Referring adolescents and young adults in contact with the criminal justice system to drug treatment

Dear Minister Fitiris, dear Ministers, dear colleagues,

I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Cypriot presidency for the invitation to attend today, to congratulate you on your presidency programme, and to wish you well for the coming six months.

In my intervention, I will address three aspects, which are underpinned by the rights of the child in EU and international law, and specific provisions - such as the EU Directive on safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.

Firstly, on the use of alternative measures to criminal detention.

As the discussion paper indicates, alternative measures to detention exist in all Member States. Symptomatic of the overuse of detention measures is overcrowding in detention facilities, as identified in our research - which impacts on access to services. FRA's regularly updated criminal detention database shows that access to healthcare in prisons is generally insufficient across all Member States. The situation does not seem to be better in police custody. Several children who were interviewed for FRA's research on the procedural rights of children in criminal proceedings mentioned difficulties in accessing regular medications, or a lack of care for alcohol intoxication or drug-related withdrawal symptoms while in police custody. Therefore, when a child or young person is detained and their right to access to healthcare is hampered, an opportunity could be missed to identify drug addiction and to divert that child or young person to an appropriate treatment program.

This brings me to my second point; that is the need for a wide range of non-custodial measures, provided for in law.

To begin on a positive note, FRA's research shows that, in general, detention of children suspected or accused of crime is generally treated as a measure of last resort in Member States. Alternative measures are usually prioritised. At the same time, the evidence shows that children from ethnic minority and migrant backgrounds, or from disadvantaged family and social environments, are generally more likely to be detained.

And while, in general, alternative measures are prioritised in the case of child defendants, FRA's research identifies one particular barrier in practice - which is an insufficient range of non-custodial measures foreseen in national law. The Agency undertook 220 interviews with various justice actors, and members of the judiciary indicated that they often only had two options at their disposal: the lightest possible measure (such as placing a child under supervision of a responsible adult) or detention. There was little middle ground. Therefore, it is important for the national authorities to ensure that the applicable law provides for a range of non-custodial measures.

My third point relates to the tools that our justice actors have at their disposal to detect possible drug use by a child defendant. The EU Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings gives a child defendant the right to a thorough individual assessment, conducted by an interdisciplinary team of experts as early as possible in the criminal proceedings. In practice, however, our research shows that such assessments are often not carried out promptly. Various justice professionals interviewed by FRA reported that they sometimes had to choose between conducting a thorough assessment and delivering that assessment quickly. Thorough and timely assessments are crucial for early detection of possible drug use by a child defendant and a subsequent treatment plan. When such an assessment lacks the necessary quality and timeliness, the ultimate objective is lost.

To conclude, allow me to say that FRA stands ready to support Member States with our expertise and evidence on promising practices, as these discussions progress.

Thank you.