Sentencing explanations provided via judicial remarks made within the English magistrates’ youth court: Towards a better global understanding
| Author | Max Lowenstein |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14732254211004764 |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Date | 01 August 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254211004764
Youth Justice
2022, Vol. 22(2) 189 –205
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14732254211004764
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Sentencing explanations provided
via judicial remarks made within
the English magistrates’ youth
court: Towards a better global
understanding
Max Lowenstein
Department of Humanities and Law, Bournemouth University, UK
Abstract
This article qualitatively explores the English judicial approach towards sentencing explanations via remarks
made within the magistrates’ youth court. First, the extent of their correlation with the three known
purposes behind sentencing explanations is considered within a wider introductory discussion. Second,
judicial interviews provide new insights regarding the extent of their alignment with the introductory
discussion by indicating degrees of correlation. Third, the English judicial approach towards sentencing
explanations and the degrees of correlation are concluded upon. Finally, recommendations are made to
assist in a better understanding of sentencing explanations globally, particularly in jurisdictions where their
publication has increased.
Keywords
Youth, sentencing, explanation, remarks, criminal, judiciary, England, global
Introduction
Hailed for promoting young adults’ (18–25-year-olds’) sentencing transparency (Howard
League for Penal Reform, 2017), English young adult sentencing explanations have
expanded, from their increasing written publication online since 2014 and their increas-
ing video publication since 2020 under the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting)
links to assist English young adult sentencing processes and judicial role play, which
have been disrupted by COVID-19 – but not for children (10–17-year-olds). Meanwhile,
Corresponding author:
Max Lowenstein, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK.
Email: mlowenstein@bournemouth.ac.uk
1004764YJJ0010.1177/14732254211004764Youth JusticeLowenstein
research-article2021
Original Article
190 Youth Justice 22(2)
English youth sentencing explanations provided to children are not published and remain
limited to the private arena of the magistrates’ youth court, where judicial remarks are
delivered face-to-face to children, their parents and youth workers, bucking the increas-
ing publication trend of sentencing explanations for young adults. To better understand
this, this article attempts to answer the following focal question: What is the English
judicial approach towards youth sentencing explanations made within the magistrates’
youth court? To answer this question, the three theoretically defined purposes behind
them (Weijers, 2004: 30) – related to the relevant legal obligations, ideological perspec-
tives, and understandings of childhood and moral judgements – are drawn on to provide
a wider introductory discussion. Second, building on this, the English judicial approach
towards youth sentencing explanations made within the magistrates’ youth court is
explored further through normative interview data findings. Third, the introductory dis-
cussion and findings are concluded upon and the next steps towards a better global
understanding are considered.
Legal obligations
International and domestic children’s standards place some legal obligations on English
judges as they try to understand the human behaviours exhibited by children when sen-
tencing in the magistrates’ youth court (Weijers, 2004: 30). The international standards,
despite being ‘incomplete’, ‘are the common language of youth justice’ (Kilkelly, 2008:
191). English judges should ensure that their sentencing communications provide: ‘(1)
child-friendly information, (2) child participation in proceedings and (3) child-friendly
remedies’ (Liefaard, 2019: 216). The effective implementation of sentencing communica-
tions at sentencing depends on nuanced interpretations between the child and the adult
judge, testing judicial communication skills. While understanding the former matters,
unlike the latter, children do not create and are not obligated to improve their sentencing
communications, justifying the judicial focus here. Globally, judicial interpretations of
these standards and their effective implementation face ‘many challenges’ (Kilkelly and
Liefaard, 2019: 617). In England, out of court, youth offending service managers have
‘asserted their own priorities and objectives in seeking to deliver effective services’ (Smith
and Gray, 2019: 567), while, in court, child-friendly justice and enhanced child participa-
tion at sentencing require improvement in relation to ‘what children want’ (Daly and Rap,
2019: 15) and recognition of their ‘gendered, cultural and material inequalities’ (Phoenix,
2018: 18).
The relevant international legal obligations outlined in the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child are legally binding, albeit not on the courts. Under Article 37(b),
English judges are obligated to protect a child’s liberty following their ‘arrest, detention or
imprisonment’, ensuring custodial sentences remain as a ‘last resort and for the shortest
appropriate period of time’. Furthermore, under Article 40(1), English judges are obligated
to treat children ‘in a manner consistent’ with promoting their ‘dignity and worth’, recog-
nising their positive ‘reintegration’ and ‘constructive role’ within society, while, under
Article 40(4), English judges are obligated to apply a variety of youth sentencing options
that are ‘appropriate to [the child’s] well-being and proportionate both to their
To continue reading
Request your trial