Risk of serious harm to others

The risk that an individual will cause serious harm to others is often seen as an important criterion for a custodial sentence. The issue of risk of serious harm is explicitly addressed in the new Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline on the sentencing of children and young people (SGC, 2009):

In determining whether a custodial sentence is unavoidable, generally, a court will need to take account both of the seriousness of the offence (particularly the extent to which it caused (or was likely to cause) serious harm) and of the risk of serious harm in the future. A custodial sentence is most likely to be unavoidable where it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm.

Box 3.1: Breach of orders

Breach of asbo

Darren, who is 17 years old, had already received two DTOs before his current sentence. He had also been remanded in custody prior to the current DTO. His offending history dates back several years; he received his first reprimand at the age of 11 and his first conviction when 12. He has also had many other disposals including a referral order, action plan order, supervision order and others.

Darren’s asbo prohibited him from entering a specific area. He breached it when he walked through the area with two friends, as they made their way from his home to the shops. He claimed that the route he had taken was the most direct way to the shops, and that he had not wanted to walk the long way round without his friends. He was spotted walking through the restricted area, and was reported to the police and subsequently arrested. On conviction, he was sentenced to an eight-month DTO for the breach.

Breach of statutory order

Ben is aged 17, and this sentence is his first time in custody. He has, however, received a variety of non-custodial sentences in the past. He was first reprimanded at the age of 11, although his first conviction was not until he was 16.

His current sentence is a four-month DTO for the breach of a community punishment order. His YOT worker recorded in Asset that ‘Ben has consistently refused to engage with his order. Ben has told me he cannot be bothered complying with his order in any form.’

The core Asset form has a section entitled ‘Indicators of risk of serious harm to others’. This asks whether the child has been convicted of a ‘serious specified’ or ‘specified’ offence (that is, an offence specified under the dangerousness provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) or has been assessed for dangerousness; it also asks if the child has been assessed as presenting a risk to other children. A ‘yes’ in response to either of these or other questions in the section necessitates completion of the additional ‘risk of serious harm’ (ROSH) Asset form, which explores evidence of harm-related behaviour, risk indicators and likelihood of future harm.

The risk of serious harm section of the core Asset is entirely missing for eight cases in our sample. Among 192 that have been at least partially filled out, the need for a ROSH form is flagged in 123 cases (64%). In the remaining 69 cases (39%), the ROSH form is not flagged. A completed ROSH form is present for 98, or 80%, of the 123 children who are identified as

requiring it. An additional 17 ROSH forms were completed for children who are not flagged on the core Asset as posing a risk of serious harm, or for whom the risk of serious harm section of the core Asset is missing. This produces a total of 115 ROSH forms.

For 92% of the 115 children with ROSH forms, the YOT worker recorded on the form that there is evidence of current or previous harm-related behaviour; and, generally, descriptions of current or previous violent or sexual offences are included by way of evidence. In 36% of the 115 ROSH cases, use of weapons is cited as a factor contributing to the risk; the making of threats to others is cited in 25% of cases. Almost one in 10 of the children (9%) is said to have behaved violently in a (secure or non-secure) children’s home or secure training centre.

Although the large majority of the children are said to have engaged in current or previous harm- related behaviour, in almost half of the cases (45%), the YOT worker replied ‘no’ to the question: ‘Are there indications that the young person will engage in future behaviour that will cause serious harm to others?’ For the 55% for whom the answer is ‘yes’, the assessment of future serious harm is justified with reference to the children’s previous displays of violence/harm and their stated intentions for future offending. Twenty-two children are said to pose a risk of future serious harm due to their use of drugs and/or alcohol, and nine because of their ‘impulsive’ or ‘reckless’ behaviour or because of peer pressure. Some examples of YOT workers’ assessments of risk of serious harm in the future are provided in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2: Risk of serious harm

Prior and stated intent of violence

Seventeen year old Joe received an eight-month DTO for the offence of domestic burglary. He is from a very troubled family background, having had a very unsettled childhood during which he spent periods in care and on the child protection register due to physical and emotional abuse. His father is known to probation for an assault on his mother's ex-partner; is a heavy drinker and has attempted suicide and been admitted to psychiatric care several times.

According to his YOT worker, Joe has the potential for serious physical violence, as a manifestation of his extreme vengeful feelings. He has stated his intention to cause serious harm, and appears capable of planned and deliberate behaviour, and is highly preoccupied with revenge and ‘getting’ those he believes have betrayed him. He has made specific threats of revenge to certain targeted individuals – including family members and YOT staff. His YOT worker stated, ‘In my assessment, Joe is capable of causing serious physical and psychological harm and from his own admission, even death.’

Recklessness

Matt, aged 17, received a six-month DTO for domestic burglary. His previous offending shows violent tendencies. He has made threats while in custody but – according to his YOT worker – appears to pose a higher risk in the community.

Conflicts with his family, which is extremely dysfunctional, and his peers are believed to be the triggers for much of his offending. His YOT worker describes him as

reckless, angry and irrational. It is believed that potential victims are his former partner (with whom he has a child who is subject to child protection procedures) and

witnesses.

Alcohol and peer influences

Seventeen year old Carlos had consumed six cans of strong lager prior to committing the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he was subsequently sentenced to an eight-month DTO. Carlos’ drinking habits are clearly strongly linked to his offending. A particular concern for his YOT worker is that when he is drinking in the company of similar-minded, anti-social young men, minor confrontations frequently appear to escalate rapidly into violence. Carlos denies, however, that he is a regular drinker, and that alcohol could be damaging to his health.

In the concluding section of the ROSH form, the individual is classified as posing either a ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ risk of serious harm to others. Around half the 115 ROSH children (51%) are in the ‘medium risk’ category, while 20% are ‘low risk’. Just over one-quarter (27%) are classified as ‘high risk’, and only two children (2%) as ‘very high risk’. Looking at the children classified as ‘high’ or ‘very high’ risk, of whom there are 35 in total, as a proportion of the full sample of sentenced children, they make up:

• 17% of all 200 sampled children; or

• 21% of the 159 children on whom relevant information is available (that is, excluding the eight for whom the risk section of the core Asset is entirely missing, and the 25 flagged as needing the ROSH, but for whom the ROSH is missing).

The adequacy of risk profiling by YOT workers can be questioned. As already noted, in many cases YOT workers may complete their assessments on the basis of limited information and knowledge of the individual child. Risk assessment is in any case a highly inexact science, even with adults23_{; assessing risk in children, whose patterns of behaviour and predispositions may be}

liable to change rapidly as they grow and mature, is likely to be more difficult still.