Assessment 1: Case Study

The Case: Police v CW [2012] NSWChC 16’

Purpose

Apply your knowledge of the nature and extent of youth crime to analyse a real case scenario.

What you need to do:

Read ‘The Case: Police v CW [2012] NSWChC 16’ – the case details are provided below – just scroll down. Please note that the details have been adapted from those of the original.

Create a mind map on the module topic: ‘Nature and Extent of Youth Offending’.

Write a 750-word (+/- 10%) analysis in which you identify and apply at least one concept from your mind map to inform an understanding of the offences committed by CW.

Submit your mind map and your 750 word case analysis via the Turnitin Submission Link in the Assessment 1 folder before the due date and time.

The completed submission MUST include both a copy of the mind map you created and the 750-word (+/- 10%) analysis in a single file. Both items form part of the assessment as per the marking criteria.

You MUST make use of the essential readings for Module Topic 2 as part of your analysis. Be sure to reference the authors, in-text and in the reference list (See the marking criteria for Assessment 1 on vUWS for more details).

As part of your written analysis, you will need to include in-text citations to sources used to inform the analysis (e.g., the authors of the essential readings).

In-text citations will not be required for the mind-map as this component of the task should not include quotes nor long sections of text.

Sources informing the concepts and ideas included in the mind map MUST be included in the reference list. A single reference list that includes all sources used MUST be included with the final submission.

This Word document can serve as the template for your submission. The document contains sub-headings under which you can include each component of the task.

The Case1: Police v CW [2012] NSWChC 16

The content presented here is an adaptation of an original case dealt with by the Children’s Court of NSW, Police v CW [2012] NSWChC 16. This adaptation includes only those parts of the original judgement relevant

This is a case where a young person is to be sentenced, and the defence is doing everything to convince the court not to order him to serve a period of detention for breaching a suspended control order.

Chronology of encounters with crime:

CW was born on 10 September 1997.

On 25 November 2011 CW was sentenced to a suspended control order2 for nine months for two offences of malicious damage, two offences of intimidate police, and one of assault police causing actual bodily harm, again following a plea of guilty. CW was homeless and without any form of government assistance. He was drunk and the police detained him as an intoxicated person. The police tried to find a responsible adult who would take him in, but were unsuccessful. As a last resort, they decided to take him to his mother's place. When police advised CW that he was to be taken home he became abusive and threatening and spat on the upper pants and lower shirt of one of the police. His mother would not have him. He tried to run off, and there was a violent confrontation with the police. Eventually he was sprayed with OC spray 3and restrained. Two police were injured in the violent struggle, with Sergeant Hamilton receiving bruising to his left little finger, neck and right knee. Senior Constable Turner suffered similar injuries to her right thumb and left index finger. The malicious damage involved urination and scratched paint whilst in the dock.

On 1 June 2012, CW was found to be in possession of 0.50 grams of cannabis. He was arrested and taken to Byron Bay police station. He pleaded guilty to this offence on 21 June 2012 when the matter first came before Ballina Court.

On 2 June 2012, police spoke to CW about his apparent possession of alcohol. He swore at the police. The police arrested him for offensive language. There was a struggle during which Detective Tutt's wrist was bent back. Detective Tutt punched CW in the head. He was handcuffed and then made threats to the police. On 27 July 2012, CW pleaded guilty to the offences of assault police (not occasioning actual to a learning exercise in unit 102699 Youth Justice and Practice. Nonetheless, the content shown here includes parts of the original judgement, making this an authentic learning exercise.

The court can impose a control order (time in custody) and then suspend it, provided the child enters into a bond to be of good behaviour. If the bond is broken, the child may then have to serve the entire control order in custody (i.e. detention centre).

Oleoresin capsicum (OC) or more commonly known as, "pepper spray."

Mind map

Analysis of CW’s offending (750 words +/- 10%)

The concepts of social and cultural capital can used to understand the offences of CW as they provide basic frameworks in understanding how macrosystems and its tenets operate to influence individual action on a micro level. Most offending is because of deprivation, lack of resources, lack of contact with educations systems… a lot of it is about deprivation, trauma, neglect, abuse and also the system not meeting their needs (Gaskin, 2018) and this is evident in CW’s circumstance where he is homeless, without government support and also seems to lack support from adults in his life indicating deprivation and neglect to various degrees.

France, Botrell and Derrick (2012) argue that cultural and social capital shape the labour markets and the opportunities for young people to interact with education systems and have access to resources with can impact their ability to take pro-social avenues to avoid criminal behaviour. Given that CW is deprived of basic needs such as accommodation and facing multiple stressors, it is unlikely that his education is his priority which helps to understand his inclination to commit criminal offences as he is doing what he thinks is necessary to survive and cope with his stressors. Botrell and Armstrong (2007 cited in France, Botrell and Derrick, 2012) argue that it is the lack of clear access to pro-social routes that impact the quality of social interactions they come into contact with and affect systems that operate externally yet structure the choices available to these youth.

Armytage and Ogloff (2017 cited in Clancey, Wang & Lin, 2020) also found that a significant proportion of young persons in the youth justice system originate from challenging home lives, unstable accommodation or homelessness as well as socio-economic disadvantage or poverty. They also found that it was common for these youths to also be struggling with alcohol and substance misuse, which helps to inform of CW’s intoxication and possession of cannabis. Given that CW is only fourteen years old and misusing alcohol and drugs, there is likelihood that his cognitive abilities are impaired, resulting in aggressive and hostile behaviour towards police involved in his arrest.

Gaskin (2018) proposed that lack of provisions by the systems play a role in youth crime rates and in CW’s case, there doesn’t seem to have been further action or support provided to CW during his contact with police or within the system and it seems likely that little was done after to provide rehabilitation or resources geared towards a pro-social lifestyle.

Clancey, Wang & Lin (2020) argue that diversion is another avenue that can be taken to reduce the rates of young people entering the system and this is done by ways of programs that help young people take responsibility and make reparations for their actions so as to prevent them from falling deeper into the justice system.

Clancey, Wang & Lin (2020) also propose that on top of recognition that youth in the justice system are largely from vulnerable populations, it is also important to recognise the further detriments and harms that detention can exacerbate in detention and there have been inquiries that call for detention to be last resort. Nguyen (2018) argues it is important to consider the whole picture when looking at youth crime in order to understand that young people don’t blindly set out to hurt others or commit crime and usually their behaviour is indicative of something that has happened in the past that have led them to their current situation. This concept can be used to understand CW’s aggression and resistance towards police upon his arrest if he feels that he is misunderstood and/or being treated unfairly.

Stokes and Wyn (2007 cited in France, Botrell and Derrick, 2012) posit that macrosystemic influences shape young people’s experience in very personal ways that are negotiated in school, the labour market and youth justice which ultimately provides a more insightful perspective into making sense of CW’s offending and the influences in his life that have led him to his current circumstances. Jenkins (2005 cited in France, Botrell and Derrick, 2012) argues that while individuals are unique and variable, selfhood is thoroughly constructed in the on-going processes of social interaction within which individuals define and redefine themselves and others throughout their lives and it is through this premise that CW’s offending can be re-defined and understood as a result of his challenging home life and lack of parental and systemic support.

References

Clancey, G., Wang, S., and Lin, B 2020, ‘Youth justice in Australia: Themes from recent inquiries’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 605, Australia Insitute of Criminology, Canberra.

France, A., Botrell, D., and Derrick, A 2012, ‘A Theory of the Political Ecology of Youth and Crime’, in A Political Ecology of Youth Crime, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingston, pp. 18-34.

Gaskin, C 2018, ‘The Offical Extent of Youth Offending, 11th September, Video, viewed 9 April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCI33h5Tdw&t=1s.

Nguyen, H 2018, ‘The Offical Extent of Youth Offending, 11th September, Video, viewed 9 April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCI33h5Tdw&t=1s.