SOAD9111: Social Issues and Social Policy
To: The Hon. Kyan Maher, MP, Attorney General & Minister for Justice
From: Heidi McConnell
RE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ALTERNATIVE DIVERSION MODEL
PURPOSE
The briefing seeks to address concerns regarding the minimum age of criminality and
the adverse consequences of subjecting young individuals to the criminal justice
system and highlight the potential benefits of alternative diversion models in
promoting rehabilitation, education, and support over punitive measures.
CRITICAL DEADLINE
N/A
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Evidence-based research supports raising the MACR and highlights the need to re-
evaluate the current system (Gov of SA, 2024). The variation in the MACR across
states challenges consistency and fairness in treating young offenders (Cage, 2023).
The punitive approach to juvenile justice may adversely affect young individuals'
rehabilitation, education, and overall well-being (Hahn & Payne, 2023).
Early contact with the justice system can lead to future offences, emphasising the
importance of addressing behaviours in a non-criminal justice setting to prevent long-
term negative consequences (Kruger & Schupp, 2021).
Vulnerable children with complex needs and vulnerabilities are overrepresented in the
justice system, indicating the necessity for alternative approaches to support these
individuals effectively (Cunneen & Tauri, 2019).
The presumption of doli incapax may not effectively safeguard vulnerable children,
suggesting a need for a more robust system to protect at-risk youth (Tuomi & Moritz,
2024).
Implementing a justice reinvestment approach could lead to long-term cost savings
and better outcomes for children, requiring initial investments in diversion programs
and support services (Malvaso et al., 2024).
Political and sensitive issues may arise from potential resistance to changing the
MACR and implementing new diversion models, impacting the acceptance and
implementation of proposed reforms (Carson & Kerr, 2020).
Allocating resources to develop and sustain alternative diversion programs and
support services for children involved in harmful behaviours may have financial
implications, requiring careful budget considerations (Manderson et al., 2020).
BACKGROUND
The alternative diversion model aims to address the challenges associated with the
current minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) by implementing a diversion
system for children below the age and addressing the proposed changes to the MACR
from 10 to 12 years of age. Under this model, children who engage in criminal
offences/harmful behaviours would not be subject to criminal prosecution. Instead,
they would be diverted to alternative support and intervention programs tailored to their
needs (Dooley et al., 2020).
The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) refers to the age at which a child
can be held accountable for their actions under the criminal justice system. Currently,
SOAD9111: Social Issues and Social Policy
in South Australia, the MACR is 10. However, given international standards and
research on child development, there has been growing concern regarding the
appropriateness of this age (Singh, 2023).
The minimum age of criminal responsibility alternative diversion model is designed to
replace the criminal justice response to behaviours exhibited by children below the
MACR. The model emphasises a therapeutic, cultural, and trauma-informed approach
to addressing harmful behaviours, focusing on prevention and rehabilitation rather than
punitive measures (Hallett et al., 2021).
ATTACHMENT(S)
Reference list
ADVICE FROM OTHERS
Frances Nelson, Presiding Member and Barrister, Parole Board, South Australia.
Jackie Bray, Chief Executive, Department for Child Protection.
David Brown, Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services.
FUNDING COMMENT
Development and implementation of alternative diversion programs (materials and
infrastructure) $800,000
Administrative costs (data collection tools and software) $300,000
Resource allocation for collaboration (travel costs) $200,000
Total funding allocation: $1,300,000
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Endorse alternative diversion models for juvenile offenders to promote fair and
effective treatment, aligning to inform evidence-based policy development.
Allocate funding for implementing diversion programs.
Initiate interagency collaboration for effective implementation, fostering partnerships
to address concerns raised and promote holistic approaches.
Establish ongoing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure accountability
and measure effectiveness in achieving the goals.
Authorised by:
07 / 04 / 2024
SOAD9111: Social Issues and Social Policy
SOAD9111: Social Issues and Social Policy
REFERENCES
Cage, J. (2023). An Exploration of Evidence-Based Practices in Juvenile Diversion
Programs (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Carson, E., & Kerr, L. (2020). Australian Social Policy and the Human Services (3rd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. (2019). The minimum age of criminal responsibility and children’s
rights: A global perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 123-130.
Dooley, D., Poon, J. S., & Sepulveda, D. (2020). Minimum age of criminal responsibility: A
review of international law and policy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
69, 101540.
Government of South Australia (2024) Minimum age of criminal responsibility – alternate
diversion model: Discussion paper. Retrieved from https://ehq-production-
australia.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com on 03/04/2024.
Hahn, P., & Payne, A. A. (2023). Measuring Juvenile Justice Outcomes for Restorative
Justice Diversion Programs. Veritas: Villanova Research Journal, 5(1), 13-21.
Hallett, S., Lamont, A., & Liebenberg, L. (2021). Restorative justice and diversion programs
for youth: A systematic review. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 48(3), 321-340.
Kruger, T., & Schupp, J. (2021). Diversion and prevention strategies in youth justice: A
systematic review. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 11(1), 43-57.
Malvaso, C., Magann, M., Ribeiro Santiago, P. H., Montgomerie, A., Delfabbro, P., Day, A.,
… Lynch, J. (2024). Early versus late contact with the youth justice system:
opportunities for prevention and diversion. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 36(1),
16–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2214973.
Manderson, L., Singh, N., & Jivan, V. (2020). Diverting juveniles from formal processing: A
systematic review. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 10(3), 231-244.
Singh, Y. (2023). Old enough to offend but not to buy a hamster: the argument for raising the
minimum age of criminal responsibility. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 30(1), 51-
67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2134229.
Tuomi, M., & Moritz, D. (2024). Criminal responsibility of older children: The failings of doli
incapax in Australia. Children & Society, 38, 456–469.
https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12715.
