While there has been much focus on a revolving door system for adult criminals, there appears to be a "no door" system for child offenders who cannot be put in remand centres because there are no places available, a High Court judge has said. Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the juvenile criminal justice system was in "a state of chaos", with State-run remand centres daily having to turn away children referred to them by the courts.
This situation had serious implications for the public's life and limb and property because young offenders who should be in detention were not.
It also had implications for the administration of justice because the courts, which had "no sword or purse", depended on other organs of government to play their part so court orders could be effectively made. The situation was "wholly undesirable and lamentable" and it was difficult to find an excuse for the "chaotic state" of the juvenile justice system. Mr Justice Kelly was dealing with the situation of a 16-year-old out of control and vulnerable boy whom the judge sent last week to St Patrick's Institution as there was no suitable place for him.
This week the Eastern Health Board told the court it could not "wave a magic wand" to find a more appropriate place before a new centre at Ballydowd, Lucan, opened in a year's time.
The judge also heard evidence from the supervisory social worker dealing with the boy, the deputy governor of St Patrick's and child remand centre staff.
In his decision yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said this boy had frequently been before the court, which sought to address his welfare while the statutory regime appeared incapable of doing so.
The boy was one of 10 children. His mother was separated and lived with another man. A report some years ago had described the family as extremely dysfunctional and chaotic. There had been substantial improvements since and the case was remarkable in that the stepfather was often at court hearings on the boy's welfare.
The judge said the stepfather and the boy's mother had given him a letter setting out their views which he took into account.
The professionals involved believed the boy should be in a high-support unit with a structured environment and educational and psychiatric facilities.
The judge noted he had approved of the boy's removal from a remand centre to a hostel regime with close monitoring by the EHB. This broke down when the boy was alleged to have seriously assaulted another boy and he had begun abusing heroin.
Last week he had reluctantly referred the boy to St Patrick's as the EHB said it had no other facility and his parents could not control him. It was clear the staff of the remand centres and other institutions were making superhuman efforts to try and run institutions which were incapable of meeting the needs of children at risk.
He also had evidence from the boy's supervisory social worker which showed the boy had an insight into his own condition and realised that if he was not in a structured environment he would revert to conduct adverse to his own welfare and perhaps others. He did not want to be at liberty.
The judge said the boy would almost certainly begin abusing heroin if sent back to his parents.
St Patrick's was not ideal but the boy would have no easy access to heroin and would be medically monitored. The deputy governor had said he was on a methadone maintenance programme, was beginning to settle down and his health had improved. The State had said it would arrange for educational facilities for him.
He noted that last summer he sent the boy to a remand centre on the understanding he should remain there only for some weeks until a more appropriate high-support place was available. However, the boy had stayed in the remand centre for six months.
Such a situation could not happen again, the judge said. The boy could not remain in St Patrick's indefinitely in circumstances where he had not been remanded by the criminal courts. Something would have to be done for him. The statutory obligation was on the EHB, whose difficulties in securing staff and appropriate accommodation he did not underestimate. He would review the matter on April 26th.
The judge said the long-term situation regarding such minors was not as dismal, partly because of court orders and partly because there was a realisation that the years of neglect of the juvenile system must end.
Facilities were to be provided to meet the needs of children such as this boy. But from this child's point of view, these would be too late.
