Search results

The purpose of this viewpoint paper is to explore the concept of experiential peer support, which involves individuals who have lived experiences of using care and justice services. This paper discusses whether experiential peer support can contribute to developing a participatory culture in youth justice practice.

This viewpoint paper will critically evaluate the relational power of experiential peers. Particular attention will be paid to the key components of relational practices by reflecting on ways to enhance the voice of the child within participatory and child first approaches. The paper draws on a range of evidence and research to explore whether inclusion of a lived experience perspective can foster participatory cultures.

Experiential peers can create a participatory youth justice culture, which can positively impact on desistance for justice involved children.

Further research needs to be undertaken to extrapolate the key characteristics of effective experiential peer support. This includes discussion on whether recruitment of wounded healers into professional youth justice roles can enhance participation in youth justice settings and construct conditions for social growth to develop in youth justice practice.

The author of this viewpoint paper has personal experience of care, youth incarceration and professional experience of youth justice participation practice, providing a unique vantage point and contribution to the desistance and rehabilitation literature.

One of the arguments used against British entry to the EEC was the loss of sovereignty; that Parliament would not be able to fully control all the statutory measures which would be applied to the people. EEC regulations apply without implementation by national governments, but since member‐states, through their representatives on Council and Commission, have participated, it is considered that national governments have in effect enacted them. EEC Directives as the name implies requires national governments to apply the provisions of the EEC measure; transitional exemptions up to five years are usually included for individual provisions, where internal adjustment is required. MAFF food regulations, implementing EEC Directives, have been made after this pattern for a number of food additives. The statutory measures are unlikely to present any greater difficulties than usual, but in interpretation, courts in this country have to consider EEC law above that of English and Scottish courts. The Court at Luxemburg exists mainly for interpretation, but courts and litigants have been advised against reference owing to the lengthy delays and the high court or court of sessions should make is interpretation based on EEC law.