Considerations before imposing a curfew and electronic monitoring for Young Serious Offenders

What is a curfew and electronic monitoring of curfew for Young Serious Offenders

A curfew (with or without electronic monitoring) can be imposed on a rangatahi alongside a Young Serious Offender supervision with activity order under section 308AA(1) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

Section 306(1)(f) also allows the court to impose any condition that may reduce the likelihood of further offending. This may include a curfew (without electronic monitoring).

If a rangatahi does not have a Young Serious Offender declaration, the courts have separate powers to use curfew (section 296J) and electronic monitoring (section 296K) if an intensive supervision order is in place.
Orders and monitoring for the Youth Court

A curfew requires the rangatahi to be at a specified address during their specified curfew hours. It is part of a plan to support positive behavioural change, promote safety and provide structured boundaries while keeping the rangatahi within their community.

When imposing a curfew, the court specifies in the condition:

• the date when curfew will start
• how long the curfew will be in place
• when the curfew period will be – the curfew needs to be:
  • at least 2 hours for each day that the rangatahi is subject to a curfew
  • no more than 84 hours in a week
• which address the rangatahi needs to be at during the curfew.

An Electronic Monitoring of Curfew condition (EM Curfew) can be imposed by the court under section 308AA(6) to help ensure the rangatahi follows the curfew.

The EM Curfew conditions for Young Serious Offenders are different from electronic monitoring of bail conditions (EM Bail).

Information sheet: The difference between EM Bail and EM Curfew (PDF 55 KB)

Considering a curfew

Our recommendation regarding a curfew is informed by building and deepening our understanding of the rangatahi, their circumstances, strengths, needs, and best interests. This understanding helps guide the most appropriate pathway for the rangatahi, which may include a curfew. In making our recommendation, we carefully balance:

• the public interest (which includes public safety)
• the interest of any victims and the impact of the EM Curfew proposal
• the accountability of the rangatahi for their behaviour.

Before recommending a curfew to the court, we consider:

• the underlying causes of offending behaviour (static and dynamic risk factors) and the potential of the curfew to interrupt harmful behaviour patterns
• how it will address dynamic risk factors and how it may reduce offending behaviours
• any impact on oranga for the rangatahi and the whānau or family who reside at the address
• the impact of a curfew on others in the home
• safety: use Tiaki Oranga to understand any risk of harm, including family harm concerns for the rangatahi or other tamariki or rangatahi living in the home
• the potential impact on engagement with community and therapeutic supports
• any previous behaviours linked to EM Bail or EM Curfew (including damage to equipment)
• considerations of disability needs (such as autism and sensory issues)
• what the rangatahi and their whānau or family need to have the best chance of successfully complying with any order made and how a curfew may assist this
• the support network of whānau, family and professionals.

Underlying causes of offending behaviour – dynamic and static risk factors

If our assessment of whether an address is appropriate for a curfew identifies safety concerns, we can:

• complete CYRAS checks of everyone living in the home (if they consent to a CYRAS check)
• use section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act to request information from other professionals to build our understanding of needs and risks.

Policy: Sharing information

Police checks can only occur if a safety concern is identified, and with consent from the relevant person.

Planning the curfew period

When planning the curfew period, we consider the understanding we have built around the patterns of offending behaviour, and factors that contribute to the behaviours. We consider the least restrictive option for the rangatahi in our recommendations to the Youth Court while balancing:

• the oranga and best interests of the rangatahi
• the impact the curfew may have for the rangatahi on employment, education and prosocial activities
• the public interest (which includes public safety)
• the interest of any victims
• the accountability of the rangatahi for their behaviour.

Our assessment will inform our recommendations to the Youth Court of the days, times and nature of the curfew conditions.

Curfew hour limits

Curfew hours are limited to being no more than 84 hours a week, and for a period of at least 2 hours for each day that the rangatahi is subject to a curfew – for example, 7pm to 7am.

The bulk of the period for monitoring of curfew may be at evening or high-risk periods over the weekend.

Curfew hours can be adjusted if needed and should not impact rangatahi engaging in prosocial activities, recreational activities or employment opportunities. We need to be considered when we get requests from the rangatahi to leave their address during curfew hours so that we continue to support prosocial behaviours and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Monitoring curfew and electronic monitoring for Young Serious Offenders – changes to the curfew hours

Electronic Monitoring of curfew

Before a section 308AA(6) EM Curfew can be imposed by the court, the court must be satisfied that the other conditions of the order and any judicial monitoring of the rangatahi are unlikely to be sufficient to secure compliance with curfew.  Our considerations must take this into account.

If we recommend EM Curfew, we also consider:

• the impact of electronic monitoring on others in the home
• tenancy agreements and landlord consent (including Kāinga Ora).

Where the rangatahi is not living independently, a home support person (sponsor) is required. They agree to:

• have EM Curfew occur at that address
• provide the rangatahi with support to comply with the conditions of the curfew
• be on site when a field officer (arranged by Corrections) and social worker need to enter the premises to check cellular coverage and install and check the equipment.

They need to sign the Home Support Person information and consent form.

Electronic Monitoring of curfew: information for Home Support Person (PDF 1.4 MB)

Where the rangatahi is living independently, we talk with the other people they share their house with (if any) and ensure they:

• understand what having EM Curfew in their home means to them, including that a field officer and social worker need to enter the premises to check network coverage, and install and check the equipment
• do not oppose EM Curfew occurring at the address.

Electronic Monitoring of curfew: information for whānau and others living in the home (PDF 1.4 MB)

Organising my practice

Policy: Sharing information

Section 334 report by social worker recommending a curfew and section 335 court plan

Our section 334 report is informed by our assessment report, which articulates our understanding and analysis and supports our decision-making.

We tell the court:

• why we think a curfew is appropriate and necessary (considering the least restrictive form that is appropriate in the circumstances)
• how the curfew conditions could be implemented to ensure the rangatahi has the best possible support to comply with their curfew and the order, including:
  • any concerns identified though our assessment, along with ways to mitigate those concerns
  • how we have considered section 4A(2)
  • how we have tailored curfew times to align with considerations and the requirements of a Supervision with Activity or Intensive Supervision order
• how electronic monitoring will support compliance, if we are recommending it, and the outcome of the remote feasibility check.

Legal advice

We assist rangatahi to talk with their youth advocate if they want legal advice and support.

Request an adjournment

If we were not told of the intention to impose a curfew, we may request a brief adjournment so we can quickly consider how the curfew conditions could be implemented.

If electronic monitoring of the curfew is being proposed without our prior knowledge, we ask the court to delay imposing any additional conditions until we can assess the address and undertake a full feasibility check.