nacro 2008

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 2008Youth Crime briefingThe dangerousness provisions forchildren and young people followingimplementation of the Criminal Justiceand Immigration Act 2008Contents• Introduction page 1• Criteria for determiningwhether the dangerousnessprovisions apply page 2• Sentences fordangerousness page 2• The ‘dangerousness’determination page 3• Procedure in the youthcourt page 4• Availability of programmes incustody page 5• Some implications forpractice page 5• Conclusion page 8Youth Crime mailingsIf you do not already subscribe,contact Nacro Youth Crimeabout our quarterly mailing ofbriefings. Thanks to a generousdonation from the HowardLeague, we offer a freesubscription with each paid forsubscription – spreading theword about youth justice.Nacro Youth Crime: training,consultancy, research and informationPark Place, 10-12 Lawn LaneLondon SW8 1UDtel: 020 7840 1203fax: 020 7840 1213email: youth.crime@nacro.org.ukwww.nacro.org.ukNacro is a registered charity. Registration no. 226171.Nacro Youth Crime briefings areproduced in partnership with theHoward League for Penal Reform.Contact www.howardleague.orgIntroductionThe Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA)introduced new custodial sentencesintended to enhance publicprotection from defendantsconsidered ‘dangerous’. Thesentences are available where thedefendant is convicted of a sexual orviolent offence specified in schedule15 to the Act (known as a ‘specified’offence) and he or she is assessed bythe court to be ‘dangerous’. While theprovisions apply to all offenders,there are important differenceswhere the defendant is below the ageof 18 years. In determining whetherthe adult or youth provisions apply,the relevant age is that at the pointof conviction. 1The Criminal Justice and ImmigrationAct 2008 (CJIA) introduces a numberof important amendments to thedangerousness provisions. Thesewere implemented on 14 July 2008and apply to cases sentenced afterthat date. The changes are likely toreduce the number of children andyoung people sentenced as‘dangerous’ and might reasonably beinterpreted as an acknowledgementby the government that the criteriaestablished by the CJA were notsufficiently restrictive. Certainly, thenumber of young people sentencedunder the dangerousness provisionshas far exceeded the government’sprojections, as the figures given latermake clear.The current briefing paper detailsthe statutory provisions as theyapply to children and young peoplefollowing the implementation of theCJIA. It outlines, too, someimplications for practice, taking intoaccount the revised criteria. Thepaper accordingly provides readerswith a ‘single source’ of referenceand thus replaces, rather thansupplements, earlier briefings onthe same subject. 2The sentences introduced by the CJAare those available under:a) Section 228 – an extendedsentence comprising a custodialterm followed by extendedsupervision in the communityb) Section 226(3) – detention forpublic protection (DPP), anindeterminate sentencec) Section 226(2) – a life sentenceunder s91 of the Powers of theCriminal Court (Sentencing) Act2000 (PCC(S)A).The custodial powers of the youthcourt are restricted to imposing adetention and training order (DTO)with a maximum length of two years.As with other disposals that involve alonger term of detention, 3 sentencesfor dangerousness are only availableto the crown court. Nonetheless, allcases involving children and youngpeople commence in the youth court(or in the adult magistrates’ courtwhere there is a co-accused adult).The lower court will accordingly berequired to take a view as to whetherthe young person should be tried orsentenced in the crown court in casesinvolving ‘specified’ offences thatcome before it, in accordance withthe criteria outlined in the relevantsection of the briefing.Do you need this briefing in another format?Tel: 020 7840 1203

The dangerousness provisions for children and young peopleCriteria for determining whether thedangerousness provisions applyOffences for which the sentences areavailableSentencing for dangerousness is only available foroffences ‘specified’ in schedule 15 to the CJA, 4 whichcontains 153 violent or sexual offences that carry amaximum custodial sentence of two years or more inthe case of an adult. While there is an overlap betweenspecified offences and ‘grave crimes’ which can lead to asentence of long term detention under s91 of the PCC(S)A), the two lists of offences are not identical. 5 Inparticular there are a significant number of specifiedoffences, such as affray and actual bodily harm, whichcould not qualify as a grave crime. 6‘Serious specified’ offences are a sub-set of specifiedoffences that carry a maximum sentence of 10 years ormore in the case of an adult. Whether a specified offenceis ‘a serious specified offence’ or not, is relevant todetermining which sentences are available to the court.Young people to whom the provisions mayapplyA sentence for dangerousness can only be imposed on ayoung person if the court is of the opinion that he orshe is ‘dangerous’, defined as representing a ‘significantrisk to members of the public of serious harm occasionedby the commission by him of further specified offences’.Serious harm is, in turn, defined as meaning ‘…death orserious personal injury, whether physical orpsychological.’ 7There is no comparable statutory definition for‘significant risk’. However case law has determined thatthe court must find both that:a) there is a significant risk of the young personcommitting a further specified offence/s andb) there is a significant risk that the commission of thatoffence/s will cause serious harm to members of thepublic. 8In coming to a view, the court does not simply considerthe risk of a repetition of the behaviour similar to thatinvolved in the current case. It must also take intoaccount the likelihood of any future specified offence.For example, when dealing with a a ‘serious specified’offence, the court has to consider the likelihood ofserious harm that may be caused by a future nonseriousspecified offence, and vice versa.This assessment of ‘dangerousness’ is a ‘judgement ofthe court’. In this respect it is akin to the decisions madewhen a court decides that a 12 –14-year-old is apersistent offender or that a 15 or 16-year-old boyshould be deemed vulnerable for remand purposes. As aconsequence, there is considerable scope for the courtto exercise discretion, although case law provides aframework within which such discretion is to be used.The seriousness of the young person’soffendingPrior to implementation of the CJIA, the dangerousnessprovisions applied automatically where a young persondeemed by the court to be dangerous was convicted of aspecified offence. However that Act introduces a thirdcriterion related to the seriousness of the offending andthe minimum custodial term that would be appropriate.Following implementation of the revised provisions,sentencing for dangerousness is only available wherethe court considers it appropriate that the young personshould spend at least two years within a custodialestablishment; if the offending is not sufficientlyserious to warrant a minimum of two years detention,the court must impose a sentence other than one fordangerousness. As described in the following section ofthe briefing, this consistent principle is manifested indifferent ways in practice because arrangements forrelease vary according to the disposal underconsideration. 9Sentences for dangerousnessWhere the criteria described in the previous sectionapply, the range of sentences available depends uponwhether the matter before the court is a ‘seriousspecified offence’ (that is a specified offence that carriesten year or more custody in the case of an adult).‘Serious specified offences’ with amaximum penalty of life imprisonmentWhere the specified offence carries life imprisonment inthe case of an adult, and the court considers that:‘the seriousness of the offence, or of the offence andone or more offences associated with it, is such as tojustify the imposition of a sentence of detention forlife’then it must impose a sentence of life sentence undersection 91 of the PCS(S)A.The court is required to specify a minimum period, or‘tariff’, that must be spent in custody. Once the tariff isserved, the young person can apply to the Parole Boardfor release on licence. He or she will remain subject tothat licence indefinitely. 10The majority of cases involving offences that carry apotential life sentence will not however justify theimposition of such a penalty and the court can impose arange of other disposals as indicated below.Other ‘serious specified offences’Where the court is sentencing a ‘serious specified’offence that does not carry a life sentence, or wherecustody for life is not warranted, the court may imposedetention for public protection under section 226 of theCJA, but only if other available forms of sentencingwould not be adequate to protect the public. 11Amendments in the CJIA preclude the making of such anorder, however, unless the appropriate tariff would be aminimum of two years. (Prior to implementation of thepage 2

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGAct, there was no requirement for a minimum custodialterm.) DPP is an indeterminate penalty that for mostpractical purposes is similar to a life sentence. The courtsets a tariff that has to be served in custody, after whichapplication can be made to the Parole Board for releaseon licence. Unlike an individual subject to a lifesentence, someone sentenced to DPP can makeapplication for revocation of the licence 10 years afterhis or her return to the community, with the decisionbeing at the discretion of the Parole Board.If the matter before the court is a ‘serious specified’offence, and the minimum appropriate custodial termwould be four years or more, the court may also imposean extended sentence. (Prior to implementation of theCJIA, the minimum custodial period was 12 months.)The maximum permitted sentence is that available inthe case of an adult for the particular offence. Postrelease, the young person will be subject to a period ofextended supervision, set by court, of up to five yearsfor a violent offence and eight years for a sexualoffence.The CJIA amends the arrangements for early release inrespect of extended sentences and provides that theyoung person is automatically released at the mid pointof the custodial period. 12 (It is this provision forautomatic release that explains why the minimum tarifffor DPP is half the minimum custodial term under anextended sentence.) There is no provision for earlyrelease prior to the half way point; in particular, homedetention curfew is not available for those serving anextended sentence. 13It is important to note that, when originally introduced,sentences for dangerousness were mandatory: if therelevant criteria applied, the court was obliged toimpose a sentence for public protection. Followingimplementation of the CJIA, providing the offence is notone that warrants detention for life as described above,that is no longer so. Even if the court considers that ayoung person, convicted of a specified offence, poses asignificant risk of serious harm to the public, and thatthe offence is sufficiently serious to warrant a minimumperiod of two years to be served in custody, it is notbound to impose DPP or an extended sentence. The useof the powers is discretionary and other custodialorders, and non-custodial penalties, remain available.Non-serious specified offencesWhere the matter before the court is a specified offence,but is not a serious specified offence, DPP is notavailable. The court may impose an extended sentenceprovided that the relevant criteria are satisfied. Thepower is a discretionary one and other disposals areavailable notwithstanding that the young person hasbeen assessed as ‘dangerous’.The ‘dangerousness’ determinationThe CJA identifies the nature of the information that thecourt should consider in determining whether the youngperson should be assessed as dangerous. It:• must take account of all information available aboutthe nature and circumstances of the offence• may take account of any information about anypattern of behaviour of which the current offenceforms part• may take into account any information about thechild or young person before the court.The CJIA adds a further consideration. The court:• may also take into account all such information as isavailable about the nature and circumstances of anyother offences of which the child or young personhas been convicted by a court anywhere in the world.Under the original provisions, there was a presumption,applying to adults alone, that the defendant would beassessed as dangerous if he or she had a previousconviction for a specified offence unless the courtconsidered that it would be unreasonable to do so.While this did not impact directly on children below theage of 18 years, a conviction for a specified offenceacquired as a child would lead to a presumption ofdangerousness where he or she was subsequentlyconvicted as an adult for a further specified offence.Following implementation of the CJIA, the presumptionof dangerousness is abolished. For all defendants, thecourt starts from a ‘neutral’ position and mustundertake an independent assessment each time anindividual is to be sentenced for a ‘specified’ offence.Principles for determining ‘dangerousness’A number of cases have given guidance on theapplication of the ‘dangerousness’ provisions. Keyamong these is R v Lang and others, in which the Courtof Appeal reviewed 13 cases. 14 For children below theage of 18 years, the principles established in that casecan be summarised as follows:1. The risk identified must be ‘significant’, meaning‘noteworthy, of considerable amount or importance’2. The court should take into account characteristics ofcurrent and previous offences, any pattern ofbehaviour, responses to previous disposals, andsocial factors such as: accommodation;employability; education; associates; substancemisuse; and the young person’s attitudes andemotional state3. The fact that the court assesses that a further‘serious specified’ offence is likely does notautomatically mean that the young person should beconsidered dangerous. The court might, forinstance, find that there is a considerable risk thatfurther specified offences will be committed, butthat there is nonetheless not a ‘significant risk ofserious harm’. The risk of serious harm might not besignificant, or there may be a significant risk but notof serious harm 154. A pre-sentence report (PSR) should usually beobtained before passing sentence. Where mentalhealth issues are indicated, a medical report may benecessary before risk can be properly assessed5. If the court considers that there is a significant riskthat a child or young person will commit furtherspecified offences, but these are unlikely to bepage 3

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFING1. It is Parliament’s policy that defendants below theage of 18 years should, wherever possible, be tried ina youth court, which is best designed to meet theirspecific needs2. The court should have regard to the finding inR v Lang that a significant risk of non-seriousspecified offences is unlikely to warrant theimposition of a sentence for dangerousness 233. The court should be particularly rigorous beforeconcluding that a child or young person poses asignificant risk of serious harm by the commission offurther offences. It would rarely be appropriate toreach this conclusion in the absence of a PSR4. A decision to commit a young person to crown courton the basis that he or she might be assessed as‘dangerousness’ in cases involving non-seriousspecified offences is only appropriate after conviction,when the court will have access to a PSR5. Where a youth is jointly charged with an adult, themagistrates’ court will have to make a judgementbetween the competing presumptions of joint trial ofco-accused and that the young person should betried in the youth court, taking account of factorssuch as age and maturity, comparative culpability,previous convictions and whether severance wouldinvolve injustice or undue inconvenience towitnesses.The preferred option of the higher court is accordinglyfor the decision as to jurisdiction to be taken after trialin the youth court, and with the benefit of a PSR.However, if the youth court refuses jurisdiction prior totrial on the basis of the grave crime provisions, ratherthan those relating to dangerousness, the lower courtmight, at that time, also express a view on whether theyoung person represents a significant risk of seriousharm if the matter is a specified offence. 24Although the issue has yet to be considered by thecourts, it seems reasonable to assume that since –following implementation of the CJIA – a sentence fordangerousness is only available in cases where aminimum of two years in custody is warranted, theyouth court should accept jurisdiction in casesinvolving specified offences, even if it considers that theyoung person might be legitimately be assessed asdangerous, unless such a custodial sentence is likely tobe appropriateAvailability of programmes incustodyYoung people subject to DPP will only be released at theexpiry of their tariff if the Parole Board is satisfied that‘the risk that they pose to the public is sufficiently low toallow a safe return to the community’. In Secretary ofState for Justice v Walker, a case where an indeterminatesentence had been imposed for offences of a sexualnature, the Court of Appeal noted that the prisoner hadhad no access to ‘any meaningful programme, course orwork of that kind, such as might enable him todemonstrate’ the necessary reduction in risk to theParole Board. 25 The Court decided that it was a ‘premiseof the legislation’ that appropriate programmes wereavailable within the custodial estate to allow thosesubject to indeterminate sentences to demonstrate thatthey were no longer dangerous. The Secretary of Statehad failed to ensure that such programmes wereavailable, although that failure did not make continueddetention after expiry of the tariff unlawful.Some implications for practiceRelevant Youth Justice Board guidanceThe Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) guidance on thedangerousness provisions was published in 2006 andwill need substantial revision to accommodate thechanges in CJIA. 26 It is understood from the YJB this is‘in hand’. The Board’s guidance dealing with earlyrelease arrangements for sentences of dangerousnesswas published in 2007 and will also require revision indue course. 27Current national standards predate the introduction ofsentencing for public protection and accordingly do notspecifically take account of DPP or extended sentences.It is however reasonable to assume that standard 12,which deals with orders imposed under sections 90/91of PCC(S)A is also applicable to disposals under sections226 and 228 of the CJA.Revised national standards are to be introduced during2009 in line with the anticipated ‘roll out’ of the youthrehabilitation order. 28 The revision will provide anopportunity for standards to deal specifically withsentences imposed on young people deemed to bedangerous.The relationship of Asset assessment tothe determination of dangerousnessAsset guidance defines ‘serious harm’ as:death or injury (either physical or psychological)which is life threatening and / or traumatic and fromwhich recovery is expected to be difficult, incompleteor impossible.The definition bears an obvious similarity to thestatutory definition – death or serious injury, whetherphysical or psychological – of serious harm for thepurposes of assessing ‘dangerousness’. There is howevera distinction in the level of injury required to satisfy thelatter since any injury must be serious. Perhaps moreimportantly, whereas Asset uses the classification ‘high’or ‘very high’ risk, the court must be satisfied that therisk is ‘significant’ in order to deem the defendant to bedangerous.It does not therefore follow that an Asset assessment ofvery high risk will automatically lead to an assessmentof dangerousness, particularly if an appropriate riskmanagement plan is in place. The YJB’s guidanceconfirms that:• it would be very rare for a young person to beconsidered dangerous if he or she had not beenassessed (through Asset) as being a very high risk ofserious harm to others;page 5

The dangerousness provisions for children and young people• even where the young person is assessed as posing avery high risk, an assessment of dangerousnessshould be the exception rather than the rule.This position has subsequently been endorsed by theSentencing Guidelines Council. 29Pre-sentence reportsThe YJB guidance proposes that PSRs written in casesinvolving specified offences should indicate that:The offence is a specified offence under schedule 15of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [if also a seriousoffence add ‘the offence is also considered to be aserious offence as defined by section 224 of the Act’].In making an assessment of dangerous, the courtmay wish to consider the following information…This confirms that the ownership of the assessment of‘dangerousness’ lies with the court, and that the author’srole is to provide relevant information to assist thatdecision. The guidance also quite properly drawspractitioners’ attention to the need to deal withprotective factors as well as identifying indicators ofrisk.It is nonetheless unclear when PSRs should address theissue of dangerousness. The amendments to theprovisions make that question a more complex one still.In general terms, where the case is being sentenced inthe crown court, the report author should assume thatthe issue of dangerousness will arise, whether or not thecourt has indicated that to be the case. In the youthcourt, good practice is arguably served by addressingdangerousness only where:• the court has requested it, or• the author of the report considers that there arespecific factors associated with the case that make itdesirable to do so.It appears that some youth courts anticipate that thereshould be an assessment relevant to dangerousness inall reports for specified offences. Given that theamendments considered in this briefing further restrictthe circumstances in which sentencing fordangerousness is appropriate, YOTs may wish to seek anaccommodation with local youth courts that aconviction for a specified offence should not,automatically require a consideration of factors relevantto dangerousness in the PSR.As noted above, the CJIA permits the use of disposalsother than sentences for public protection in casesinvolving specified offences, even where the youngperson is assessed as representing a significant risk ofserious harm to the public. As a consequence, PSRauthors are no longer required to accept that anassessment of dangerousness will inevitably lead to asentence for public protection. Reports prepared for thecrown court should address other potential custodialoptions, including a DTO where that is a realisticoutcome. In principle, there is also nothing to precludea non-custodial sentence. However, given that a DPP oran extended sentence is only available if the courtconsiders that a period in custody of more than twoyears is warranted, there would need to be exceptionalcircumstances to justify a community penalty.Nonetheless, where a good case can be made for anoutcome, it will be important that the PSR argues forsuch a course.Any such proposal in a PSR will naturally have to beunderpinned by a well constructed rationale for therecommended disposal. The report will need to providea comprehensive account of plans to manage assessedrisk in the community, indicating how risk would bereduced and protective factors promoted. Frequency ofcontact, the nature of intervention, review procedures,and contingency plans – in the event that risk increases– should be detailed as a matter of course.Sentence planningGiven the requirement that young people subject to DPPshould be given the opportunity to demonstrate to theParole Board that they are no longer dangerous, it isimportant that sentence planning meetings makeprovision to provide that opportunity. In the event thatrelevant programmes are not available within theparticular establishment, YOT staff should record thelack of appropriate provision and to bring it to theattention of the YJB’s Placement and Casework Serviceteam so that consideration might be given to effectingtransfer to an establishment with the appropriateresources.Release and recall provisionsAs noted above, the CJIA amends the early releaseprovisions for extended sentences, so that release at thehalfway stage on licence is automatic, rather than at thediscretion of the Parole Board. However, the Boardretains a role: where the young person is recalled tocustody, that decision is subject to confirmation by theParole Board. Following recall, the young person is liableto remain in detention until the end of the sentence, andcan only be re-released with the approval of the ParoleBoard.Case law has established that for extended sentences,the extended supervision period starts after the end ofthe full custodial term imposed by the court, not at thehalf way point of the custodial term when the youngperson is released into the community. 30For DPP, and life sentences under section 91, the ParoleBoard determines whether the young person should bereleased once the tariff has expired. YJB guidance onrelease and recall contains a detailed timetable forapplications to the Parole Board applications, derivedfrom Prison Service Order 6000, and shown in the tableoverleaf. 31Report templates and guidance for parole applicationsare available on the YJB website. 32By default, an individual given DPP is subject to licenceconditions indefinitely following release. However he orshe can apply to the Parole Board to have the licencereviewed after ten years in the community, and if theapplication is not successful, yearly from that point on.page 6

YOUTH CRIME BRIEFINGTimetable of action required by the YOT in relation to young people sentenced to DDP or lifesentence under section 91Continual actionContact with youngperson (as requiredby NationalStandards);Updating of Asset atrequired intervalsTime before earliestpotential release dateSix – three monthsBy 23 weeksBy 20 weeksBy 17 weeksThree months – six weeksBy 12 weeksTwelve – zero weeksActionIf the young person is MAPPA level 3: YOT worker toconsult MAPPA re licence conditions and releasearrangementsYOT worker contacts probation victim liaison officerYOT worker interviews young personYOT sends parole report to secure establishmentIf young person MAPPA level 2: YOT worker consultsinteragency risk management panel re. licenceconditions and release arrangementsSecure establishment sends parole dossier to ParoleBoardParole Board assesses whether the young person shouldbe releasedYoung person’s earliest release dateThis distinguishes DPP from a life sentence undersection 91, where there is no equivalent right to applyfor revocation of the licence.Assessedlevel ofriskArrangements for managing riskposed by the young person‘Dangerousness’ and Multi-Agency PublicProtection ArrangementsMulti-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA)were introduced by the Criminal Justice and CourtServices Act 2000 to improve public protection fromoffenders assessed as presenting a risk of seriousharm. Responsibility for the arrangements liesprimarily with the Police, Probation Service, and PrisonService, but the CJA placed a duty on range of agencies,including YOTs, to co-operate with these ‘responsibleauthorities’.Young people should be referred to MAPPA if they fallwithin one of the categories shown in the table below.Criteria for MAPPA referralCategory1Category2Category3Young people subject to the notificationrequirements of the Sexual Offences Act2003 33Young people convicted of a violent orsexual offence and sentenced to 12months custody or moreAny other child / young person aboutwhom there exist concerns over thesafety of othersThe management arrangements for person referred toMAPPA in relation to any of the referral categories,depend upon the level of assessed risk, outlined in thetable below.Level 1Level 2Level 3Managed by the YOT through normalsupervision procedures per NationalStandards although there may beadditional information exchange asappropriateManaged by an interagency riskapproach, where the active involvementof more than one agency is required toproduce a co-ordinated riskmanagement planManaged through the full Multi-AgencyPublic Protection Panel – reserved forthe ‘critical few’Prior to implementation of the CJIA, almost every casein which a court had assessed a young person asdangerous would have resulted in MAPPA referral sinceDPP or an extended sentence would generally haverequired a Category 2 referral. 34 However, the CJIAintroduces the possibility that a young person deemeddangerous by the court, might receive a DTO of lessthan 12 months, or, in exceptional circumstances, acommunity penalty. In that event, he or she would notqualify for referral either under category 1 or 2. Insuch cases, consideration should be given to whether areferral under category 3 would be appropriate. Whilethe finding of the court that the young personconstitutes a significant risk of serious harm will oftenbe sufficient to satisfy the criterion for such a referral,this should not be an automatic, ‘default’, response.Rather there should be an active decision as to theappropriateness of referral, involving an independentassessment by the YOT of the potential risk to thepublic.page 7

The dangerousness provisions for children and young peopleConclusionThe CJIA makes substantial changes to the provisionsfor sentencing young people convicted of specifiedoffences and YOTs will be required to amend theirpractice accordingly. The revisions are likely to resultin a reduction in the number of sentences for publicprotection imposed. That is to be welcomed since theuse of such sentences to date has exceeded, by someway, government projections prior to theirintroduction. In March 2003, Hilary Benn, thenresponsible Home Office Minister, predicted thattwelve young people per annum would be sentencedunder the dangerousness provisions. 35 However, in theyear 2006/07, 102 young people were subject tosentences for dangerousness. 36 The use of DPP and s91life sentences more than doubled over the previoustwelve month period. 37The anticipated reduction in the use of such sentenceswill serve to reduce some of the pressure on thejuvenile secure estate. Nonetheless, the lengthy licenceperiods associated with DPP and extended sentencesinevitably carry a potential for increasing theproportion of young people detained in the secureestate by reason of breach of licence conditions.Ensuring the engagement of young people subject tosupervision in the community to reduce the risk ofrecall will present practitioners with fresh challenges.References1 R v Robson [2006] EWCA Crim 14142 The earlier briefings were: Nacro (2005) Dangerousnessand the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Youth crime briefing,June 2005 and Nacro (2006) The dangerousnessprovisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 andsubsequent case law, Youth crime briefing, December20063 A detailed overview of other long term sentences forchildren below the age of 18 years can be found inNacro (2007) Grave crimes, mode of trial and long termdetention, Youth crime briefing, December 20074 Schedule 15 contains specified offences in England andWales. Schedules 16 & 17 enabled the court to take intoaccount equivalent offences resulting in conviction inthe Scottish and Northern Irish jurisdictionsrespectively. The latter two schedules were deleted bythe CJIA since it allows courts to consider offencescommitted anywhere in the world in determiningwhether a defendant should be assessed as dangerous5 See Nacro (2007) op cit6 While there is again considerable overlap, specifiedoffences are also not identical to ‘violent’ and ‘sexual’offences as defined in section 161 of the PCC(S)A forthe purposes of extended post custody supervisionunder that earlier legislation7 Section s224(3)of the CJA8 Notably R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864. The case isdiscussed in greater detail below9 It should be noted that the situation for adultsfollowing implementation of the CJIA is slightlydifferent. A sentence for dangerousness may beavailable – even in circumstances where a custodialterm of less than two years is warranted – if thedefendant has a previous conviction for an offencelisted in schedule 15A to the CJA. The schedule –inserted into Act by the CJIA – contains a smallersubset of ‘serious specified offences’10 Further details of sentencing under section 91, forspecified and other ‘grave’ offences, are given in Nacro(2007) op cit11 R v B [2008] EWCA Crim 83212 Prior to implementation of the CJIA, the young personwas eligible for release at the half way point, but onlyat the discretion of the Parole Board13 Youth Justice Board (2006) Criminal Justice Act 2003,‘dangerousness’ and the new sentences for publicprotection, YJB14 R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 286415 The judgement gives the example, at para 17(iii), ofrobbery as an offence which, although serious, couldbe committed ‘… in a wide variety of ways, many ofwhich did not give rise to a significant risk of seriousharm…’16 Sentencing Guidelines Council (2008) Dangerousoffenders: guidance for sentencers and practitioners,Sentencing Guidelines Council17 R v Atkinson [2006] EWCA Crim 21218 R v Hudson [2006] EWCA Crim 74019 R v Forsythe [2006] EWCA Crim 89820 Imprisonment for public protection is the adultequivalent of DPP21 R v Robson [2006] EWCA Crim 141422 Crown Prosecution Service v South East Surrey YouthCourt & Ghanbari (Interested party) [2005] EWHC 2929(Admin)23 See discussion of R v Lang [2005] above24 For an overview of offences to which the grave crimeprocedures apply and a discussion of the interaction ofthose procedures and the dangerousness provisions atthe point where jurisdiction is determined, see Nacro(2007) op cit25 Secretary of State for Justice v Walker [2008] EWCA Civ30. The case involved an adult sentenced toimprisonment for public protection but the principlesapply equally to DPP26 Youth Justice Board (2006) Criminal Justice Act 2003,’dangerousness’ and the new sentences for publicprotection, YJB27 Youth Justice Board (2007) Release and recall: guidancefor youth offending teams, YJB28 The youth rehabilitation order, introduced by the CJIA,will replace all existing community sentences with asingle order29 Sentencing Guidelines Council (2008) op cit30 R v S [2005] EWCA Crim 361631 Youth Justice Board (2007) op cit32 Available at www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/courtsandorders/releaseandrecall33 The registration requirements for children below theage of 18 years differ significantly to those pertainingto adults. For details, see Nacro (2004) Sexual OffencesAct 2003: young people and the notificationrequirements, Youth crime briefing, September 200434 There may have been a small number of cases of DPPwith a tariff of less than a 12 months so that a category2 referral was not required, but such cases would havebeen exceptional35 Hansard, House of Commons 18th March 2003: Column705W36 Youth Justice Board (2008) Youth justice work load data2006/7, YJB37 Ibidpage 8