Thesis (LL.M.)--Stellenbosch University, 2003. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In recognition of the socio-economic imbalances inherited from the past and the abject poverty experienced by many, the people of South Africa adopted a Constitution fully committed to protecting socio-economic rights and advancing social justice. Apartheid constituted a violation of every internationally recognised human right. Seen in this light the emphasis on socio-economic rights in the new South African Constitution represents a commitment to guarantee to everyone in society a certain minimum standard of living below which they will not be allowed to fall. As the Constitution recognises socio-economic rights as justiciable rights, they can be of assistance to those who are unable to support themselves when challenging the state for the non-delivery of basic services. The duty to deliver the services lies first with the state and the court becomes involved only once it is alleged that the state has failed to fulfil its duty. The primary purpose of the study is aimed at determining the effectiveness of the South African Human Rights Commission in monitoring court orders in respect of the implementation of socio-economic rights. Non-Governmental Organisations, involved in the promotion and protection of human rights including socio-economic rights, cannot be left out of the process. It is argued that where the Courts issue structural interdicts, which have of late been used by them, albeit not enough in the context of socio-economic rights, they are responsible for the implementation of such orders. It is also argued that the South African Human Rights Commission and NGOs must be enjoined to ensure that court orders are better implemented. Court orders in respect of socio-economic rights in almost all the cases to date were neither implemented nor monitored adequately. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Ter erkenning van die sosio-ekonomiese ongelykhede wat post-apartheid Suid- Afrika geërf het en die volslae armoede waaraan talle Suid-Afrikaners onderwerp is, het die mense van Suid-Afrika 'n grondwet aanvaar wat verbonde is tot die beskerming van sosio-ekonomiese regte en die bevordering van maatskaplike geregtigheid. Apartheid het elke internasionaal-erkende mensereg geskend. Teen hierdie agtergrond verteenwoordig die klem op sosioekonomiese regte in die nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse grondwet 'n verbondenheid daartoe om vir elkeen in die maatskappy 'n bepaalde minimum lewensstandaard te waarborg, waaronder hulle nie toegelaat sal word om te sak nie. Aangesien die grondwet sosio-ekonomiese regte as beregbare regte erken, kan hierdie regte van nut wees vir mense wat hulself nie kan onderhou nie, as hulle die staat uitdaag omdat basiese dienste nie gelewer word nie. Die plig om dienste te lewer berus eerstens by die staat, met die gevolg dat die hof eers betrokke raak as die staat nie daarin slaag om sy plig te vervul nie. Die primêre doel van hierdie studie is om vas te stel hoe effektief die Suid- Afrikaanse Menseregtekommissie is met die monitering van hofbevele wat betrekking het op die verwesenliking van sosio-ekonomiese regte. Nieregeringsinstansies wat betrokke is by die bevordering en beserkming van menseregte, met inbegrip van sosio-ekonomiese regte, kan egter nie uit die proses gelaat word nie. In hierdie studie word aangevoer dat waar die strukturele interdikte gee, soos wat in die onlangse verlede gebeur het, selfs al is dit nie genoeg in die konteks van sosio-ekonomiese regte nie, hulle ook verantwoordelikheid is daarvoor dat sulke bevele uitgevoer word. Dit word verder gestel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Menseregtekommissie en nieregeringsinstansies moet saamwerk om te verseker dat hofbevele beter uitgevoer word. Tot op datum is amper geen hofbevele oor sosio-ekonomiese regte bevredigend uitgevoer of genoegsaam gemoniteer nie.

This thesis employs a broad evaluative framework to examine the impact of the Youth Justice Service (YJS) on the post-intervention offending behaviour of young people on community-based court orders. The YJS is a Queensland government policy initiative that aims to monitor compliance with community-based court orders, and identify and address causes of criminal behaviour. The evaluative framework views policy, implementation and impact as distinct but related dimensions of intervention. Reflecting this framework, three primary research questions are addressed: (1) Does the YJS concept represent a goal-directed, theoretically-informed, executable and assessable juvenile crime prevention policy?, (2) Is the YJS concept realised through service delivery?, and (3) What is the effect of the YJS on future offending behaviour? Three studies, employing qualitative and quantitative methods, examined these questions. Study one examined the YJS concept, drawing on some key themes from literature on policy development and implementation, developmental and life-course criminology and developmental crime prevention. This study synthesised key policy and procedure documents around six themes, including (1) rationale, (2) goals, (3) theory, (4) service delivery model, (5) method of operation, and (6) key performance indicators. Findings indicated that the YJS concept represents only marginal adjustments from the traditional Area Office (AO) model of service delivery, and integrates few new preventative mechanisms that would foreseeably lead to change at the operational level. Moreover, it suffers from goal ambiguity, fails to incorporate some key components of best-practice crime prevention that have proven successful when working with at-risk young people, lacks sufficient process-level specificity to ensure treatment fidelity, and places heightened importance on measuring impacts that have political value rather than benefits for the clients. In the second study, an in-depth case study of the Logan Area Youth Justice Service (LAYJS) was conducted to explore how the YJS operated in reality, and as compared with the policy directive. Information was drawn from a variety of sources including interviews with staff and clients, policy and procedure documents, direct observation, case management files and staff-researcher interaction. Evidence suggested that the LAYJS was focused primarily on ensuring compliance with court orders. Several organisational factors, such as staff workloads, the statutory basis for monitoring compliance, and the capacities of staff, have meant that comparatively little attention has been directed at addressing offending behaviour. For the most part, the LAYJS employs an individualised case management process, as distinct from the collaborative, team-based model that is prescribed in the YJS concept. Caseworkers have little faith in their ability to bring about positive behavioural change in their clients, and subsequently transferred the responsibility for intervention outcomes to the client. While acknowledging the importance of families in preventing offending, caseworkers emphasised that a number of organisational tensions have prevented them from engaging families in the case management process. The final study examined the impact of the YJS on post-intervention offending, controlling for developmental risk factors and key features of the intervention process. A random sample (N=190) of clients from three YJS offices and three AOs was drawn from the population of clients who had active community-based court orders between June 1999 and December 2002. Information from Department of Communities' case management files and rearrest data from the Queensland Police Service were entered into a purpose-designed database, and analysed using bivariate and multivariate methods including logistic regression and survival analysis. High proportions of missing data on non-statutory variables suggested poor record management practices, or alternatively that operational staff do not understand the role of developmental risk and/or protective factors and social contexts in preventing offending behaviour. Results indicated that the YJS was no better than the AO at preventing recidivism, as measured at 18-months post-intervention, even after controlling for risk factors that were significantly related to recidivism. The analyses found that some unmeasured variation in service delivery, even within service types, did impact upon recidivism, supporting the hypotheses of the first study and the contention that variation in intervention practice can influence offending behaviour. The likelihood of recidivism was increased if the client was using drugs or was influenced by delinquent peers, and decreased if he stayed in school until years 11 or 12, or where caseworkers addressed familial problems. This provides some sense of programs that may be appropriate for young offenders in the context of a community-based program. It also highlights the critical importance of incorporating families into case management, not only for the purpose of providing information, but also as viable targets of intervention. Survival analyses indicated that the YJS might have had some temporary deterrent effect, although this effect had dissipated by 18-months post-intervention. This result may reflect the increased focus on ensuring compliance with court orders as found in the LAYJS case study. However, given the hypothesis that the lack of process direction will result in variable practices across offices, it cannot be assumed that all YJSs place equal importance on compliance. Overall, findings suggest that the promise that the YJS would provide an innovative model of service delivery and generate improved outcomes for young offenders has not been realised. This research has added further weight to the perspective that examines both the individual and combined impact of theory, policy and implementation for measuring client outcomes. Deficits in any of these components ultimately have a ripple effect, making it difficult to achieve the predetermined goals of the policy at the operational level.

Qu’évoque la motivation ? Comment le droit répressif appréhende-t-il la motivation des décisions de justice ? Le concept de motivation renvoie à plusieurs aspects qui changent son sens suivant le rôle assigné à la fonction juridictionnelle. S’il est compréhensible qu'une seule et unique approche ne s'impose pas, la motivation doit être reconsidérée.Elle est en effet généralement perçue comme un instrument contentieux, l’objectif étant de limiter l’arbitraire du juge. A cette fin, elle appelle un ensemble de règles devant s’imposer au juge. L'examen de ces règles dans le domaine du droit répressif aboutit à un résultat peu satisfaisant. Si la motivation est imposée au juge dans certains cas, elle est en revanche écartée dans d’autres, sans qu’on puisse imposer un critère unique légitimant une telle distinction. La nature objective de son contenu est marquée par des lacunes qui alimentent l’approche subjective de la motivation. C'est lorsqu'il est question de méthode que les contournements sont les plus visibles : la motivation à phrase unique, le copier-coller ou encore la pratique de la motivation pré-rédigée. Au demeurant, le contrôle de la motivation, fut-il exercé par le juge européen, laisse au juge répressif une marge d'appréciation, voire parfois une totale liberté. Du droit de la motivation des décisions pénales, le résultat est finalement contrasté.Ne faut-il pas alors aller plus loin et dépasser cette approche contentieuse de la motivation des décisions pénales ? La réponse est évidemment positive. Pour mieux préserver les intérêts du justiciable, la motivation doit se transformer. Cette transformation se marque par un rapprochement de plus en plus fort entre la motivation et les droits fondamentaux du justiciable. La motivation se révèle en effet être la condition de l'exercice des droits de la défense, en même temps qu’elle s’intègre dans le concept plus large du droit au procès équitable. Dans la dynamique de cette évolution, la motivation -en vue de la compréhension et de l’acceptation de la décision par le justiciable- doit occuper une place centrale. Cela implique d'entrevoir, au-delà des règles imposées au juge de motiver la décision, certaines améliorations afin de parvenir à la reconnaissance d’un véritable droit du justiciable à la motivation de la décision, de sa décision. / What evokes motivation? How criminal law grasps motivation of judicial decisions ?The concept of motivation refers to several aspects that change its meaning depending on the role assigned to the judicial function. While it is understandable that a single approach does not compel, motivation should be reconsidered.Motivation is in fact generally perceived as a litigation instrument for the judge, the main aim being to limit its arbitrary power. To this end, a set of rules are binding on the judge. The review of these rules in the field of criminal law leads to an unsatisfactory result. If motivation is imposed on the judge in certain judicial decisions, it is however rejected in others, and a single criterion justifying such a distinction may not appear relevant. The objective nature of its contents is marked by gaps which feed the subjective approach to the motivation. It is when it is about method that the bypassing is the most visible : the motivation with unique sentence, the copy and paste or the practice of the pre-drafted motivation. Moreover, even exercised by the European Court, control of motivation leaves the criminal judge many appreciation margins, even sometimes a total freedom. Concerning the analysis of the criminal decisions, the right of the motivation ends in a contrasted result.Should we then go further and beyond this litigating approach of motivation? The answer is obviously positive. To better safeguard the interests of citizens, motivation must be transformed. This transformation is marked by an increasing connection between motivation and fundamental human rights. The motivation turns out to be the condition for the exercise of the rights of defense, while it fits into the category of the right to fair trial. In the dynamics of this evolution, the motivation - with the aim of the understanding and of the acceptance of the decision by the citizen - has to occupy a central place. It involves to glimpse, beyond rules compulsory for the judge to motivate the decision, certain improvements in order to achieve the recognition of a genuine right of the defendant for the motivation of the decision, its decision.