By Bryan Kay

THE “INJUSTICE” of youth justice is leaving the victims of child crime to foot hefty repair bills while the offenders bear no liability, a fuming Dundee businessman said yesterday.

Jim Cosgrove, owner of Fishers Tours, was speaking out against the restorative justice system that seeks to rehabilitate child offenders as young as eight.

He has seen his fleet of buses come under attack on several occasions over the last couple of years, shouldering a vandalism repair bill of over £3500.

But it is the latest case—the high profile stone-throwing incident at Scott-Fyffe roundabout in November —that has provoked his angry reaction.

The Courier reported at the time how a bus full of Monifieth High pupils was attacked by a gang of youths, leaving a side window shattered and a young girl uninjured but terrified.

Mr Cosgrove has now been asked to take part in a restorative justice procedure with the youngster, thought to be a 12-year-old boy, identified as having committed the offence —but Mr Cosgrove says he feels more like the offender.

“There is no way I am going through all these meetings—all I want is the money to replace the window,” said Mr Cosgrove.

“I won’t get it, but the police seem to think we should always go to our insurance company. It’s not that simple. We have to pay excess and worry about rising premiums. Do they really expect me to sit in a meeting wasting my time so that someone can apologise to me—perhaps not face to face because they don’t have to meet me because of their age?

“My wife said it seemed like I was the offender and was being asked to do community service!”

Detective Sergeant Dave Sutherland, of Tayside crime reduction unit, defended the police response to youth crime, saying the force can only act within the legislation available to them.

He said restorative warnings and national guidelines were formulated by the Scottish Executive.

“In Tayside we developed a system based on the guidelines which would bring the right services to the individual (offender) as they required them. It has to be appreciated, as it not often is, that a juvenile under 16 who is referred to the children’s reporter is not there for prosecution.

“Therefore, what they are looking at is family background, the context of the crime and what they can do with the family and rehabilitation. There is no compensation and that has been the case since 1968.”

Mr Cosgrove argued that a young girl seated next to the window smashed could have been seriously injured and said the procedures would be inappropriate should such an outcome have occurred.

But DS Sutherland said that the procedures make allowances for tougher measures against more serious crimes.

“The process would have been exactly the same (had the girl been seriously injured),” said the officer. “But the referral and what happens to the individual might not be. If a child continues to offend further we would have to make a referral to the children’s reporter. Examples or outcomes could be a supervision order or secure accommodation.”

DS Sutherland added, “Preventative justice and the work that goes around the whole process has been shown to have impact on a child’s behaviour. In this case, the fact it has been some time since the incident and the agencies are involved shows significant work has been done with the child already.”

Mr Cosgrove’s situation came to light as Stagecoach announced a zero tolerance approach to vandalism on its buses. The company took the action after a Strathtay bus travelling in Arbroath was attacked by a seven-year-old boy.