The State Plan, Breaches and Measurement Effects Perhaps we should not be surprised at these developments given that the NSW State Plan seems to invite

The State Plan, Breaches and Measurement Effects Perhaps we should not be surprised at these developments given that the NSW State Plan seems to invite

such measures. The plan claims to be keeping people safe in part via tougher bail laws aimed at repeat offenders (NSW Government 2009: 25). The plan blurs the boundaries between bail and sentencing, and between risk and need. For instance, it argues that ‘[t]o reduce re-offending we are: Extending community monitoring of those at high risk of re-offending. For example, more home random visits, and electronic monitoring 24 hours a day seven days a week for very high risk individuals’ (NSW Government 2009:30) but does not define ‘high risk’ nor does it limit these tactics to post-sentencing. It endorses intervening early with young offenders, since for a young person who ‘leaves custody and is not supported, and the circumstances that led to their offending have not altered (such as homelessness, alcohol abuse, family dysfunction) the risk of re-offending is extremely high. Risk assessment tools can help us focus resources more effectively on those at highest risk of becoming prolific offenders’ (NSW Government:31). The Plan does not identify what type of ‘early intervention’ might be supportive for young people. The blurring of the ‘young person apparently in need of support’ with the ‘highly risky’ such measures. The plan claims to be keeping people safe in part via tougher bail laws aimed at repeat offenders (NSW Government 2009: 25). The plan blurs the boundaries between bail and sentencing, and between risk and need. For instance, it argues that ‘[t]o reduce re-offending we are: Extending community monitoring of those at high risk of re-offending. For example, more home random visits, and electronic monitoring 24 hours a day seven days a week for very high risk individuals’ (NSW Government 2009:30) but does not define ‘high risk’ nor does it limit these tactics to post-sentencing. It endorses intervening early with young offenders, since for a young person who ‘leaves custody and is not supported, and the circumstances that led to their offending have not altered (such as homelessness, alcohol abuse, family dysfunction) the risk of re-offending is extremely high. Risk assessment tools can help us focus resources more effectively on those at highest risk of becoming prolific offenders’ (NSW Government:31). The Plan does not identify what type of ‘early intervention’ might be supportive for young people. The blurring of the ‘young person apparently in need of support’ with the ‘highly risky’

Towards a conclusion The NSW Bail Act is inappropriate for young people. Deficiencies in the legislation have been compounded by politically driven reforms to the Act, a blurring of our understanding of the purposes of bail with those of sentencing, the blurring of needs and risks, and a State Plan that seems to privilege compliance checking and measurable outcomes such as breaches over supporting young people to remain on bail in the community. King et al (2008) argue that traditional purposes of bail (ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system, protection of the community, and the best interests of defendants) are at risk of being subverted by bail decision makers, especially where ‘intelligence-led policing strategies encourage the use of custodial remand as an incapacitation strategy’ (2008:341-342). In NSW the use of police performance indicators such as bail compliance checks may be consistent with this analysis since they appear to emphasise breaching young people ahead of broader objectives of bail legislation.

We need detailed research into bail decision making for young people, and accommodation and enhanced support for young people on bail. In the short term one readily achievable measure would be to insert child-specific criteria into the Bail Act based on the CCPA. We also need to ensure that future criminal justice reforms give specific attention to the likely consequences for young people.