The demands for England and Wales’ age of criminal responsibility to increase has up-roared within recent years from establishments such as the United Nations and other professional bodies. With Scotland’s latest increase of the age of criminal responsibility (ACR) as early as 2019, it has put the rest of the UK under the spotlight. This article will discuss the justifications for England and Wales’ stance on the ACR and explore reasons as to why the ACR is yet to follow the world trend.
A Brief Introduction to Children within the Legal System
The current age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, meaning children under this age cannot be arrested or charged with a crime. A child between the ages of 10 to 17 however can be charged and prosecuted for their crime, yet the way that they are dealt with in the criminal system is vastly different to how adult offenders are treated. At the trial hearing, the child offender is typically at the Youth Court (a division of Magistrates Court) and all of the proceedings keep the offender's identity anonymous (age, name, education, address and face remain undisclosed to the media). At the court, the language used is often less formal than what is heard in the adult courts, the offender's guardians/carers must attend if they are under the age of 16 and the judge removes their wigs and robes to ensure that the environment of the hearing is not too overwhelming for the youth offender (per gov.co.uk and the CPS).
Even 'life in custody' differs from that in an adult prison. The first notable difference is that children do not go to ‘prison’ but rather ‘Youth Detention Accommodation’ which in itself, reflects the different environment the youth offender enters into. All of these differences, whether obvious or subtle, all help to protect and safeguard the youth offender as England and Wales’ main priority for the offenders to reform and be rehabilitated.
Justifications for England and Wales' Current Stance
Intuition of right and wrong - arguably, children at the age of 10 intuitively should know the differences between right and wrong. Whilst this does hold some appeal, it is made in error as it assumes all children have the same moral transcript. When in reality, children learn morality very differently and this is very dependent on their environment whilst growing up. For instance, a child who commits a crime may see nothing wrong with the act because it is seen as a norm to their environment (friends, family, community) to be involved with the police.
Public protection - another potential justification for England and Wales’ stance is for public protection. This is a very valid justification as with the rise of youth gangs in inner cities, it is understandable as to why the public would want to hold such youths accountable for their actions. Such a justification was further perpetuated with the killing of 2-year-old James Bulger, which led to John Venables and Robert Thompson to be the UK’s youngest convicted killers.
UNICEF guidelines - a further justification for England and Wales’ stance on ACR is that it is in line with Article 40 of UNICEF guidelines. Article 40 states that “A child accused or guilty of breaking the law must be treated with dignity and respect. They have the right to legal assistance and a fair trial that takes account of their age. Governments must set a…justice system that enables children who have been in conflict with the law to reintegrate into society.” From this, it is clear to see that England and Wales are in line with such guidelines, hence some may say that there is no immediate need for the ACR to change.
Problems with England and Wales' Current Stance
Although England and Wales does not hold the lowest ACR (in India, it is age seven), it is still concerning to believe that such a child-centred society is willing to allow a child to be held accountable for their actions and have their futures ruined by having such a low accountability threshold. It is claimed to be lacking in justifications for its current ACR for numerous reasons.
Brain development - According to Dr Harriet Pierpoint, the ACR for England and Wales was set in a time before we had greater knowledge and understanding of the brain. However, with today’s knowledge she argues that we ought to rise the ACR as research has shown that there are vast developments of the brain between the ages of 10-19. The Royal Society report (2011) supports these findings as their research found that parts of the brain that are responsible for decision-making and impulsive actions are not fully developed “until at least the age of 20” according to Professor Nicholas Mackintosh. Whilst we understand that the brain is not fully developed until a certain point, having the ACR set so high would be rather reckless as we would be allowing fully grown individuals whom can drive cars, smoke and drink alcohol to be free of accountability despite all of the responsibility they may hold. This would be a far too lenient approach.
Future prospects - The effects of holding a child accountable for their actions at a vulnerable age of 10 are long-term. Not only will their records be tainted by the crime, but it also puts them at a disadvantage in securing employment and completing education, hence affecting their long-term prospects and quality of life. Thus, there is a demand for the ACR to be increased to ensure that the futures of these youths do not automatically go downhill because of an act they did as an immature child.
Out of sync - England and Wales’ stance on ACR is uncommon and deemed out of sync with their neighbouring Europeans. Charlie Taylor, chair for the Youth Justice Board describes England and Wales’ ACR to “look like an anomaly”. This anomaly was further shun when Scotland increased their ACR unanimously in 2019, from the age of 8 to 12. Hence it appears strange as to why the rest of UK is reluctant to follow this trend of raising the ACR.
Political connections - England and Wales’ are hesitant to raise the ACR as often anything surrounding the criminal justice system is used as ‘political tennis grounds’. Governments often campaign as being ‘tough on crime’ to ensure votes, which consequently offers them more seats and therefore more power. This tough approach to crime is appealing for voters as it ensures that their community stay safe, hence a rise in the ACR would mean the party would be softening their approach on crime, allowing more offenders to escape liability. Hence the idea of raising the ACR is unappealing to most government parties.
The Future
Due to England and Wales’ current state of social and political views towards ACR and the criminal justice system, the ACR is unlikely to be increased as even with the private bill (2017) which set out to set the ACR to 12 (alike Scotland), no changes have occurred.
Amandeep is a third-year Law student at Keele University from Birmingham. She represents Keele's Mooting society and acts as treasurer. In her spare time, she enjoys being surrounded by nature and is an avid enthusiast for Arts and Crafts.
Comments