Three chapters on the access gap.

Cross-agency consideration of AVL impacts. Rationale: While decisions regarding the use of AVL in Youth Court proceedings sit within the court system, the impacts of those decisions are experienced primarily by children and young people in detention and by the services responsible for their care. A structured approach to cross-agency consideration is necessary to ensure that decisions about court processes are informed by their full effects on children and young people’s wellbeing and on the systems responsible for supporting them. Method: That decisions regarding the routine and expanded use of AVL in Youth Court proceedings be informed by structured cross-agency consideration, including assessment of: a) the therapeutic and wellbeing impacts on children and young people before, during and after court appearances b) the operational and staffing implications for youth justice services responsible for their care c) the resource and budgetary consequences associated with managing post-court distress and behavioural escalation.

Guidance for non-essential AYTC staff attendance in court proceedings. Rationale: The Inquiry heard that the presence of non-essential custodial or operational staff carried inherent risks to children and young people’s rights to privacy. Clear safeguards are required to ensure that any staff attendance at court is necessary, transparent, rights-respecting, and accountable. Method: a) Require all non-essential AYTC staff who attend AVL court proceedings involving detained children and young people to be formally recorded as in attendance. b) Limit attendance to circumstances where there is a clear and documented justification demonstrating that the staff member’s presence is necessary to support the child/young person or the administration of justice. c) DHS to develop and deliver mandatory, role-specific training for any staff who may attend AVL court proceedings, covering privacy and confidentiality obligations; d) DHS to establish clear policies and practice guidance governing attendance and confidentiality as it relates to AVL court proceedings (or supplement existing policies to ensure this is addressed).

Ensure Choice and Inclusion in Court Appearances. Rationale: The Inquiry found that children and young people have limited awareness of their right to seek an in- person court appearance and are rarely supported to exercise informed choice. The routine use of AVL risks displacing the child from decisions that directly affect their rights and participation. Method: a) Require that children and young people are proactively informed, in accessible formats, of their right to request an in-person appearance and to discuss this with their lawyer. b) Prohibit default AVL use for substantive hearings, including sentencing, bail determinations and trials, unless an individualised assessment determines that AVL is appropriate and reasonable in the child’s best interests. c) Ensure that any decision to proceed via AVL is documented and based on informed consent following legal advice

Strengthening Children’s Participation and Voice in Youth Justice Proceedings. Rationale: Children and young people involved in youth justice proceedings have a right to be heard, understood, and meaningfully involved in legal processes that affect them. Effective participation is central to procedural fairness, the child’s experience of justice, and the legitimacy of court outcomes. Oversight observations from this Inquiry indicate that children’s participation can be diminished where proceedings are highly legalistic, time-pressured, or conducted via AVL. In these contexts, children may experience proceedings as remote, confusing, or something done to them rather than with them. Legal representatives play a pivotal role in translating legal processes into meaningful participation for children. This responsibility is heightened in AVL proceedings and in circumstances where decisions about mode of appearance are made, as addressed in Recommendation 3. Method: That legal representatives for children and young people strengthen practice expectations and supports to ensure that children and young people are active participants in their AVL proceedings through: a) Applying heightened participation and engagement safeguards where proceedings are conducted via AVL, recognising the increased risk of disengagement, misunderstanding, and reduced communication. b) Preparing children specifically for AVL appearances, including how they can communicate, seek clarification, and raise concerns during proceedings. c) Actively monitoring the child/young person’s engagement during AVL proceedings and advocating for breaks, adjustments, or alternative arrangements where effective participation is compromised. In implementing these measures, particular attention should be given to Aboriginal children and young people, for whom barriers to participation and trust in legal processes may be heightened.

Raise Awareness and Clarify Legislation on AVL Use. Rationale: The Inquiry identified ambiguity in how legislative thresholds governing AVL use are understood and applied in practice. This has contributed to default AVL practices. Method: a) Issue clear legislative and policy guidance clarifying that AVL use is conditional, not presumptive, and must meet the statutory threshold of being appropriate and reasonable in the individual circumstances of the child or young person. b) Require decision-makers to explicitly consider participation, understanding, disability, cultural factors and access to legal representation when determining mode of appearance. c) Embed periodic independent review of AVL use against rights-based indicators.

Establish Private and Appropriate AVL Settings. Rationale: The Inquiry found that conducting court proceedings via AVL in informal or shared detention spaces undermines dignity, privacy and behavioural regulation. Inadequate environments contribute to confusion, distress and escalation. Method: a) Establish purpose-designed, private AVL suites within detention facilities that are used exclusively for court proceedings, ensuring it can safely cater for the legal, technical and environmental needs of the child or young person. b) Prohibit the use of recreational or multi-purpose spaces for AVL court appearances. c) Ensure access to private, unsupervised consultation spaces for confidential communication with lawyers before, during and after court.

Implement Comprehensive Support Before, During and After Appearances via AVL. Rationale: Children and young people frequently experience confusion, distress and uncertainty before, during and after court proceedings. Evidence before this Inquiry demonstrates that inadequate explanation and support - particularly following AVL appearances - contributes to disengagement, emotional dysregulation and increased risk of escalation. Support must be structured, consistent and available irrespective of whether a child appears in-person or via AVL. Method: a) Establish a minimum support standard requiring that children and young people are provided with clear, developmentally appropriate explanations of court processes and outcomes before and after each appearance. b) Ensure that a trained support person is available to children and young people immediately following court to explain outcomes, conditions and next steps, and to provide emotional regulation support.

Provide Communication Support and Training for Court Professionals. Rationale: Children and young people - particularly those with disability, neurodivergence, hearing loss, language barriers or cultural differences - face heightened barriers to understanding and participation in court. The Inquiry identified inconsistent communication practices and limited specialist capability across court environments. Method: a) Further expand upon training for judicial officers, lawyers and court staff on child development, communication needs, disability, trauma-informed practice and culturally responsive engagement.

Upgrade Court Environment and Support. Rationale: The Inquiry heard that current conditions in the Adelaide Youth Court cells compromise the safety, dignity and wellbeing of children and young people, limiting their ability to exercise a genuine right to appear in person. Evidence before this Inquiry indicates that children and young people awaiting court in these cells are exposed to avoidable distress and escalation risk. Where in-person attendance is required, children and young people must be accommodated in environments that meet minimum standards of care and are supervised by staff equipped to respond to vulnerability and distress in a trauma-informed manner. Method: a) The CAA upgrade all Adelaide Youth Court cells within 12 months to ensure they meet child- appropriate standards of safety, dignity and humane treatment. b) The CAA and DHS establish Youth Court fit-for-purpose facilities at the AYTC to support the in- person attendance and participation of children and young people in Youth Court proceedings, where it is determined by Court to be appropriate. c) All staff responsible for supervising children and young people in Youth Court cells be provided with accredited training in mental health first aid, trauma-informed practice and de-escalation, with a focus on recognising distress and preventing escalation.

Address widening gap in Year 9 NAPLAN results between metropolitan and remote students

Recommendations on detention centre conditions, watch-house usage, and capacity management. Found 42-102 children in watch-houses daily. Youth detention at 99.6% capacity.

Limit isolation and lockdowns in youth detention. The report states that isolation and lockdowns should be tightly limited, used only as a last resort, and not used as routine behaviour management. It also calls for enforceable standards that prohibit solitary confinement of children and young people except in rare emergencies.

Integrate cultural input into incident workflows. The report recommends explicitly including cultural input in incident workflows, including space for cultural workers to contribute to records as part of a child-centred, rights-based response.

Practice and system reform to support the workforce operationalise the use of isolation practices in a safe and appropriate manner. Ensuring appropriate line of sight and accountability for the use and ‘avoidance of use’ of such practices. Rationale: Investment in both administrative and staff training/capacity building will assist in greater consistency in the appropriate application of isolation practices and accountability to management and oversight bodies. Method: a) Implement clinical and external review mechanisms to prevent and oversee extended isolation periods. b) Develop IT solutions that can accurately record and report data about the time that children are isolated. c) Develop and fund non-punitive, relational de-escalation models, including Aboriginal-led and trauma-informed approaches. d) Ensure staff training in child development, rights-based practice, cultural safety, and disability-responsive communication.

Legislative and policy reform that provides consistent and robust guidance for the use of isolation. Rationale: Ambiguous grounds for isolation enable discretionary and overly broad application of isolation, increasing the risk of arbitrary use. Method: a) Amend the YJA Regulations and/or YJA Act to regulate all isolation practices used by the AYTC b) Mandate comprehensive record keeping for all isolations, including start/end times, rationale, authorisation, and observations. c) Amend Operational Order 68 to align directly with legal thresholds and international standards.