Youth offending - cases proved in court and convictions
Note: The data and text for this section is sourced in whole or in part from the following report: Ministry of Social Development (2008), Children and Young People: Indicators of Wellbeing in New Zealand 2008. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Note: Much of the data presented in this indicator was originally presented in the following Ministry of Justice report: Chong, J. (2007), Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Definition
The number of young people aged 14 to 24 who have cases proved against them in the Youth Court (those aged 14 to 16 at the time of the offence) or are convicted in the District or High Court (those aged 17 to 24).
Young people aged 14 to 16 are viewed by the justice system as minors, and are principally dealt with by the Youth Court. (1,2) Those aged 17 to 24 are viewed as adults and processed through the general court system.(3) The threshold for entering the court system is higher for those aged 14 to 16 than for those aged 17 to 24, so rates for the different age groups are not directly comparable.
The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 states that “… unless the public interest requires otherwise, criminal proceedings should not be instituted against a child or young person if there is an alternative means of dealing with the matter” (s. 208). Most youth apprehensions (about 70 percent) are resolved through given a warning or by referral to Police Youth Aid, who will usually impose diversionary action. Only a minority of young people apprehended for non-imprisonable traffic offences are referred to a family group conference or prosecuted in the Youth Court. Offences proved in the Youth Court are not recorded as convictions.
Relevance
The involvement of young people in offending has a negative impact on their wellbeing and often on that of their peers, siblings and other whānau as well. Offending by young people may also indicate exposure to a range of other risky behaviours or to the risk of violence. It discourages civic engagement and inhibits young people from engaging positively with their communities.
Criminal convictions can represent a barrier to young people when they are seeking employment or wanting to travel overseas.
Non-imprisonable traffic offences (e.g. speeding, or breaching license conditions) are excluded as they do not tend to be clustered with other negative outcomes or risk behaviours in the same way as other offences. Non-imprisonable traffic offences are also recorded separately and subject to a different penalty process (an infringement notice regime).
Current level
1,677 cases were proved in the Youth Court in 2006, a rate of 88 cases per 10,000 14 to 16 year olds.(4)
The rate of non-traffic cases proved in the Youth Court per 10,000 14 to 16 year olds increased substantially between 1992 and 1997, and fluctuated until 2003. Since the introduction of a new system for recording cases in 2004 the rate has dropped slightly (from 95 cases per 10,000 to 88 per 10,000).(5)
Cases proved in the Youth Court per 10,000 population, ages 14 to 16, 1992-2006
Source: Derived by the Ministry of Youth Development from Ministry of Justice data.
In 2006, a total of 30,191 young people aged 17 to 24 were convicted of non-traffic offences in court.
This represents a rate of 636 convictions per 10,000 young people aged 17 to 24. Over the last decade, conviction rates per 10,000 population for non-traffic offences in the 17 to 24 population lowered to 2001 and then rose again. The rate for 2006 (636) is the highest of the decade, but only slightly higher than the rate in 1998 (615). The rate reached a low of 542 in 2001.
Convictions for non-traffic offences per 10,000 population, ages 17 to 24, 1997 to 2006
Source: Ministry of Justice.
From age 14 into the early 20s, the number of cases proved and the number of convictions increase with increasing age.
Type of offence
Among 14 to 16 year olds in the Youth Court in 2006, the majority of proved cases involved property offences (53 percent), while just under a quarter (24 percent) related to violent offences.
A further 11 percent involved imprisonable traffic offences and 5 percent concerned offences against good order.
Among 17 to 24 year olds in the adult court system, the biggest proportion of convictions (20,474, or 40 percent) were for traffic offences.
Of the remaining 30,191 convictions, about a third (32 percent) were for property offences, 19 percent were “offences against justice” (offences against judicial procedures, such as failing to answer bail), 17 percent were offences against good order, 13 percent were violent offences, and 5 percent were drug offences.
Notes
1. An exception exists with respect to traffic offences, which do not usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. Of young people aged 14 to 16 who are processed through adult courts, the large majority have been charged with traffic offences. A small proportion will have been transferred on serious charges from the youth Court, for hearing or for sentencing.
2. The type of court in which a case is heard is generally determined by the age of the offender at the time the crime was committed, so some young people against whom cases are proved in the Youth Court will be aged 17 or 18 at the time of hearing.
3. For data for ages 17 to 24, the age is the age at conviction.
4. All rates are calculated using Statistics New Zealand’s population estimates at 30 June as a base (which are based on 2006 Census counts and then adjusted for Census undercounts), to allow the creation of comparable time-series data. These differ from the rates presented in Chong, J. (2007), Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006 (Wellington: Ministry of Justice) (see link at top), which were calculated using population estimates based on the 2001 Census.
5. The system used to log cases was updated in 2004. This has caused changes in the figures and trends in cases that are observed up to and following 2004. In particular, any changes in the number of cases in 2004 may not represent a true change in offender patterns. Accordingly, extreme caution should be used when making inferences based on any change between 2003 and 2004.
