Family Group Conference

Introduction

New Zealand introduced an innovative system of juvenile justice in legislation that came into force in 1989. It sought to overcome many of the problems of the welfare system of juvenile justice (1), and to constructively deal with issues of, and problems created by, "children" (boys and girls under the age of 14) and "young persons" (persons aged 14, 15 and 16) who offend. (2)

Family Group Conferences are the lynch-pin of the New Zealand youth justice system. Their purpose is to make such decisions, recommendations and plans as are thought to be "necessary or desirable in relation to the child or young person in respect of whom the conference was convened." (3) They lie at the heart of the New Zealand procedures: both as a pre-charge mechanism to determine whether prosecution can be avoided (accounting for approximately 40% of all FGCs), and also as a post-charge mechanism to determine how to deal with cases admitted or proved in the Youth Court.

This paper will briefly explain the ideologies underlying New Zealand's juvenile justice system and an FGCs role in that system, and will then explore various practical aspects of FGCs as they are implemented.

Underlying Ideologies

The economic, social and political climate in New Zealand in the 1980s was one of flux: increasing importance was being placed on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and rangatiratanga; an economic slump was generating a new economic order, leading to government pressure for efficiency and accountability; and there was a move towards less government interference and a questioning of the welfare state ethos.

The welfare state ethos, imposed on the youth justice system, resulted in young offenders being treated as victims of their environment and in need of help rather than punishment.

The prevalent concerns underlying the development of the 1989 Act were cultural appropriateness, due process, family empowerment, and a need to offer effective diversionary procedures without placing too much power with the Police.

The New Zealand juvenile justice system today reflects an understanding that:(4)

• Contact with the criminal justice system is often itself harmful;
• Youth offending is often opportunist behaviour which will be outgrown;
• Young people should be confronted, held accountable for their offending behaviour and given opportunities to take responsibility for their actions by making amends to the victim(s) of their offence(s); and
• By involving the young person in a face-to-face meeting with the offence victim, they can see the effects of their conduct in human terms.

The 1989 legislation physically separated the youth justice system from the Family Court process by creating a specialist Youth Court. This was intended to keep "care and protection" proceedings in the Family Court separate and to ensure that dispositions for offences were time-limited, commensurate with the offence, and just. While to some, it initially looked like a return to a culturally inappropriate adversarial system, it was hoped that Family Group Conferences would counter this by empowering the community.

While the new youth justice system was an attempt to move away from the traditional welfare model, the system attempts to reconcile the dichotomies of "justice" and "welfare" by holding a young offender accountable while giving appropriate consideration to the needs of the young offender. It is the FGC process that largely facilitates this reconciliation.

Family Group Conferencing aims to involve the young offender, the victim and their families in the decision-making process with the objective of reaching a group-consensus on a 'just' outcome. In this way they reflect some aspects of centuries-old sanctioning and dispute resolution traditions of the Maori of New Zealand. They also encapsulate restorative justice ideologies, by including the victim in the decision-making process and encouraging the mediation of concerns between the victim, the offender and their families as a means to achieve reconciliation, restitution and rehabilitation.

Practical Implementation

When FGCs must be convened (5)

An FGC must be convened in six situations:(6)

1. In respect of an alleged "child"(7) offender when an enforcement officer believes that the child is in need of care or protection, and that, after consultation with the co-ordinator, an application for a declaration is required in the public interest - a "child offender care and protection conference";
2. Where a young person is alleged to have committed an offence, and has not been arrested, no charge can be laid in the Youth Court before there has been consultation between the police and the FGC Co-ordinator. If after consultation the police still wish to charge the young person, a FGC must be convened - a "pre-charge FGC";
3. Where a young person denies a charge, but pending its resolution the Youth Court orders the youth to be placed in CYFs or Police custody a FGC must be convened - a "custody conference";
4. Where a young person "does not deny"(8) a charge in the Youth Court, the Court must direct that a FGC be held - a "court-ordered FGC". This is the most common type of FGC;
5. Where a charge is proved before the Youth Court and there has been no previous opportunity to consider the appropriate way to deal with the young offender a FGC will be held;
6. A Youth Court may direct that a FGC be convened at any stage in the proceedings if it appears necessary or desirable to do so.(9)

Approximately 62% of youth offending is dealt with by police diversion schemes devised and operated by specialist officers.(10) Approximately 6% are referred by Police to FGCs (where there is an intention to charge) and outcomes are agreed and implemented usually without referral to a Court, (however, in rare circumstances a charge is still laid). In the other 29% of cases the youth is arrested and is referred directly to the Youth Court, which must refer all proved(11) cases within its jurisdiction to an FGC for a recommendation.(12)

Participants (13)

The FGC is made up of the young person, his or her youth advocate(14) if one has been arranged, members of the family, whanau or family group and whoever they invite, the victim(s) and supporters, (or representative of the victim(s)), the Police, the Youth Justice Co-ordinator (YJC) and, a CYFs social worker (in cases where CYFs has had a statutory role in relationship to the custody, guardianship or supervision of the young person).(15)

Cultural Appropriateness

The process endeavours to address the statistics that suggest that Maori children and young people comprise around half of all youth apprehended by Police, having a youth justice FGC or being prosecuted in court.(16) Two specific factors are aimed at promoting participation by the young Maori offender:(17)

• the inclusion of whanau, hapu and iwi in repairing the harm; and
• the opportunity to have the conference in chosen familiar surroundings, including on marae.

These factors have the potential to better cope with cultural diversity than previous youth justice processes, thereby promoting and facilitating constructive and active participation by the young offender, and those who support the young offender.

Confidentiality

Information arising from FGCs is privileged and is not to be published.(18) This principle extends to restrict the amount of information that can be reported back to the Court.(19) However, legitimate research material about FGCs can be published, but must not reveal information that could lead to the identification of FGC participants.(20)

Timing

In order to ensure that the process works swiftly, the legislation imposes time limits within which FGCs must be convened(21), with the FGC to be completed within a further month thereafter.

Where a young person is in custody, a FGC must be convened within seven days; and completed within a further seven days.(22) Where the Youth Justice Co-ordinator receives notification of an intended prosecution of a young person who has not been arrested(23), or a child aged 10 to 13 is alleged to be in need of care and protection by reason of offending(24), the FGC must be convened within 21 days of that notification and must be completed within one month.

These timeframes stem from an awareness that young people already work within much shorter time frames than adults and that response to offending tend to have more "meaning" when applied relatively quickly.(25)

Procedure - The Conference and The Plan

The Conference

The legislation allows the participants at each individual FGC to regulate the procedure of that FGC.(26) There is, therefore, considerable variation in practice at FGCs. However, the process generally involves:(27)

• Introductions/mihi, and karakia (prayer);
• An explanation of the procedure by the Youth Justice Co-ordinator;
• The presentation of the summary of facts of the offence by the police;
• An opportunity for the offender to comment on the accuracy of the police statement;
• A formal admission by the young person;(28)
• An opportunity for the victim (or representative) to present their view if the offender admits the offence;
• A general discussion of possible outcomes;
• A discussion of options among the offender's family;
• General negotiation and the formulation of a plan, response or outcome by the FGC participants
• Agreement from participants;
• Recording of the agreed plan and closure of the meeting

The young person's family and those they invite are entitled to deliberate in private during the FGC and can ask for the meeting to be adjourned to enable discussion to continue elsewhere.

Professionals play a low-key role in an FGC. The Youth Justice Co-ordinator is merely a facilitator, ensuring that the process is managed constructively. The role of the police is usually limited to describing the offence, and possibly the impact of it on the victim if the latter (or their representative) is not present. They may also voice concerns if family proposals seem inadequate or excessive. A youth advocate, if present, advises on legal issues and protects the young person's rights, though they may also express an opinion about the proposed penalties if they seem excessive. A social worker if present will normally only provide background information on the young person and participate in supporting the plans of the family and the young person for the future.

The Plan

The New Zealand legislation expressly allows FGC members, following discussions, to recommend that:

• proceedings continue or discontinue,(29)
• a formal Police caution should be given,(30)
• a declaration be made that the young person is in need of care and protection,(31)
• appropriate penalties be imposed, and/or(32)
• reparation be paid to the victim of the offence.(33)

Further, the legislation requires that FGC plans reflect the principles laid down in the Act.(34)

However, there are no other legislative, or formal or informal prescription for FGC plans. The established processes merely provide the platform from which creative and individualised resolutions are formulated. There are consequently no limitations on the imagination and ideas that flow from the group of people who wish to produce constructive solutions to the problems of the young person's behaviour.

This is, in many ways, the strength of the system. The plan designed by the offender, victim and community, is likely to be realistic and reflect the resources and support available to those parties.(35)

For 95% of cases, FGC-recommended outcomes involve accountability measures of some kind.(36) Plans commonly include an apology and/or reparation to the victim (the amount of which is often in excess of what the court might order in the same case), community service requirements, counselling and rehabilitation programmes and educational requirements.

FGC plans must be agreed to by all participants in the FGC and all persons directly involved in the implementation of the plan. Where there is agreement, the plan will almost always be accepted by the enforcement agency (in the case of a pre-charge FGC) or Youth Court. That is unless it is clearly impracticable or clearly inconsistent with the principles of the Act, or so extreme or so lenient as to lack general parity with outcomes in respect of similar offences. The Youth Court thus retains an important supervisory and monitoring role in respect of plans. FGC plans are binding when they are agreed to by all those present and, when relevant, by the Court.

If a plan is successfully completed by a young person the Court is able to discharge the offender(37), whereby the charge is deemed never to have been laid.(38) However, despite granting a discharge, if the Court is satisfied that the charge is proved, it may, still, when appropriate, order the young person to fulfil additional requirements such as pay money towards the cost of the prosecution or pay reparation to the victim etc.(39)

The Youth Court can accept the plan, but has the residual discretion to impose additional orders if necessary. It may, for example, admonish the offender, impose a fine, or direct community service work.(40) When imposing an order, the Court must have regard to a comprehensive range of considerations including the offender's background, attitude towards the offence and any previous offending proved in the Youth Court.(41)

Where no agreement is secured the FGC is adjourned and referred back to either the appropriate enforcement agency, or the Youth Court for determination. This is only necessary in approximately 10% of FGC cases.(42) In the majority of these cases it is the Police or professionals who take a different view from the family.(43) In accordance with the confidentiality requirements in the Act, the agency or Court is not informed of the reasons for non-agreement.(44)

Participation at FGCs

FGCs endeavour to make all participants feel part of, rather than apart from, the proceedings. The extent of participation by the young person, their family and the victim is discussed more fully below.

All FGC participants' attendance and involvement is voluntary. Voluntariness is an important aspect of FGCs. Members are given the autonomy to participate in a decision-making process and the freedom to accept or reject a particular decision. Permitting FGC members to be surrounded by supporters, buttresses the voluntariness of their involvement and is intended to engender an environment that encourages participation by all members.

Participation in what sort of decisions?

FGCs allow a child or young person to participate not in peripheral issues, but in the fundamental questions which face the prosecuting authorities and the Court as a result of the young person's behaviour.

The type of decision to be made depends, naturally, on the reason for convening the FGC; ie. the "type" of FGC being held. The types of decisions can be summarised as:(45)

• In respect of an alleged child offender, whether the offences have been committed and what steps should be taken as a result, including whether a declaration that the child is in need of care or protection should be filed in the Family Court;
• In respect of an "intention to charge conference", whether the offence was committed, what should be done as a result and if a charge should be laid in Court;
• In respect of a "custody conference," whether detention in a Child, Youth and Family secure residence should continue and where the young person should be placed pending resolution of the case;
• In respect of a charge before the Youth Court that is "not denied," whether the offence was committed, and what action and/or penalties should result;
• In respect of a charge which has been proved before the Youth Court after a defended hearing, what action and/or penalties should result;
• In the case of purely indictable charges, whether Youth Court jurisdiction should be offered, and if so, whether the offence has been committed and what should be the result.

Participation by the young person

Conventional juvenile justice systems do not encourage the involvement of the young offender. There, the principal players are the professionals and the legal representative's role is expressly to speak for his or her client. Young offenders may take no actual part in the proceedings. In contrast, FGCs expect and facilitate full and active participation by the young offender in discussions about how best to deal with their offending. This approach reflects three ideologies:

1. Article 22 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a basis for giving young people the opportunity to both express their views and to have them taken into account in all matters affecting them, but particularly in any judicial or administrative proceedings. This sentiment is echoed in section 5(d) of the CYPFA.
2. The young offender feels a greater sense of ownership in the process and of the outcomes produced by the process. A sense of control and choice over what is happening is important in any commitment to change and in any decision to stop offending.
3. Effectively involving young offenders in the processes is one way of holding them directly accountable for their actions.(46)

Further, the physical inclusion of the offender in the sanctioning process reaffirms that the offender has an important interest in the outcome. Exclusion from the process, in contrast, signals that the offender's concerns are minor or unworthy of consideration, perpetuating the feelings that often underlie offending. Importantly, the offender's inclusion is not a result of an intention to shame, but rather an intention to help the offender understand the harm caused and to support them in taking full responsibility for that harm.(47) It provides the offender with a sense of "ownership" in the means and ends of the outcome and the subsequent fulfilment of it. It also signals an affirmation by the offender of the community's legal norms and the desire to be part of legitimate society. Participation by the offender at the FGC thereby provides the first step towards re-integrating them into the community.(48)

At a standard FGC, resulting from a charge that is "not denied"(49), the young offender is given the opportunity to

• discuss the offence and accept responsibility for it;
• openly discuss possible causes of the offending;
• participate in the formulation of a plan to rectify the causes of the offending and repair the harm caused by it;
• present the plan to other FGC participants;
• apologise and express remorse to the victim;
• answer any questions posed by the victim and
• where relevant, present the plan to the Judge when the matter returns to the Youth Court.

Each of these opportunities for participation are discussed separately below.

Admission of responsibility

The youth justice system avoids formal pleas of "guilty"; all that is needed for a "standard" FGC to proceed is a formal acknowledgement that the charge is "not denied".(50) If the charge is denied the young person's case will be determined by a conventional , adversarial hearing in the Youth Court. This is because the success of a FGC is premised on the young offender taking responsibility for his or her own offending.

One of the mandatory ingredients to the successful completion of a conference is that the juvenile must admit the offence alleged to have been committed by him/her.

Early in the FGC the offender must acknowledge responsibility for the offence by admitting the charge. This is not to say that a blind admission is required. If the essential elements of the charge are in dispute the conference allows an opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on the facts. If, following discussion, there is still not agreement the case is referred back to the Youth Court or to the Police depending on the method of arrival at the conference.

This discussion and/or admission is usually brought about by a police representative reading out the summary of facts. The young person is asked directly if he or she agrees with the summary and any variation is noted.

Identifying possible causes of offending

There follows a general discussion involving the offender of the offence and the circumstances underlying it.

It is necessary to identify as best as possible the causes of the offending so that the outcome formulated later at the FGC responds to immediate issues and meets the future needs of the offender. This reflects the ideal that an FGC can play a part in the early intervention and prevention of recidivist offending.

It should be observed that this aspect of the FGC could be done better. A FGC should address both the deed (the offence) and the need (the cause of the offending). At present, New Zealand FGCs are good at identifying and addressing the deed, but are falling short of identifying and addressing the need(s). This may be a result of the anti-welfare philosophy underlying the new legislation, or it may simply be a pragmatic response to a lack of resources and programmes to combat the causes of youth offending.

It should be noted that the legislation does require that both the deed and the need be addressed. The requirement is set out in s4(f)(i), (the deed), and (ii), (the need), which states:

(f) Ensuring that where children or young persons commit offences,—

(i) They are held accountable, and encouraged to accept responsibility, for their behaviour; and

(ii) They are dealt with in a way that acknowledges their needs and that will give them the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial, and socially acceptable ways:

Paragraph (ii) is often forgotten and avoided. As a result, the model in application is not dissimilar to the classic punishment approach. However, there are steps being taken in New Zealand to carry out proper risk and needs assessments before the FGC, for use and discussion at the FGC, in order to help participants craft a more supportive plan.

Hearing the Victim's Perspective of the Offending (51)

The victim's perspective plays an important role in the conference dynamics. The presence of the victim and the description of their injury/loss prevents the young offender from denying or neutralising the harmfulness of the offending.(52) The victim's perspective can act as a powerful catalyst, clearly revealing to the young offender and their family what action must be taken.(53)

The victim is always given the opportunity to describe to the young person the effects of the offending on them, and to say how they feel about what happened to them. They are also sometimes given the opportunity to ask questions of the offender, for example, why the offending occurred. This is important for the victim, but is also important for the young offenders, because it enables them to acquire a clearer understanding of the impact of their offending.(54)

Formulation of a Plan

Once this discussion has taken place the victim and professionals leave the family and the young person to meet privately and discuss options to repair the damage and prevent re-offending. They are encouraged to construct possible legal outcomes aimed at addressing past offending, repairing present harm and meeting future needs.

A range of outcomes are available to the offender and their family.(55) Generally, suggested outcomes must be "necessary or desirable in relation to the child or young person"(56) and must "have regard to the [youth justice] principles(57) set out in .. [the] Act."(58) More specifically, and depending on the purpose of the Conference, the plan can recommend that

• proceedings against the young person either proceed or discontinue;(59)
• that a Police caution be given to the young person;(60)
• that a declaration be made that the young person is in need of care and protection;(61)
• appropriate penalties be imposed; and/or(62)
• reparation be made to any victim.(63)

Unfortunately there is evidence that the young person's voice often seems to become subsumed within the family's.(64) It should be noted however that even relatively low rates of involvement in conferences are still considerably higher than young people's involvement in conventional court processes.(65)

Once this private discussion has taken place, the offender and their family, together with youth justice professionals and the victim, negotiate a plan using the information obtained from the private family discussion as a foundation. The offender's participation in its formulation is intended to create a feeling of ownership of it, thereby increasing the likelihood of completion, and subsequent pride in completion, of the plan.

Presentation of the FGC plan to FGC participants, for eventual submission to the Court

The offender is encouraged to present the proposed plan formulated by the family/whanau to the FGC participants. This process re-engages the dialogue between the offence victim and the young offender.(66) The offender is also encouraged to present the plan to the Judge in Court. An accurate presentation of the plan can indicate that he or she clearly understands it.

Apology and expression of remorse to the victim

Following the formulation of a plan the young person usually apologises to the victim, exhibiting a very direct acceptance of responsibility. This is always the expectation.

This is not only an acknowledgement of the harm caused to the victim, but a recognition that the conduct giving rise to the offending was outside behaviour accepted by the community. In this way, an apology can signal an acceptance of the community values previously disrespected by the young offender.

Genuine remorse is a prerequisite to the moral development of the offender. Without understanding the wrongfulness of the conduct, the offender retains an identity with deviance and connection to an antisocial subculture. In contrast, offenders who recognise the immorality of their behaviour and feel sorrow for having violated both the victim and the legal norm are less likely to re-offend.(67)

Participation by the Offender's Family

The offender's family plays an important role at FGCs, beyond merely being there to support the offender. They are instrumental in determining an outcome to the offending. Once a group discussion has taken place, the victim and professionals leave the family and the young person to meet privately and discuss and construct possible legal outcomes aimed at addressing past offending, repairing present harm and meeting future needs. The offender and their family use the information obtained from earlier discussions in the FGC to facilitate the formulation of an appropriate plan. While there is some evidence that the young person's voice is often subsumed within the family's, their involvement is still considerably higher in FGCs than in conventional court processes.(68)

Participation by the Victim(s)

The victim's perspective plays an important role in the dynamics of the FGC. The presence of the victim and the description of their injury prevents the young offender from denying or neutralising the harmfulness of the offending.(69) The victim's perspective can act as a powerful catalyst, clearly revealing to the young offender and their family what action must be taken.(70)

Many victims have found that taking part in an FGC is a cathartic experience that assists them through the healing process. The victim is given the opportunity to ask questions of the offender. Research has shown that offence victims frequently wish to know why the offence took place. This level of direct participation requires the young offender to reflect on his or her actions and the reason for them.

A victim has the right to agree or disagree with the FGC-suggested outcome. For example, a victim is able to express concerns that they have little confidence that the agreed plan will be adequately carried out or that the suggested outcome is too lenient or, conversely, too harsh.

Victims are entitled to support at the FGC and may bring any reasonable number of support people, usually family or friends. However, their role is restricted and only the victim can agree or disagree with the plan suggested at the FGC.

The victim's participation is completely voluntary and statistics show that some victims do not attend FGCs, usually because they want to forget the experience rather than confront it. However, even if they do not attend, their views are often included through representatives, letters, videos or audio tapes.

Conclusion

Family Group Conferences are the lynch-pin of the New Zealand youth justice system. They are utilised as a pre-charge mechanism to determine whether prosecution can be avoided and also as a post-charge mechanism to determine how to deal with cases admitted or proved in the Youth Court.

Court-ordered FGCs take place in the context of the traditional adversarial system and when a charge is denied the case progresses within that system. However, when a charge is admitted or proved, the traditional system is radically sidelined.

Because of the structure of the FGC, offenders and their families are able to better understand and participate in the process. In this way, FGCs are a more inclusive and restorative forum for decision-making.

There is little doubt that between the court system and conferencing processes, participants prefer the latter. However, it should not be considered a soft-option for young offenders, who find the process emotionally gruelling and confrontational.

While there are flaws with the system, it cannot be disputed that FGCs provide for more participation by the people directly affected by the offending. The process provides them with a sense of control and choice, and has constructive mechanisms to hold offenders accountable while at the same time promoting a desire in them to change and not re-offend.

The FGC process is New Zealand's gift to the world, and is considered the jewel in the crown of the youth justice system. As a result of its significant success, a similar process is currently being piloted in adult criminal courts in New Zealand.

Footnotes

1. The "welfare approach" considered offending to be caused by remedial family or individual dysfuntion. Young people were considered to be a symptom of such dysfunction. Decisions concerning a young person's future were made by professionals who had no previous relationship with the young person. The "response" to the offending was proportionate to the perceived cause of offending rather than the nature of the offending itself.
2. Her Honour Judge Carolyn Henwood "The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ) - A Judicial Perspective in 1997", Address on 22 July 1997 at Judicial Commission of New South Wales Seminar Series, published (1998) TJR 215, 215.
3. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260.
4. Anne Hayden Restorative Conferencing Manual of Aotearoa New Zealand: A Treasure from our Basket (Department for Courts, Wellington, 2001) 62.
5. Please also refer to the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s258 : Functions of a Family Group Conference.
6. His Honour, Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Young Persons' Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (An Address to the XVI Youth and Family World Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 27 October 2002) with reference to s247, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.
7. As defined earlier, "child" is a boy or girl under the age of 14.
8. This is a rather convoluted terminology used in the Youth Court, the result of s246 of the CYPFA, which provides that charges that are denied are to be dealt with by the Court and in all other cases, a plea shall not be entered and a FGC shall be ordered.
9. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s281B.
10. This includes informal and written warnings as well as diversion.
11. By formal admission at a FGC or by proof following a defended hearing.
12. Note 12. These statistics relate to data for 2006, and are from: Jin Chong "Youth Justice statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006" (Prepared for Ministry of Justice ) Table 3.12.
13. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s251.
14. Court appointed or self-appointed (s323, Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989).
15. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s251(1)(h).
16. Ministry of Justice "Youth Offending Strategy: Preventing and Reducing Offending and Re-offending by Children and Young People. Te Haonga" (Ministry of Justice, April 2002, Wellington) 11. Statistics suggest that in some regions (eg. Rotorua, Gisborne and Kaikohe) the rate of Maori youth offending is significantly higher, comprising 80-90% of total youth offending.
17. Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 8.
18. Sections 37 and 38 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, which apply by virtue of s271 of that Act.
19. Where there is no consensus at an FGC and this fact is reported to the Judge, the confidentiality principle restricts the Judge from hearing the reasons for non-agreement: W v Hohaia (3 October 2002) High Court, Auckland, M793/02, Randerson J. See further p13 of this paper.
20. Section 38(3), Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.
21. "Convened" means "to take the appropriate steps … in order to cause the conference to meet" (Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s2).
22. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s249(3) and (6).
23. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s249(4)(b).
24. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s249(2).
25. Allison Morris and Gabrielle Maxwell "Juvenile Justice in New Zealand: A New Paradigm" (1992) 14. (Details available at link (last accessed 22 October 2002).
26. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s256(1).
27. THE NEW ZEALAND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND RESTORATION < link > (last accessed 1 October 2002)
28. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s259(1). This is not necessarily a blind admission of the police summary of facts. This is why the accuracy of the Police summary of facts is discussed. See also s259(2) of the CYPF Act, that if there is no admission by the young person, there will be no recommendation or plan to the agency who required the FGC to be convened.
29. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(a).
30. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(b).
31. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(c).
32. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(d).
33. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(e).
34. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(2); the principles are set out in s208 of the same Act.
35. His Honour, Chief District Court Judge DJ Carruthers "Restorative Justice and Juvenile Justice: A Comparison of the Singapore and New Zealand Experience" (Unpublished, 2002) 17.
36. Maxwell, Kingi and Robertson "Achieving the Diversion and Decarceration of Young Offenders in New Zealand" (Unpublished, Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, 2003) 11.
37. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s282(1).
38. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s282(2).
39. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s282(3); The additional formal court orders available to the Court are outlined in s283(e)-(j) of the Act.
40. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s283.
41. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s284.
42. Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson and Morris "Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Final Report to the Ministry of Social Development" (Unpublished, 2002) 195. This figure can vary between regions - for example, in Christchurch approximately 17% of FGC plans are not agreed. This may result from different attitudes among the Police.
43. Maxwell, Kingi, Robertson and Morris "Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Final Report to the Ministry of Social Development" (Unpublished, 2002) 195.
44. W v Hohaia (3 October 2002) High Court, Auckland, M793/02, Randerson J.
45. His Honour, Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Young Persons' Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (An Address to the XVI Youth and Family World Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 27 October 2002).
46. Allison Morris "Family Group Conferences: Revisiting Principles, Practices and Potential" in Youth Justice in Focus: Conference Proceedings (Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998) 177.
47. Erik Luna "Restorative Justice" NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000, <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002); cited in Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 6.
48. Erik Luna "Restorative Justice" NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000, <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002); cited in Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 7.
49. See ftnt 9.
50. See also ftnt 9.
51. The victim(s)' participation is discussed further, from the victim(s)' perspective, at p 23.
52. Erik Luna "Restorative Justice" NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000. <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002).
53. Restorative Justice Knowledge Base "Family Group Conferencing" <link> (last accessed 1 August 2002)
54. A MacRae "Family Group Conferencing: An Effective Justice Process" (Presented at Santa Rosa, California, 22-25 May 2000) cited in Anne Hayden Restorative Conferencing Manual of Aotearoa New Zealand: A Treasure from our Basket (Department for Courts, Wellington, 2001) 72.
55. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260.
56. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(1).
57. The principles are outlined in s208 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, and are discussed in general terms in the Introduction to this paper.
58. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(2).
59. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(a).
60. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(b).
61. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(c).
62. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(d).
63. Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s260(3)(e).
64. Allison Morris and Gabrielle Maxwell "Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family Group Conferences as a Case Study" (1998) Western Criminology Review <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002)
65. Allison Morris and Gabrielle Maxwell "Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family Group Conferences as a Case Study" (1998) Western Criminology Review <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002)
66. A MacRae "Family Group Conferencing: An Effective Justice Process" (Presented at Santa Rosa, California, 22-25 May 2000) cited in Anne Hayden Restorative Conferencing Manual of Aotearoa New Zealand: A Treasure from our Basket (Department for Courts, Wellington, 2001) 74.
67. Erik Luna "Restorative Justice" NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000 <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002).
68. Allison Morris and Gabrielle Maxwell "Restorative Justice in New Zealand: Family Group Conferences as a Case Study" (1998) Western Criminology Review <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002); cited in Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 15.
69. Erik Luna "Restorative Justice" NZIDR Lecture, 5 July 2000, <link> (last accessed 1 October 2002); cited in Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 11.
70. Restorative Justice Knowledge Base "Family Group Conferencing" <link> (last accessed 1 August 2002); cited in Judge Andrew Becroft "Family Group Conferencing: A New Zealand Model for Children's Participation in Youth Justice Processes" (November 2002) 11.