

Sentencing decisions are the result of a careful consideration of relevant factors 

pertaining both to the offence and the offender. 

The results of this study are based on a statistical examination of a number of 

quantifiable variables. However, particular findings may be explained by factors 

outside the scope of this study. Also, it may be inappropriate to draw general 

conclusions from the data where the number of cases being examined is small. 

iv



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements iii 

Cautionary Note on the Use of Statistics iv 

List of figures and tables .............................................................................................iii 

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................2 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

1.2 AIM 

1.3 METHOD 

2. RESULTS 

2.1 JUVENILE DETAINEES IDENTIFIED FOR POSSIBLE DIVERSION 

2.2 JUVENILES ON REMNAD AND APPEAL 

Gender 

Age 

Ethnicity/Cultural Background 

Offence 

Prior Record 

Most serious previous proven offence 

First proven offence 

Prior court orders 

Numbers of times in custody 

2.3 JUVENILES ON CONTROL ORDERS 

Gender 

Age 

Ethnicity/Cultural Background 

Offence 

Prior Record 




Numbers of times in custody 

2.4 TARGET GROUPS 

2.4.1 Target Group #1 

Gender 

Age 

Ethnicity/cultural background 

Offence 

Prior record 


2.4.2 Target group #2 

Gender 

Age 


Offence 

Prior record 



v

Gender 

Age 


Offence 

Prior record 



2.4.4 The target Groups - further dimensions 

Place of residence 

Court of determination 

Warrants 

2.4.5 Overview 

3. YOUNG WOMEN IN CUSTODY 

3.1 GIRLS ON REMAND 

Age 


Offence 

Prior record 


3.2 GIRLS ON CONTROL ORDERS 

Age 


Offence 

Prior record 


3.3 YOUNG WOMEN, SURVIVAL STRATEGIES AND THE LAW 

3.3.1 Prostitution related principal offences 

3.3.2 Previous offences of soliciting 

3.3.3 Survival strategy offences 

3.3.4 Summary offences 

3.3.5 previous serious offence 

3.3.6 First appearance in court welfare or justice related? 

4. INDIGENOUS YOUTH IN CUSTODY 

4.1 ABORIGINAL JUVENILES ON REMAND 

Gender 

Age 

Offence 

Prior Record 


4.2 ABORIGINAL JUVENILES ON CONTROL ORDERS 

Gender 

Age 

Offence 

Prior Record 


5. INDO-CHINESE YOUTH IN CUSTORY 

5.1 INDO-CHINESE JUVELIES ON REMAND 

Gender 

vi

Age 

Offence 

Prior Record 




5.2 INDO-CHINESE JUVELIES ON CONTROL ORDERS 

Gender 

Age 

Offence 

Prior Record 


6. DISCUSSION 

References 

vii



LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

Figures 

Figure 1 Children’s Court committals and community service orders 

(1986/87 to 1992/93) 

Figure 2 Profile of juveniles in detention 

(as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 3 Age of juveniles on remand and control (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 4 Ethnicity/cultural background of persons in NSW 

JJCs (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 5 Principal offence for persons on remand and control in NSW 

JJCs (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 6 Most serious previous offence for persons on remand and 

Control in NSW JJCs (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 7 First proven offence for persons on remand and control in 

NSW JJCs (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 8 Persons in NSW JJCs on remand and control with prior 

Probation, CSO or custody (as at 13 April 1993) 

Figure 9 Number of times in full-time custody 

Figure 10 Percentage of Aboriginal detainees in NSW JJCs 

(January 1990 to April 1993) 

Figure 11 Principal offence for Aboriginal juveniles on remand and 

Control 

Figure 12 Principal offence for Indo-Chinese juveniles on remand and 

Control 

iii



Tables 

Table 1 Number of previous proven offences for juvenile detainees 

(as at 13 April 1993) 

Table 2 Regional breakdown of place of residence and court of 

determination for juveniles in Target Groups 

Table 3 Criminogenic factors in the histories of young women 

In custody (as at 13 April 1993) 

iii

1. INTRODUCTION 


The first in the series of profiles of young people in NSW Juvenile Justice Centres 

produced by the Department of Juvenile Justice (Cain 1993, Juveniles in Detention: A 

Model for Diversion) generated a great deal of interest in relation to many local and 

national juvenile justice issues. 

Within New South Wales, juvenile justice administrators and academic commentators 

looked favourably on the reducing number of juveniles placed in custody over the last five 

years and the rising number of alternatives to custody, particularly community service 

orders, sanctioned by the courts. While the anticipated trend for CSOs to continue to 

exceed committals failed to eventuate in 1992/93, the pattern of outcomes for that year 

was positive in terms of the Children’s Court continuing to order fewer young offenders 

into NSW juvenile justice centres (see figure one). 

The original profile also whetted the appetite of those individuals interested in the juvenile 

justice system’s treatment of minority groups. For many years, there has been a general 

lack of information on special needs groups in detention, such as young women, young 

Aborigines and young Indo-Chinese offenders in custody. Many expressed interest that 

the profile be extended to detail the characteristics of these special needs groups. These 

additional vignettes are presented in this report and will be contained in future profiles. 

Historically, the numbers of juveniles in custody has always been higher in NSW than in 

other Australian states and territories. This has contributed significantly to the view that 

the NSW system of juvenile justice is one of the more, if not the most, punitive and penal 

in Australia. The first profile permitted interstate comparisons of the nature of young 

persons in juvenile detention to be made. Through detailing the characteristics of 

residents of NSW juvenile justice centres, the first profile clearly showed that NSW has an 

extremely high number of violent offenders in custody (far greater than the proportion of 

2



violent offenders in custody in other states/territories), and a higher proportion of detainees 

aged over 16 (and up to 21) years of age, which is rarely accounted for when interstate 

comparisons of juvenile detention numbers are made (Atkinson 1993). 

In many ways, this second study is a replication of the first profile. It too proposes a model 

that may permit the courts to divert certain juvenile offenders from custody. Through its 

examination of the characteristics of juveniles in detention, this profile also allows an 

examination of the claims that: 

(1) there is little opportunity for courts to further reduce the number of children ordered 

into juvenile justice centres on control orders; and 

(2) in general terms, those young people in full-time custody represent, the older, more 

serious, and recidivist offenders. 

1.2 Aim 

This study aims to test the claim that juveniles placed in detention on control orders are 

serious offenders, whom the courts could not deal with by way of non-custodial 

alternatives. Analysing the characteristics of those juvenile offenders placed in detention 

may corroborate the court’s decision to incarcerate. Alternatively, it may suggest 

anomalies in the court’s diversionary processes. The corollary of such an analysis is the 

identification and highlighting of particular groups of young people in detention (including 

remandees) who may have been better served by non-custodial adjudications. It is hoped 

such information will be considered by the courts to foster and maximise diversion from 

custody of those considered a minimum risk to the community. 

It is recognised that the posited model does not account for the intricacy and complexity of 

the sentencing process. The model simply proposes the diversion and decarceration of 

certain juvenile offenders on the grounds that the offence or alleged offence and criminal 

histories of such juveniles seem minor and denying these individuals their freedom in the 

community may be perceived as being inappropriate. 

SECTION 2 presents separate profiles of juveniles held on remand and juveniles serving 

control orders as at 13 April 1993. This section also details the offence and criminal 

history characteristics of juveniles identified as potentially suitable for decarceration by the 

diversionary model. 

The profile presented in section 3 relates to young women offenders in NSW juvenile 

justice centres. The profile is of particular relevance for a number of reasons: 

(1) young women have always been “under-represented” in detention, making up less 

than seven percent of juveniles in custody in NSW (NSW Department of Juvenile 

Justice, Information Package for 1992/93); 

(2) young women in custody are considered as having “typically less serious and 

entrenched offending” than their male counterparts (Moore, 1993, p.9); 

(3) despite their small numbers in the system, young women are often seen as being 

“among the most distressed and resentful” (Kids in Justice Report 1990, p.314), and 

are among the… “most pronounced groups which are either disproportionately 

represented, or have a set of needs which set them apart from the bulk of the juvenile 

3


justice population” 1 (Juvenile Justice in NSW, Report of the Standing Committee on 

Social Issues 1992, p.21); 

(4) young women in custody are seen as victims of juvenile justice intervention. Many are 

considered to be in custody as a result of the “criminalisation of young women’s 

survival strategies” (Bargen 1993, p.4). 

SECTION 4 presents information on the characteristics of Aboriginal juveniles in custody. 

Aboriginal people are highly over-represented at every stage of the justice process. The 

numbers of Aborigines in juvenile detention 2 is considered “extreme, even when compared 

with the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the adult jurisdiction” (Atkinson 

1993,p.13). 

An evaluation of the characteristics of Aboriginal detainees may identify race differences in 

the nature and seriousness of offending for which Aboriginal young people are arrested by 

the police and dealt with and committed by the courts. 

SECTION 5 provides information on the characteristics of Indo-Chinese (i.e. Vietnamese, 

Cambodian and Laotian) youth in NSW juvenile justice centres. Interest in this 

ethnic/cultural group has intensified as a result of the rapidly increasing numbers of Indo- 

Chinese young persons entering the juvenile justice system. The need for relevant and 

appropriate programmes for this group of juvenile offenders is evident from the large and 

growing number of Indo-Chinese young offenders committed to juvenile justice centres for 

lengthy sentences. 3 

1.3 METHOD 

Data for this study were obtained from the Client Information System (CIS), a client 

management database providing statistical information on children ordered into the care and 

supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice. The CIS provides for regular census 

reports on the number and characteristics of children detained in juvenile justice centres. 

The CIS also permits personal and criminal history information to be extracted. 

This study accessed the records of all juveniles detained in Juvenile Justice Centres as at 

13 April 1993. The profiles of 367 detainees were examined. The criminal history 

information of each juvenile in detention was verified by matching records on the Children’s 

Court Information System, a court based statistical information system maintained in parallel 

to the CIS. 

1 On this note, the Department of Juvenile Justice recently established Yasmar JJC at Haberfield as a specialist centre for 

juvenile female offenders. This unit presently is being refurbished and will re-open in April 1994. Specialist services, 

resources and staff are to be allocated to the centre in order to more appropriately respond to, and meet the needs of, young 

women in custody. A young women’s program is being developed. On its implementation, this program will be closely 

monitored and evaluated to ensure the special needs of young female detainees and the specific needs of each individual 

are being addressed. 

2 See Cain (1993), Juveniles in Detention: A model for diversion, which provides detail on the constant and consistent gross 

over-representation of Aboriginal youth in the juvenile detainee population. While Aborigines comprise only 1.8% of the 

NSW youth population (ABS 1993), they typically represent over 20% of juvenile detainees. As at 7 January 1994, 103 of 

the 414 juveniles in detention were recorded as Aborigine. This number represents 24.8% of the juvenile justice centre 

population at this most recent census (CIS Aggregated Management Report, 7 January 1994). 

3 The number of Indo-Chinese young offenders entering juvenile justice centres has steadily increased since 1991. In 1991, 

a total of 87 Indo-Chinese juveniles were admitted to juvenile justice centres. In 1992, the number of Indo-Chinese 

admissions had risen to 148. In 1993, a total of 267 Indo-Chinese young offenders were admitted to juvenile justice centres. 

This represents an increase of over 200% in the number of Indo-Chinese juvenile detainees over the past two years. 

Graham (1993) reported that 30% of Indo-Chinese young offenders placed in custody were guilty of drug offences. The 

seriousness of such crimes is a major reason why Indo-Chinese detainees are spending on average three times longer (16.3 

months) in juvenile justice centres than the average term (5.5 months) in custody. 

4



The following characteristics were examined for each person in custody: 

- status 

- gender 

- age 

- ethnicity/cultural background 

- offence or alleged offence 

- number of previous proven offences 

- most serious previous proven offence 

- first proven offence 

- whether the juvenile had previously received: 

(a) a supervised probation or supervised recognizance 

(b) a community service order 

(c) a term in custody 

- number of custodial terms previously served. 

As previously indicated, this study adopts and applies the diversionary model detained in the 

previous profile (see Cain 1993, Juveniles in Detention: A Model for Diversion, pp.8-10). 

This model is depicted graphically in figure two. In simple terms, the model attempts to 

identify groups of juvenile detainees “suitable” for possible diversion. 

The model seeks to assess the criminal seriousness of current detainees through 

examining, by way of successive filters, the following characteristics: 

- admission status (i.e. remand/appeal or control) 

5


- nature of offending (i.e. violent or non-violent) 

- any history of violent or habitual offending 

- any prior term in custody (and whether such terms were for violent or non-violent 

offences). 

2. RESULTS 

2.1 Juvenile Detainees Identified for Possible Diversion 

The diversionary model adopted in this study defines three groups of juvenile detainees 

who, in theory, may have been better accommodated by a non-custodial penalty. Figure 

two shows that a total of 19 out of 367 juveniles in custody as at the 13 April 1993 are 

considered suitable for possible diversion because of their less severe offence 

characteristics and less serious criminal histories. The 19 juveniles represent 5.2% of the 

juvenile justice centre population at that time. A brief summary of the characteristics of 

these targeted juvenile detainees follows. 

Target Group #1 contains those juveniles on remand for non-violent offending who do not 

have a serious criminal record. Eight juveniles, or 7.2% of the remand population on the 

day of survey, are contained in this group. 

Target Group #2 contains those persons serving control orders for non-violent offences. 

Furthermore, these detainees do not have a serious criminal record in that: 

- they have not offended violently in the past; 

- are not habitual offenders; and 

- have not previously been ordered into custody. 

Seven of the 257 juveniles serving control orders are identified in this group, representing 

2.7% of the control population on the day of survey. 

Target Group #3 contains those juveniles serving a term in custody for a non-violent 

offence who have no history of violent or habitual offending, but have previously served time 

in custody (for a non-violent offence). There were four young persons in this group as at 13 

April 1993, representing 1.6% of the control population. Additional information on the 

characteristics of juveniles identified in the target groups is provided in section 2.4. 

2.2 Juveniles on remand and appeal 

Gender: Males make up 91.8% (or 101) of the 110 young persons held on remand and 

appeal. While females constitute only 8.2% of remandees, this represents some two percent 

more than the proportion (6.2%) of females on control orders. 

Age: Figure three shows that the majority (51.7%) of young persons held on remand are 

aged 16 or 17. Children aged 15 years or less make up only 16.3% of those refused court 

bail (down from 26.2% in 1992) and is comparable to the proportion of children aged 15 

years or less in full-time custody. 

Ethnicity/cultural background: From figure four it may be seen that Anglo-Australians 

represent 41.8% of juveniles on remand. However, it is Aboriginal youth and Indo-Chinese 

(i.e., Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian) youth that are grossly over-represented in the 

remand population, particularly when their numbers in the general youth population are 

considered. 

6



As at 13 April 1993, 30% of juveniles on remand were identified as Aborigines. This is a 

disturbing statistic given that Aborigines represent only 1.7% of the NSW youth population 

according to 1991 census figures (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1993). 4 

Indo-Chinese young offenders are also prominent in the remand population. On the day of 

survey they made up the third most highly represented ethnic/cultural group refused bail by 

the courts. One in every eight (12.7%) remandees were recorded as being Indo-Chinese, 

yet this group makes up only 1.8% of the NSW youth population. (ABS 1993) 

Both the Lebanese (2.7%) and New Zealand/Maori (3.6%) groups also have 

disproportionately high numbers of youth on remand in comparison with their respective 

numbers in the NSW youth population (i.e. 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively). 

Youth whose country of birth was Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and other Pacific Islands appear 

another over-represented ethnic/cultural group, as they make up 3.6% of the remand 

population. 5 

4 

Youth population estimates for ethnic/cultural groups are based on ABS figures for the 12 to 25 years age range. 

5 

Lack of sufficient detail in the ABS census report prevents an estimate of the number of juveniles from these countries in 

the youth population of NSW. 

7


Offence: Violent crimes figure prominently as alleged offences for juvenile remandees (see 

figure five). Approximately half (48.2%) those bail refused were being detained in relation 

to crimes of violence such as homicide, assault causing grievous bodily harm/actual bodily 

harm, malicious wounding, kidnapping and armed and unarmed robbery. 

Drug offences do not show up noticeably for juvenile remandees (3.6%), but theft offences, 

particularly steal motor vehicle (11.8%) and steal from person/shoplifting (9.0%), as may be 

seen, are proportionally higher than for juveniles in custody on control orders. 

Escaping from lawful custody and breach of existing court orders (6.3%) are highly 

representative of the alleged offences for the majority of juveniles held on remand in relation 

to justice matters. 

Prior record: One may argue that the juveniles in custody on 13 April 1994 are a highly 

recidivist lot (table one). Only one in every eight children (12.7%) on remand had no prior 

proven criminal offence and just under 82% of remandees had two or more prior proven 

offences. Almost forty percent (39.1%) of the juveniles held on remand had at least ten prior 

proven offences (note, this excludes multiple counts of the same offence). 

This provides a very clear picture of the level of criminal activity of the majority of juveniles 

who are on bail refused by the Children’s Courts. The extent of juvenile recidivism 

continues to present a major problem for criminal justice administrators and those interested 

in juvenile justice reform in NSW. 

8




In terms of their most serious previous proven offence, both juveniles on remand and 

juveniles on control are likely to commit, at least at some stage, a crime of violence (see 

figure six). Almost half the remandees (46.4%) have been convicted of a violent offence. 

The most common form of violence perpetrated in the past by a juvenile remandee is 

assault. Almost one quarter (24.5%) of juvenile remandees in detention on 13 April 1993 

had been found guilty of assault. A further 10.9% of remandees had previously occasioned 

grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm or malicious wounding; 3.6% had been found guilty 

of sexual offences; and 5.4% had previously been convicted of various forms of robbery. 

9


Juveniles in the remand group also are likely to have a property offence as their most 

serious previous proven offence. One in five remandees (19.1%) had previously been found 

guilty of break and enter offences. Previous proven offences involving motor vehicle theft, 

stealing and receiving stolen goods figure in the profiles of a little less than twenty percent of 

remandees. 


Figure seven provides not only an interesting picture of the nature of the first proven 

offence committed by juveniles currently in detention, but in conjunction with figures four and 

five (indicating the “current” and most serious offence committed by detainees), indicates 

the extent to which juveniles in custody have not simply recidivated but escalated or 

“graduated” in terms of the seriousness of their offending. 

The first offences of both remandees and juveniles on control show a clustering towards 

break and enter and theft offences. However, as indicated earlier, violent crimes figure 

prominently in the profiles of juveniles on remand and control as either the most serious of 

offences subsequent to the first, the “current” offence, or both. 

The first offences of juvenile remandees is in marked contrast to their current (alleged) 

offences. Basically, the criminal careers of juveniles begin with no-violent, property related 

crimes. Only 15.5% of young persons on remand have a violent offence as their first 

offence. The majority of remandees (60.9%) first committed an offence involving theft or 

burglary. Five percent of remandees first offended in relation to laws concerning public or 

good order. 

10



Prior Court Orders: From figure eight it may be seen that over one-third of remandees 

(36.4%) had previously served a term in custody. 

The principles of diversion and the discretionary powers of the courts to accord juvenile 

offenders opportunities to rehabilitate, show up in the statistic that two-thirds, (67.3%) of 

juvenile remandees, had previously served a supervised probation or recognizance in 

relation to a previous proven offence. 

What is surprising, given the principles of diversion, “last resort” sentencing, and the 

increased use of CSOs over the last five years, is the fact that only one quarter (25.5%) of 

juveniles on remand had previously been given the benefit of the more structured alternative 

to custody, the community service order, despite its status as the penultimate penalty. 

Number of times in custody: Over 36% of juveniles on remand previously had served time 

in custody. In fact, 15 of the 110 young persons (14%) had served a single custodial term, 

21 (19%) had served more than one term and up to five prior terms, and two remandees 

had served more than six separate terms in juvenile justice centres (figure nine). 

11

2.3 Juveniles on control orders 


Gender: Males make up 93.8% of the control population. There were 16 females in juvenile 

justice centres on control orders as at 13 April 1993, up from eleven on the same day in the 

previous year. 

Age: From figure three it is apparent that full-time custody is, generally reserved for older 

juvenile offenders. Only 16.3% of juveniles on control orders were below the age of sixteen. 

Sixteen year olds make up 21% of full-time detainees, while those aged seventeen years 

and older represent the greater majority (58.7%) of juveniles serving sentences in NSW 

juvenile justice centres. 

Ethnicity/cultural background: Figure four shows that, as for the remand population, 

Anglo-Australian youth represent a substantial proportion (45.1%) of juveniles on control. 

But again, as for the remand group, it is Aboriginal youth and Indo-Chinese youth that are 

over-represented in terms of their numbers in full-time detention. 

There is slightly lower proportion of Aboriginal youth on Control orders (26.8%) than on 

remand (30%), although this marginally lower figure is hardly comforting given that 

Aboriginal youth make up less than two percent of the NSW youth population. 

Young offenders of Indo-Chinese descent are almost as prominent in the control population 

as they are in the remand population, comprising nine percent (9%) of youth committed to 

juvenile justice centres. 

The number of Lebanese youth (3.1%) and New Zealand/Maori (3.9%) youth serving control 

orders also appear inordinately high. This also appears to be the case for youth of “Pacific 

Island” descent (i.e., Fijians, Samoans, Tongans and individuals from other Pacific Islands) 

who make up 3.6% of the control population. 

12



Offence: It is evident from figure five that courts tend to impose custodial sentences on 

juveniles who have committed serious acts of violence such as homicides, assaults and 

robberies. Close to half (47.1%) the juveniles on control orders had committed offences 

against persons including robberies. 

Nineteen juveniles (7.4%) were serving control orders in relation to drug offences, with 

supply/trafficking drugs outnumbering possession offences by nearly two-to-one. 

Large numbers of juveniles were incarcerated in relation to the principal offences of break 

and enter (21.8%), motor vehicle theft (7.0%) and stealing (5.1%) 

Of the one in every ten juveniles on control orders for good order/justice offences, two-thirds 

(18 of 27) of this group had been given a further term for escaping/absconding. An 

additional five juveniles had been placed on control for breaches of non-custodial orders. Of 

the remainder, one juvenile was in custody for offensive behaviour, a second for 

trespassing, and a third offender for a firearm offence. 

Prior Record: Fewer than eight percent (7.8%) of full-time juvenile detainees as at 13 

April 1993 were committed in relation to their first offence. As table one reveals, those on 

control orders are relatively experienced in terms of past criminal activity. Over 85% have 

two or more previous proven offences. An eye catching statistic, with regard to the extent of 

13


juvenile recidivism in NSW, is that half (50.6%) the juveniles on control orders are recorded 

as having no less than ten prior criminal offences. 

Most serious previous proven offence: In terms of most serious previous proven offence, 

young persons on control, like their remandee counterparts, appear highly likely to commit a 

violent crime during their juvenile years. Over half (51%) of those serving control orders 

previously had been found guilty of a violent crime or robbery. 

Evident from figure six is the prominence of various forms of assault in the criminal histories 

of those serving control orders. The proportion of the control population with such prior 

offences is even greater than the remand population (36.3% vs. 26.3%) although there are 

proportionally fewer juveniles on control who have previously committed robberies (7.7% vs. 

14.7%). 

Almost one in every four (24.5%) full-time detainees have break and enter recorded as their 

most serious previous proven offences, whereas fewer than ten percent of juveniles on 

control orders have stealing listed as their most serious previous proven offence. 

First proven offence: An analysis of the first proven offence of juveniles on control 

suggests that their initial criminal act tended to be somewhat more violent than the offences 

first committed by young persons being held on remand (see figure seven). This is 

perhaps to be expected given that juveniles committed in relation to their first and only 

offence are more likely to have been found guilty of serious crimes such as homicide, sexual 

assault, armed robbery and other indictable offences (Cain 1993, p.31). 

Over 13% of full-time detainees had initially committed an assault; a further 7.7% had 

initially committed a robbery or sexual assault. A further 25.3% had been convicted at first 

appearance for a break and enter offences. Theft also figures prominently (27.6%) as the 

first proven offence of juveniles on control orders. 

Prior Court Orders: The first profile indicated that very few children in full-time custody had 

received a non-custodial supervised sanction prior to being incarcerated (Cain 1993). This 

characteristic has clearly changed in relation to the latest group of full-time juvenile 

detainees surveyed. 6 

The majority (70.4%) of full-time detainees in this survey previously had received a 

supervised probation from the court. However, slightly less than two-thirds of juveniles 

incarcerated had not been given the benefit of a community service order, which is viewed 

as the more structured alternative to custody. More than half (54.1%) the control population 

previously served time in custody (figure eight). 

Number of times in custody: The entrenchment of young offenders in the juvenile justice 

system is evident from the large number of juveniles serving control orders who are not 

strangers to the custodial environment of juvenile justice centres (see figure nine). 

For almost one-quarter (24.1% or 62 juveniles) of the control population the current term is 

their second. For a further 25% (64 juveniles) the number of previous sentences served in a 

6 There are a number of possible explanations for such observed differences between the 1992 and 1993 juvenile justice 

centre populations sampled. Most likely, the difference is a result of sampling variation or sampling error – in this case, 

sampling over time: 

The fundamental fact of sampling is that the value of the characteristic we are studying will vary from sample to 

sample…Now the task of statistical inference is to draw a conclusion about a characteristic of a population from a 

study of the characteristics of a part of the population. Because of the fact of sampling variation, it will not be 

possible to make such an inference and know for certain that is correct (Minium, Statistical Reasoning in 

Psychology & Education, 1978, p.219). 

14



juvenile justice centre ranged from two to five. For another five percent (15 juveniles) six or 

more separate custodial terms had been served in juvenile justice centres. 

2.4 TARGET GROUPS 


The eight young persons in this group are juveniles on remand (or appeal) for a 

non-violent offence. They do not have a record of violent or habitual offending and 

have not previously served a control order. 

Gender: There is only one female in this group. Male young offenders 

comprise the remaining 88%. 

Age: Juveniles in this group are reasonably young with 37.5% below the age of 16 

in comparison with only 16% of this age group in the whole remand population. 

Ethnicity/Cultural background: Only one of the eight (12.5%) targeted juveniles 

is Aboriginal. Two juveniles (25%) are Vietnamese, one Lebanese and the 

remaining four (50%) are Anglo-Australian youth. 

Offence: The alleged crimes committed by these juveniles are non-violent 

and involve property offences (break and enter (2), steal motor vehicle (1), fraud 

(1), drug trafficking offences (2), breach of order (1) and motor/traffic offence (1). 

Prior record: Three of the eight (37.5%) juveniles in this group have a criminal 

record, with each of the three having on record one prior proven offence. These 

prior offences relate to steal motor vehicle (1), stealing (1) and other offence (1). 

Prior Court Orders: None of the eight juveniles in this group have previously 

received a supervised probation or recognizance or, for that matter, a community 

service order in relation to their first and only proven offences. Two juveniles 

previously had been ordered unsupervised recognizances and one juvenile 

received a fine. 


The seven young persons in this group represent juveniles on control orders for 

non-violent offences. Each is without record of violent or habitual offending or prior 

incarceration. 

Gender: The young persons in this group are male. 

Age: There are relatively equal numbers of juveniles aged 15 to 18 years in this 

group. 

Ethnicity/Cultural background: Vietnamese make up five of the seven (71%) 

individuals identified in this target group. The remaining two juveniles are recorded 

as being Anglo-Australian and Russian. 

Offence: Five of the seven juveniles (71%) in this group were committed in relation 

to drug offences, with three cases of possess drugs and two cases of trafficking 

drugs. The remaining two offences relate to proven charges of break and enter 

and fraud. 

15


Prior Record: Four of the seven (57%) individuals identified in this target group 

had one prior proven offence. These prior offences refer to: break and enter (2), 

shoplifting (1), and breach of order (1). 

Prior Court Orders: No juvenile in this group received a supervised probation or 

recognizance, CSO or control order in relation to their initial proven offence. These 

earlier matters were finalised by way of dismissal with caution (3) and 

unsupervised recognizance (1). 


There are four juveniles in this group and they represent juveniles on control who 

have not offended violently in relation to their latest or past offences, yet have 

served time in custody previously for a non-violent offence. 

Gender: Three are female and one is male indicating a possible overrepresentation 

of young female offenders. 

Age: The detainees were aged 14, 16 and 17 years (2). 

Ethnicity/cultural background: Two detainees are recorded as being 

Vietnamese, one is Chinese and the other is an Australian. 

Offence: The current offence for these juveniles are: possess/use drug (2), 

deal/traffic drug (10 and break and enter (1). 

Prior Record: The first and only prior offence for each of these detainees were 

similar in kind to the current offence, namely: possess/use drug (3) and break and 

enter (1). 

Prior Court Orders; Not one of these juveniles previously received a supervised 

order (recognizance or probation) or a CSO for their first offence. Rather each had 

been ordered into full-time custody for their first offence. However, it should be 

noted that the statutory maximum penalty for many drug offences includes a 

custodial term. 

2.4.4 The Target Groups – further dimensions 

A further analysis of the members of the target groups was under-taken in relation 

to the following factors: 

- region of residence 

- the region in which the adjudicating court was located 

- whether the child was detained on warrant for fine default. 

Place of residence: Table two indicates that the majority 13 of the 19 (68%) 

juveniles identified in the target groups live in the Sydney area. Only four live in 

“non-metropolitan” areas with two residing in the Hunter district and one each in 

northern and southern NSW (the place of residence of two juveniles was not 

recorded). 

Court of determination: Table two also shows that 14 of the 19 (74%) targeted 

juveniles had been placed in custody (i.e. bail refused or committed) by a Sydney 

court. Even allowing for the small numbers involved, Eastern suburbs courts are 

16



involved in a disproportionate number of decisions to place in custody individuals 

considered potentially suitable for diversion. 

Warrants: None of the nineteen targeted juveniles were being held in custody on 

warrants for fine default. 

2.4.5 Overview 

The young persons identified in the target groups have never been found guilty of a 

violence offence. Over half (10 of 19, or 53%), however, were in custody in 

relation to drug offences. Six targeted juveniles (32%) were detained with regard 

to matters involving the trafficking and/or dealing of drugs. Another four detainees 

(21%) were in custody for the use or possession of prohibited drugs. 

Nine identified young persons (47.3%) were in custody for criminal matters which 

are traditionally considered to be opportunistic, episodic, circumstantial or 

transitory in nature – break and enter, steal motor vehicle, fraud, motoring 

offences, and breach of order. Even those cases of drug possession and use may 

have been adolescent experimentation rather than acts of criminal intent. 

The target group members are relatively young with almost one-third (32%) below 

the age of sixteen years. They also appear relatively inexperienced in terms of 

prior offending: eight of the nineteen targeted juveniles (42%) have no criminal 

record and the remaining 11 juveniles (58%) have only one prior proven offence. 

Considering the fairly innocuous nature of criminal records of these targeted 

juveniles, it is hoped that the decision to deny these youth their liberty was based 

on the gravity of their most recent offence rather than incidental welfare related 

protective reasons. 

Almost half (9 of 11, or 47%) the targeted juveniles are Vietnamese. Not surprising 

given Graham’s (1993) findings, all such Vietnamese juveniles were detained in 

relation to either drug use (3), or the more serious charge of trafficking in drugs (6). 

17


The only other Asian in the target groups – a youth of Chinese descent- was also 

in custody for a drug matter. There was one Aboriginal youth and six Anglo- 

Australians in the target groups. 

The fact that drug crimes are rife in urban areas is a likely reason why metropolitan 

courts figure prominently in the profile of targeted juvenile detainees. Many 

juvenile drug offenders are apprehended in areas of eastern Sydney, such as 

Kings Cross. Courts in this region would normally hear such charges. The eastern 

Sydney area also contains the Supreme Court and the large Sydney District Court. 

The serious (indictable) nature of many drug charges means that they may only be 

heard by a higher court, and in many cases, where guilt is proven, there may be 

little option but for the court to place young drug offenders in custody given the 

statutory limitations on penalties for drug crimes. 

Interestingly, most juveniles in the target groups do not come from the metropolitan 

east area of Sydney but rather from the metropolitan south, which includes 

Cabramatta, Campbelltown and Liverpool. 

A large proportion (21%) of targeted juveniles are female. On face value, this 

would appear to support the notion that: 

The juvenile justice system is frequently used by carers, welfare 

authorities, police and magistrates for the purpose of ‘ 

protecting’ girls whose conduct is considered to justify 

enforced care (Moore 1993, p.2) 

(and that) 

Girls are more likely to be detained by police and court authorities 

despite their less serious offences and lower risk of recidivism 

(Chesney-Lind 1988,p.152). 

Yet, only one of the four girls targeted was in custody in relation to an offence that 

was not a drug crime, and she was detained on remand for car theft. The other 

three young women were serving control orders for drug offences (trafficking in two 

cases, and possession in the third). Each of these female drug offenders had 

previously served time in custody for similar drug offences. 

If it was not for the high number of committed or alleged drug offenders in the 

target group, it may be inferred that the use of detention is extreme for this group of 

juvenile detainees. However, the seriousness of drug matters appears to vindicate 

the use if custody for ten of the 19 targeted detainees. 

Nonetheless, there remains, in relation to nine of the 19 targeted juveniles, the 

doubt that the decision to incarcerate was the right decision, given that: 

- it was either their first or second offence; 

- the offence (or alleged offence) was non-violent and not a drug matter; 

- few of the identified juveniles had received a supervised order such as a 

CSO, probation with supervision or recognizance with supervision where a 

previous offence had been dealt with by the court. 

3. YOUNG WOMEN IN CUSTODY 

18



Juvenile Justice Centres are predominantly populated by young men. Over the last five 

years, the percentage of female juvenile detainees in NSW has not exceeded 10% and, 

generally, has hovered around six percent (NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, 

Information Package for 1992/93). In fact, the percentage of girls in custody (1993:6.3%) is 

far smaller than the percentage of females appearing before the Children’s Court on criminal 

matters (1992/93:14.6%; ibid). 

As at 13 April 1993, there were only 25 females in NSW Juvenile Justice Centres: nine girls 

held on remand and 16 girls serving control orders. As the previous profile suggests that 

“remand” centres may be being used to meet the welfare needs of certain groups of socially 

disadvantaged young persons” (Cain 1993, p.34), the characteristics of girls on remand are 

examined separately from the characteristics of girls on control orders. 

3.1 GIRLS ON REMAND 

Age: Three of nine (33%) girls on remand were below the age of 16 years whilst 

awaiting the court to hear their case. As the percentage of those aged 15 years or 

less for the entire remand group is 16%, there may be some evidence to the claims 

that the juvenile justice system treats girls differently from boys, and that, in 

particular, younger girls coming to the attention of the police and the courts are being 

dealt with relatively more severely in relation to the making of bail decisions. 

Ethnicity/Cultural background: The nine girls on remand were recorded as being 

of the following ethno-cultural descents: Anglo-Australian (3), Aboriginal (2), Dutch 

(1), Lebanese (1), Samoan (1) and Tongan (1). 

Offence: Six of the nine (67%) female remandees were bail refused in relation to 

alleged violent offending, namely principal charges of malicious wounding (1), 

assault occasioning grievous bodily hard/actual bodily harm (2) and common assault 

(3). The remaining three girls on remand were awaiting hearing of charges of steal 

motor vehicle, receiving stolen goods, and breach of court order. 

Prior Record: Only two of the nine (22%) female remandees have no record of past 

proven offences. Three girls on remand had two prior proven offences, one had six 

priors, and three had ten or more prior proven offences. 

Prior Court Orders: Three (33%) of the young women remandees had previously 

served time in custody, with each having served two or more separate custodial 

sentences. Only one young woman on remand had previously received a CSO, but 

seven of the nine (78%) had previously been placed under the supervision of a 

juvenile justice officer on at least one previous occasion. 

3.2 Girls on control orders 

Age: Four of the sixteen (25%) girls in custody on 13 April 1993 serving control 

orders were aged 16 years or less. This means that young women on control are 

marginally younger than their male counterparts. 

Ethnicity/cultural background: The majority (7 of 16, or 44%) of girls on control are 

recorded as Anglo-Australian. However, the substantial number of Aboriginal young 

women (5 or 31%) and Vietnamese young women (3 or 19%) suggest a genderrace-over-representation 

in the control population of juvenile justice centres. The 

remaining female on a control order is recorded as being Chinese. 

19


Offence: Half the young women were serving control orders in relation to principal 

offences of violence, specifically: malicious wounding (4), assault (1), armed robbery 

(1), assault and rob (1), and robbery (1). Three (19%) young women were serving 

control orders in relation to drug trafficking (2) and drug possession (1). The other 

five girls on control were serving terms in relation to break and enter (1), escapes (2), 

and breaches of court orders (2). 

Prior Record: All of the sixteen females on control have a record of previous 

criminal offences. In fact, three (19%) young women had a only one prior proven 

offence recorded, four (25%) had two or more prior proven offences, three (19%) had 

six to nine priors, and six (38%) had ten or more prior proven offences. 

Prior Court Orders: Eight of the sixteen (50%) females serving control orders 

previously served custodial sentences: six girls having been in detention once 

previously and two girls having served three separate terms. 

Only two (12.5%) young women on control orders had previously served a CSO, but 

12 (75%) previously had the benefit of a supervised order in the past. 

3.3 Young Women, survival strategies and the law 

Research conducted in the early 1980’s identified a number of gender differences in 

the incidence and nature of juvenile offending. These studies also identified gender 

differences in the adjudication of criminal charges for young female and male 

offenders. Chesney-Lind (1988; reported in Moors, 1993) summarised the main 

findings as: 

o girls are more likely than boys to come before the court for status offences rather 

than for criminal charges; 

o girls are more likely to be charged with shoplifting than for serious violent 

offences; 

o self-report studies of male and female delinquency do not provide evidence of 

differences in misbehaviour which can explain the differences in the official 

statistics regarding status offences; 

o girls are more likely to be subject to court intervention as a result of action 

initiated by parents and others who are not involved in law enforcement; 

o girls involved in the juvenile justice system have more frequently been subjected 

to physical and /or sexual abuse than boys; 

o girls are more likely to be detained by police and court authorities, despite their 

less serious offences and lower risk of recidivism. 

Recent evaluations continue to portray the criminal behaviour of young women in 

custody as less serious, non-violent, and integral to their survival: 

While offence labels suggest that they more often present a threat to 

community safety, details of the facts and circumstances sometimes 

suggest that authorities continue to use custody as a means to protect 

girls from risks associated with their lifestyle. A girl may be charged 

with a summary or criminal offence for the purpose of gaining entry 

into detention for protective reasons (Moors 1993, p3). 

The offences with which young women are presently being charged 

may include those related to prostitution. Official statistics give no 

indication whether this is the case because of the counting and 

ordering rules employed. On the basis that soliciting forms part of the 

20



background for the increasing numbers of young women in custody, 

then one can reasonably speculate that s 19 of the Summary 

Offences Act 1988 (NSW) is being utilised, together with other public 

provisions such as offensive language and resist arrest, as easy and 

convenient justifications for interference in the lives of young women. 

The underlying justifications may have their source in a concern about 

young women’s engagement in unacceptable lifestyles, or possibly on 

the basis of an underlying assumption that they are homeless-ness 

(sic) and in need of care (Bargen 1993, p.6). 

The evidence for such claims, as stated by Bargen (1993, p.19) is principally 

“anecdotal”. Given the lack of information on the “justice” histories of young women 

in custody, the profile of young women in custody, the profile of young women in 

custody was extended to encompass the following factors: 

(1) whether the principal offence for which the young woman was ordered 

into custody was associated with a less serious charge of prostitution or 

soliciting; 

(2) the extent to which the criminal records of young women in custody 

contain charge(s) for prostitution offences; 

(3) the number of times each young woman in custody had appeared in the 

court for an offence which may be interpreted as a “survival strategy”; 

(4) the number of time young women in custody have appeared in court in 

relation to summary offences; 

(5) the number of young women in custody with proven serious offences 

(eg homicides, serious assaults, robberies, serious drug offences); 

(6) the number of young women in custody who first came to the notice of 

the court for welfare or status offences (eg “irretrievable breakdown”, 

“uncontrollable”). 

3.3.1 Prostitution related principal offences 

Table three clearly shows that it is not valid to assume that prostitution offences 

form part of the offence profile for which young women are ordered into custody. 

Only one female detainee was found to have been convicted (with fine of $100) for 

prostitution, and this conviction was additional to a control order being imposed for 

malicious wounding (with a further conviction for stealing). Not one of the nine 

female remandees had prostitution or soliciting recorded as their principal or nonprincipal 

offence. 

Prostitution, as anecdotically reported, may be part of the lifestyle of many young 

women in juvenile justice centres. However, the picture painted by the complete 

criminal histories of these young women shows that arrests for prostitution are the 

exception not the rule, and that, at least at the time of their arrest; these young 

women appear not to have been actively engaged in prostitution or soliciting. 

3.3.2 Previous offences of soliciting 

Only one young woman on remand and one young woman serving a control order 

have, in the past, been convicted of prostitution offences under the Summary 

Offences Act 1988. The female on remand, some two years earlier, had been 

placed on six months unsupervised probation for soliciting. The girl on control had 

twice been found guilty of soliciting, in the first instance receiving a $100 fine while 

the second charge resulted in a three-month control order being imposed. (The 

21


current offence for this young woman was escaping from lawful custody which 

added a further one week on the remaining term of her sentence for soliciting). 

Notes: (a) This was the “current” offence. The charge was dismissed with a caution. 

AOABH = Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm 

IB = Irretrievable breakdown 

3.3.3 Survival strategy offences 

Economic disadvantage is a significant factor in delinquency and criminal offending 

(Farrington 1989; Devery 1991). Many forms and instances of crime are alternate 

means of gaining sustenance. Furthermore, it is undeniable that some young 

people commit criminal offences in order to subsist and survive. This is likely to be 

particularly true for those in the “youth underclass” (White 1993). 

In this study, offences that may be interpreted as a young person’s survival 

strategies have been limited to non-violent offences, primarily involving property 

theft but not including break and enter or motor vehicle theft. 7 A short list of those 

offences which have been considered as survival strategies include: stealing, 

shoplifting, and receiving/possessing stolen goods. Forgery, false pretences, 

fraud, prostitution and soliciting are also included as survival strategies. 

7 Break, enter and steal, in particular, may constitute a survival strategy but is likely to be a means by which an individual 

may finance, say, a drug habit. However, if break and enter was included as a survival strategy it would show up in the 

offence profiles of 25% of female detainees (one remandee and five females on control). 

22



Almost three-quarters (72%) of all young women in custody on the 13 April 1993 

have, at one time or another, appeared before the court in relation to offences 

categorised as survival strategies. In fact, 14 of the 25 (56%) female detainees 

had two or more separate court appearances for survival offences. Six girls in 

custody (25%) had five or more such matters contained in their criminal records. 

3.3.4 Summary offences 

Notes: (b) At second court appearance 

AOABH = Aggravated assault occasioning 

actual bodily harm 

IB = Irretrievable breakdown 

Under the Summary Offences Act 1988, individuals may be charged to appear 

before the court in relation to alleged “offences in public places” (eg offensive 

conduct or language, obscene exposure, obstructing traffic, damaging fountains, 

shrines, monuments or statues, defacing walls, possessing offensive implement, 

23


possession of liquor by minor), “prostitution”, participation in an unauthorised 

“public assembly”, and “violent disorder”. 

The criminal histories of 14 of the 25 (56%) females in detention contained charges 

for offences legislated under the Summary Offences Act. In total, 19 charges of 

offensive behaviour had been levelled against these 14 young women. This was in 

addition to five charges of offensive behaviour; four charges of possess offensive 

implement, two charges of possession of restricted substances, one charge of 

offence against good order, one charge of public mischief, and one charge of 

sacrilege (whatever that may mean in a multicultural Australia of many different 

religions and faiths). As previously indicated, there are also three charges relating 

to soliciting. 

3.3.5 Previous serious offences 

In total, 84% of young women in custody on the day of survey had been charged 

and convicted of relatively serious violent offences (such as armed robbery, assault 

causing actual bodily harm, malicious injury and common assault) or indictable 

drug offences such as possession and supply of prohibited drug. 

It is alarming to discover the extent of violent criminal behaviour profiles of these 

young women. Ten of the seventeen (59%) females with a history of harming 

others have three or more proven offences of violence against others. 

This may well be, as suggested by Chisney-Lind’s (1988) analysis, because young 

women are more likely to appear before the court as a result of action initiated by 

parents and others not involved in law enforcement. A study of the initiating agents 

and those who are the victims of young women’s violent acts was outside the 

scope of this study. Nonetheless, given the consistent finding that where acts of 

violence occur there generally is a close interpersonal relationship between the 

victim and offender, (Conklin 1981; Wallace 1986; Nguyen da Huong & 

Salmelainen 1992), it would be most surprising to find that family members and 

other close acquaintances are not among the main victims of acts of violence 

perpetrated by young women. This, however, does not lessen the seriousness of 

such offences. 

3.3.6 First appearance in court: welfare or justice related? 

Legislative changes introduced in 1988 meant that children and young persons 

appearing before the court on care and protection matters could be diverted and 

dealt with separately from the juvenile justice system. Legislative amendment was 

necessary given that the old laws subjected juveniles appearing before the court in 

relation to care and protection matters to the same experiences, and the same 

range of punitive sanctions, as juvenile offenders. 

All of the young women in this study grew up under the old regime. A number of 

these young women, being unfortunate enough to come from dysfunctional and 

abusive homes, directly experienced the injustices of the old system. Some of 

these young women were placed by the courts, for protective reasons, in detention 

centres with juvenile offenders. 

Seven of the 25 (28%) young women detainees in this study first appeared in court 

in relation to welfare or care and protection matters. Six young women first 

appeared before a magistrate with regard to “irretrievable breakdown” of family 

24



relationships. For two girls, such welfare matters resulted in their committal as a 

Ward of the State (at the ages of eleven and thirteen, respectively). For a third 

young girl, the outcome was her placement in the care of a Christian charity 

organisation. 

One girl who came to the attention of authorities in need of care as a consequence 

of family abuse also was committed to a juvenile detention centre, at the age of 

eleven, as a Ward of the State. To date, this young woman again finds herself in 

detention in relation to the latest of her twelve criminal offences. 

4. INDIGENOUS YOUTH IN CUSTODY 

Aboriginal youth continue to be grossly over-represented in NSW juvenile justice centres 

(figure ten). As at 13 April 1993, there were 102 Aboriginal juveniles in custody, almost 

28% of the NSW juvenile justice centre population on the day. Aborigines are more highly 

represented in the juvenile remandee population, comprising 33 of 110 (or 30%) of 

juveniles bail refused. There were 69 Aboriginal youth serving custodial sentences in 

Juvenile justice centres, representing 27% of the control population at time of survey. 

4.1 Aboriginal juveniles on remand 

Gender: The number of male and female Aboriginal juveniles held on remand is 31 (94%) 

and two (6%), respectively. 

Age: Almost half (16 of 33, or 48.5%) the Aboriginal remandees were below the age of 16. 

This is an alarming statistic given that only 16.3% of the general remand population were 

below 16 years of age. Seven Aboriginal remandees were 14 years of age, and five were 

aged 13 years or less (i.e. one ten year old), two 12 year olds and one 13 year old). 

These figures may suggest differential and harsher treatment of Aboriginal youth 

appearing before the Children’s Court, particularly the very young Aboriginal alleged 

offender seeking release on bail. 

Offence: Over half (51.5%) the Aboriginal remandees were refused bail in relation to 

alleged offences of violence. That is, 17 young Aborigines were bail refused in relation to 

charges of: homicide (1), assault occasioning actual/grievous bodily harm (4), common 

assault (4), malicious injury (3), kidnapping (1), armed robbery (3) and unarmed robbery 

(1). Generally speaking, however, the offence profile of Aboriginal juvenile remandees 

(Figure 11) is not greatly different to, and certainly no more violent than, the offence profile 

for all remandees (figure five). 

Prior Record: Only two of the 33 (6%) Aboriginal remandees have no record of past 

proven offences. The general level of criminal experience for this group of remandees 

appears quite high, with eight (24%) juveniles having two to five prior proven offences, six 

juveniles (18%) having six to nine proven priors, and 16 juveniles (49%) having ten or 

more prior proven offences. 

25


Prior Court Orders: Seventeen of the 33 Aboriginal remandees (51.5%) had previously 

served time in custody, with six individuals (18%) having served at least two prior custodial 

terms. Thirty percent (30%) of the Aboriginal remandees in the survey had previously 

received a CSO, somewhat higher than for the general population of remandees (25%). 

Only five of the 33 young Aborigines refused bail had not received a supervised 

recognizance or probation for an earlier offence. 

4.2 Aboriginal juveniles on control orders 

Gender: The number of male and female Aboriginal juveniles serving control orders on 

13 April 1993 was 64 (93%) and five (7%), respectively. 

Age: Aboriginal juveniles aged 15 years or less make up 23% of the control population 

at the time of the survey. This is marginally less than the percentage of Aboriginal 

remandees aged 15 years or less. Notably, while the age profile of Aboriginal detainees is 

younger than for no-Aboriginal detainees, there was no Aborigine younger than 14 years 

serving a custodial term. This is supportive of the claim that the courts generally restrict 

custody to the older juvenile offender. 

Offence: Just under half (48%) the indigenous youth were serving control orders in 

relation to principal offences of violence, namely: assault occasioning actual/grievous 

bodily harm (4), sexual assault (1), assault (13), malicious injury (4), kidnapping (1), armed 

robbery (1), assault and rob (6), and unarmed robbery (3). One-quarter (17 of 69, or 25%) 

of Aboriginal juveniles were serving control orders in relation to break and enter offences 

and a further eight (12%) were committed for motor vehicle theft. One Aboriginal detainee 

had been incarcerated for a principal drug offence (figure 11). 

26



Prior record: Only one of the 69 Aboriginal juveniles serving a control order did not have 

a criminal record. In fact, a disturbingly high number (44 of 69, or 64%) of Koori detainees 

had ten or more prior proven offences. The remaining 35% (24 individuals) had previously 

been found guilty of between two and nine prior offences. This would seem to indicate 

that Aboriginal juveniles in detention are amongst the more experienced and recidivist of 

juvenile offenders in custody. (The possible reasons for this trend are discussed in 

section 6.) 

Prior Court Orders: Almost two-thirds (45 of 69, or 65%) of the Aboriginal juvenile 

detainees previously served custodial sentences. Twenty-two of the 45 Koori kids had 

served only one prior term in custody, and 16 had served terms from between two and five 

separate terms. Ten percent of Aboriginal juveniles on control had previously served from 

six to ten separate terms in custody. 

A substantial number of Aboriginal juveniles serving control orders on 13 April 1993 had 

been given alternative penalties to custody for past offences. Just under half (45%) the 

Aboriginal juveniles on control orders previously served a CSO, and 88% had the benefit 

of a supervised order (probation or recognizance) on at least one occasion prior to their 

present committal. 

5. INDO-CHINESE YOUTH IN CUSTODY 

The large and over-represented numbers of Indo-Chinese youth in NSW juvenile justice 

centres in recent years has been perceived as a state specific problem. However, around 

the end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994, Victorian juvenile justice administrators sought 

27


the advice of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice in relation to what they saw as an 

emerging problem with Indo-Chinese young offenders in Melbourne. 8 

Graham’s (1993) analysis of the alarming numbers of Indo-Chinese youth coming before 

the Children’s Court and to the notice of the Department of Juvenile Justice gave some 

thought to the serious repercussions of this problem. In particular, the study identified the 

serious nature of many of the crimes committed by Indo-Chinese young offenders and the 

resultant lengthy custodial sentences that the courts felt a need to impose. 

On 13 April 1993, there were 37 Indo-Chinese juveniles in custody: 14 detained on 

remand and 23 serving custodial sentences. These numbers represent 13% of the 

number of juveniles remanded, and 9% of those in full-time detention, respectively. The 

37 Indo-Chinese juveniles represent in total, 10% of the juvenile justice centre population 

on the day of survey. 

5.1 Indo-Chinese juveniles on remand 

Gender: All of the Indo-Chinese youth remanded on 13 April 1993 are male. 

Age: Only one of the 14 remanded Indo-Chinese juveniles was below 16 years of age at 

the time (he was 14 years of age). Six individuals 3%) were 16 years of age; five were 17 

years of age; and two Indo-Chinese remandees were aged 18 years. This would appear 

to indicate that the Indo-Chinese young offenders who come before the court and are bail 

refused are generally older than non Indo-Chinese juvenile remandees, and much older 

than Aboriginal juveniles placed on remand. 

Offence: Just over one-third (5 of 14, or 36%) of Indo-Chinese remandees were refused 

bail in relation to alleged offences of a non-violent or non-drug related nature. As many 

again (36%) had been allegedly involved in crimes of violence, namely assault 

occasioning actual/grievous bodily harm (1), common assault (2) and armed robbery (2). 

A further four Indo-Chinese juvenile remandees (29%) were awaiting trial in juvenile justice 

centres in relation to drug offences, involving dealing/trafficking (3) and possession/use (1) 

(see figure 12). 

Prior Record: Only one Indo-Chinese remandee does not have a history of past 

offending. Further, only two Indo-Chinese remandees have only one prior proven offence. 

The majority of these remandees have two to five prior proven offences (4 or 29%), six to 

nine prior proven offences (4 or 29%), or ten or more prior proven offences (3 or 21%). 

Prior Court Orders: Only two of the Indo-Chinese remandees had previously served 

time in custody: one individual had served one custodial term; the other had served two 

terms. In general, it could be indicated that Indo-Chinese remandees have not previously 

been favourably considered by the courts in relation to the ordering of non-custodial 

penalties for past offences. Only 36% of Indo-Chinese remandees (as opposed to 67% for 

the whole surveyed remand group) previously received a supervised recognizance or 

probation for an earlier offence. However, a reasonable proportion (29%) had been 

ordered to perform community service work as penalty for an earlier offence. 

8 

Discussions with Victorian representatives of the National Juvenile Justice Sub-committee (13 December 1993 & 7 

January 1994). 

28



5.2 Indo-Chinese juveniles on control orders 

Gender: Male and female Indo-Chinese juveniles serving control orders on 13 April 

1993 number 20 (87%) and three (13%), respectively. 

Age: The proportion of Indo-Chinese youth serving control orders aged 15 years or less 

(26%) is no different to the proportion of under 16 year olds in the general control 

population. Sixteen year olds made up 26% of this group; 17 year olds made up 22%; and 

18 year olds made up 13%. There were also three Indo-Chinese detainees aged 19 years 

or older. The age of Indo-Chinese youth serving control is higher than for the general 

control population. 

Offence: The offence profile of Indo-Chinese youth serving custodial sentences in NSW 

juvenile justice centres is very serious, comprising solely offences relating to drug or 

violent crimes. Two Indo-Chinese young persons were serving sentences for homicide, 

two for armed robbery, two for unarmed robbery and one for malicious injury. 

Seventy percent (70%) of Indo-Chinese youth serving custodial sentences had drug 

crimes as their principal offence, with 12 of the 16 drug offenders serving terms for the 

dealing or trafficking of drugs. Thus, dealing/trafficking drugs represents over 50% of the 

principal offences for Indo-Chinese juvenile offenders serving custodial sentences in NSW 

juvenile justice centres (see figure twelve). 

Prior Record: Over one quarter (26%) of Indo-Chinese juveniles on control had no 

previous proven offences. This perhaps gives indication of the serious nature of the 

offence for which these young persons were committed. Four Indo-Chinese detainees 

(17%) had only one prior proven offence, whereas eight individuals (35%) had two to five 

prior proven offences and five juveniles (22%) had six or more prior proven offences. 

29


Prior Court Orders: More than one in every four (6 of 23, or 26%) Indo-Chinese 

detainees had served time in custody previously, with two of these juveniles having served 

two or more terms. Interestingly, less than ten percent (2 of 23, or 9%), of Indo-Chinese 

detainees previously received a CSO, and fewer than four of every ten (39%) had been 

ordered a supervised probation or recognizance prior to the present committal. Both the 

small percentage of Indo-Chinese detainees with a prior CSO and a prior supervised order 

appear much lower than for the general population on committal. The reduced 

opportunities for receiving a non-custodial sanction is principally a function of the 

seriousness and severity of the prior offences committed by Indo-Chinese juveniles 

presently in custody. 

6. DISCUSSION 

There is little doubt from the current profile, and the one taken a year earlier, that the 

Children’s Court has embraced and firmly applied the principles of diversion, decarceration 

and last resort sentencing. The diversionary model was only able to identify 19 juveniles 

from the total of 367 in juvenile justice centres who were considered suitable for possible 

diversion from custody. 

If one excludes (as the diversionary strategy perhaps should) those targeted juveniles in 

custody in relation to drug offences, only nine young detainees are considered suitable for 

non-custodial sanctions. This number represents only 2.5% of the total juvenile justice 

centre population on the day of survey. In future, the model of diversion adopted in this 

series of studies will recognise the perceived gravity of drug offences by placing them at a 

level of seriousness comparable to offences involving violence. 

Often juvenile offending is considered to be transitory, episodic or circumstantial 

misbehaviour (Visher and Roth, 1986). The profile of juveniles serving control orders 

presents a much darker picture. 

In excess of fifty percent of juveniles in custody are serving time in relation to serious 

violent or drug offences. Furthermore, the majority of these serious offenders have 

escalated their crimes from less serious property and good order offences. Most have 

extensive criminal records with as many as ten or more prior proven offences. In addition, 

most have returned to detention for a second, third, fourth (or more) time. These juveniles 

are not simply chronic offenders, they are chronic entrenched offenders. 

Their level of entrenchment in criminal activity, aggression and violent behaviour, and to a 

life in custody does not auger well for the future of these young people. What action 

remains for the courts to deal with such young persons if they re-offend? What can the 

juvenile justice system offer by way of programs and services to attempt rehabilitation of 

such offenders? And what sort of meaningful life awaits these individuals, as they become 

adults? 

There continues to be inordinately high numbers of young women held on remand relative 

to the numbers of young women serving custodial sentences. Moreover, greater than 

double the expected proportion of girls held on remand are below the age of 16 years. 

This finding, in itself, may lend further support to the claim that: 

Authorities continue to use custody as a means to protect girls from risks 

associated with their lifestyles…(and that) the lack of girl-specific support 

services that can effectively assist troubled girls puts these authorities in a 

position of making one of two poor choices, either neglect or enforced 

containment. (Moore 1993, p.3 & 5). 

30



Yet young women are not the only special needs group over-represented in custody. 

Certain ethnic/cultural groups, notably Aborigines and Indo-Chinese have 

disproportionately large numbers of their youth on remand and serving control orders. 

For many young Aboriginal women in custody, the possibility of ‘protective” reasons for 

their incarceration is probable given that: 

(1) young Aboriginal women charged with assault may have been placed in detention as 

the result of police intervention in a clash between the young women and a family 

member or carer; 

(2) the high levels to which survival strategies appear in the offence profiles of young 

Aboriginal women; 

(3) the number of times that offensive behaviour and language charges are listed 

secondary to more serious violent offences (e.g. where offensive language has 

resulted in the arrest of the young person and further charges of resist arrest and 

assault (police); 

(4) the proportion of young Aboriginal women who first entered secure custody in 

relation to care and protection matters. 

For young Vietnamese women, their over-representation in custody appears to be the 

result of a completely different set of criminogenic factors. Vietnamese girls, unlike their 

Aboriginal counterparts, are not placed in custody for violent crimes, summary offences or 

theft offences. Exclusively, young Vietnamese female offenders are ordered into custody 

for involvement in drug crimes, specifically the supply and/or trafficking of heroin, or the 

lesser charge of possession/use of heroin. While one may not be able to speculate on the 

extent to which Vietnamese juveniles, both males and females are being recruited as drug 

couriers, the likelihood of this unfortunate practice requires sensitive and careful 

consideration by law enforcement officers and crime prevention agencies at the local, 

state and national levels. 

Prostitution is traditionally considered a major reason for the incarceration of young 

women offenders. What is surprising is the limited degree to which prostitution and 

soliciting charges appear in the criminal records of young women currently in juvenile 

justice centres. The profiles of only two girls in custody contained charges for these types 

of offences. This is not to say that many girls in custody have not been involved in 

prostitution at one time or another, but rather that the accuracy of information obtained by 

way of anecdote and self report techniques needs to be considered before definitive 

statements on the characteristics of young women in custody, and their treatment (or 

mistreatment) by the juvenile justice system, are made. 

The over-representation of Aborigines in juvenile detention continues to plague this state. 

However, it is far from a problem specific to NSW. Atkinson (1993) reveals that at the end 

of 1992, the percentage of Aboriginal juveniles detained in the states of South Australia 

(37.5%), Queensland (50.5%), Western Australia (61.5%) and the Northern Territory 

(82.3%) exceeded the percentage of Aboriginal juvenile detainees in NSW (22.3%). 

However, only South Australia and Western Australia have rates of incarceration of 

Aboriginal juveniles higher than NSW. 

A most concerning aspect of the over-representation of Aboriginal juveniles in custody is 

the proportion of Koori kids below the age of 16 years on remand. Just under half of all 

the Aboriginal children on remand are 10 to 15 years of age. It may be demonstrated that 

the offence profile of Aboriginal juveniles refused bail is no more serious than for non- 

Aboriginal juveniles refused bail but, in terms of number of prior proven offences and 

number of times previously in custody, Aboriginal young people are amongst the most 

experienced and recidivist of juvenile offenders in custody. 

31


Such over-representation is likely to be the result of a number of factors insidious to the 

justice system, including the over policing of Aboriginal young people and their harsher 

treatment by the courts. Luke and Cunneen’s (1992) examination of the treatment of 

Aboriginal children by the juvenile justice system identified as number of pervasive 

discriminatory practices including that Aboriginal children were significantly more likely to 

be: 

(1) prosecuted instead of cautioned (95% compared with 87% for non-Aboriginal 

children); 

(2) charged rather than given a court attendance notice (73% vs. 68%); 

(3) refused bail (13% vs. 9%) 

Luke and Cunneen (1992) noted that such differential treatment was observed even when 

only first offenders were considered and offence type controlled. The difference was 

observed as being larger for Aboriginal children from country areas of NSW. The authors 

saw discriminatory practice at the police level as the first cause but stressed that “its 

compounding effect over time may be very powerful”. 

A study of Aboriginal youth and the criminal justice system by Gale, Bailey-Harris and 

Wundersitz (1990) identified that police discrimination at the pre-arrest stage strongly 

influenced charge and arrest patterns, and that the effect of these hidden discriminatory 

practices increased the chances of Aboriginal young people being brought before the 

court. 

Cunneen and Robb (1987) also considered “over policing” an explanation for the overrepresentation 

of Aborigines in the justice system: 

“Aboriginal people are policed in a way different from, and at a level higher than 

that for non-Aboriginal people”. 

This study also concluded that the socio-economic conditions of the Aboriginal people is a 

likely factor in the “higher rate of commission of offences by Aboriginal people (p220)”. 

The idea of differential offending (arising from social disadvantage) versus differential 

enforcement is not new, yet has only been explored over recent years in relation to 

Aborigines and other minority groups (for examples, see Kids in Justice Report 1990; 

Galet et al, 1990; and Devery 1991). 

The Indo-Chinese people in Australia are noteworthy as an ethnic/cultural group who have 

suffered greatly in terms of economic, social and cultural hardships. Many Indo-Chinese 

young people, their parents and families have come to Australia as refugees from war-torn 

homelands; many arrived with little or no money, valuables or possessions; and their 

native language (i.e. Vietnamese, Khmer or Laotian) provides additional barriers to stable 

employment and social and welfare support. 

Economic “necessity” may be the reason why so many Indo-Chinese juveniles have 

become involved in drug trafficking. Yet the reasons for the high profile of Indo-Chinese 

young persons in such crimes have never been explored. Regardless of the reasons, the 

rapid and significant increase in the numbers of Indo-Chinese young people coming before 

the courts in relation to serious drug charges is placing enormous pressure on the juvenile 

justice system to deal effectively with such offenders. While stories of over-zealous police 

work of Indo-Chinese youth in the Cabramatta, Fairfield and Marrickville areas, as well as 

in Kings Cross, may or may not be founded, the arrest and incarceration of Indo-Chinese 

juveniles carrying drugs is not effectively eliminating the larger problems of drug 

32



importation, supply and trafficking, or the preference to use juveniles to courier and sell 

illegal drugs because of the reduced penalties that juveniles receive for these offences. 

For the Department of Juvenile Justice, the large and increasing numbers of Indo-Chinese 

young persons convicted of drug charges and being ordered into NSW juvenile justice 

centres has created a multitude of problems. These problems principally arise in relation 

to: 

(1) the extremely long terms that Indo-Chinese young offenders are ordered to 

serve; 

(2) the lack of familiarity of staff with the language, culture and traditions of the 

Indo-Chinese peoples; 

(3) the alienation of the Indo-Chinese young offender by his/her parents, family 

and community. 

(4) the appropriateness of western models of counselling and intervention for Indo- 

Chinese young people. 

Whereas a number of flexible, innovative and culturally appropriate strategies for dealing 

with the Indo-Chinese client group have been developed and implemented (Graham 

1993), there is little doubt that the Department of Juvenile Justice and other players in the 

juvenile justice system must continue to seek ways of preventing the entry and re-entry of 

certain socially disadvantaged groups of young persons, including Indo-Chinese youth, 

into the justice system. 

Until solutions are found, the system of juvenile justice in New South Wales will continue 

to let down young persons from socially and economically disadvantaged and special 

needs groups. In particular, young women, Aboriginal youth and Indo-Chinese youth will 

continue to be subject to the uncorrected discretion of authorities, resulting in the 

persistent over-representation of these groups in the juvenile justice system and in juvenile 

detention. This, unfortunately, is likely to result in the exacerbation of the social, cultural, 

economic and personal factors which brought these juveniles into contact with the law in 

the first place. 

33

REFERENCES 


Australian Bureau of Statistics, (1993). New South Wales’ Young People. National Youth 

Affairs Research Scheme and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 4123.1. 

Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Atkinson, L. (1993). An Overview of Juvenile Detention In Australia. Paper presented at 

National Conference on Juvenile Detention, 9-13 August 1993, Darwin. 

Bargen, J. (1993). In need of Care: Delinquent Young Women in a Delinquent System. 

Paper presented at National Conference on Juvenile Detention, 9-13 August 1993, 

Darwin. 

Cain, M. (1993). Juveniles in Detention: A model for diversion. Information and Evaluation 

Series No.2. Sydney: Department of Juvenile Justice. 

Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Girls in jail. Crime and Delinquency, 24 (2): 150-168. 

Conklin, J. (1981). Criminology. New York: Macmillan. 

Cunneen, C. & Robb, T. (1987). Criminal Justice in North West NSW. Sydney: NSW 

Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 

Devery, C. (1991). Disadvantage and Crime in NSW. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime 

Statistics and Research. 

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Long-Term prediction of offending and other life outcomes. In H. 

Wegner, F. Losel & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal Behaviour and the Justice System. New 

York: Springer-Verlag. 

Gale, F., Bailey-Harris, J., Wundersitz, J. (1990). Aboriginal youth and the criminal justice 

system: The injustice of justice? Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 

Graham, I. (1993). Managing cultural diversity: The NSW experience. Paper presented at 

National Conference on Juvenile Detention, 9-13 August 1993, Darwin. 

Luke, G. & Cunneen, C. (1992). Aboriginal juveniles and the juvenile justice system in 

NSW. Paper presented at National Conference on Juvenile Justice, 22-24 September 

1992, Adelaide. 

NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, (1994). Information Package for 1992/93. Sydney: 

Policy, Research & Evaluation Unit, Department of Juvenile Justice. 

NSW Parliament Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, (1992). 

Juvenile Justice in NSW. Report published May 1992. 

Minium, E. W. (1978). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education, Second Edition. 

New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Moore, L. (1993). Alternatives to secure detention for girls. Paper presented at National 

Conference on Juvenile Detention, 9-13 August 1993, Darwin. 

Nguyen da Huong, M. & Salmelainen, P. (1992). Family, acquaintance and stranger 

homicide in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 

34



Visher, C. A. & Roth, J. A. (1986). Participation in criminal careers. In A. Blumstein, J. 

Cohen, J. A. Roth & C.A. Visher (Eds.), Criminal Careers and Career Criminals, volume 

one. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 

Wallace, A. (1986). Homicide: The social reality. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics 

and Research. 

White, R. (1994). The making of a youth underclass. Youth Studies Australia, 13(1): 19-23. 

Youth Justice Coalition, (1990). Kids in Justice: A Blueprint for the 90s. Full Report of the 

Youth Justice Project. Sydney: Youth Justice Coalition. 

. 

35



1

juveniles in detention special needs groups - the NSW Juvenile ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?