The Government today said there are no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility after the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) raised debate over whether 10 is too young.
Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill QC was being interviewed by a 10-year-old in a podcast when he expressed concerns over the existing law.
Kids Law podcast host Alma-Constance Denis-Smith said she had been surprised to learn the age of criminal responsibility was 10, calling it ‘very young’.
Mr Hill, who was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation before becoming one of England’s top prosecutors in 2018, said: ‘I agree – we all have a lot of growing up to do still, even when we reach the age of 10.
‘Everybody recognises that as we all grow up, we all go through the same process, which is that we develop. And that development hasn’t finished when you’re 10; it hasn’t finished when you’re 15.
‘That doesn’t mean that you can’t be responsible for when you do something wrong, but it does mean that the criminal justice system needs to look very carefully and when we take people to court they’re truly responsible for what they’ve done.’
However, the Ministry of Justice that ‘children aged 10 and over are able to differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing’, with a spokesperson today telling MailOnline ‘there are no plans to raise the age’.
Mr Hill’s comments are likely to reignite a raging debate on criminal responsibility which saw MPs ask the Government to review the age limit in England and Wales and consider the effect of raising it to 12 or 14.
MPs were told that if the age were increased, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson – both 10 when they murdered two-year-old James Bulger in 1993 – would not have served custodial sentences.
Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill QC expressed concerns in a podcast in which a child interviewer said she had been surprised to learn the age of criminal responsibility
In the podcast, the Director of Public Prosecutions told Ms Denis-Smith that only Parliament could change the law.
He said the law in England and Wales had ‘developed over a long period of time – many years’, adding: ‘It is sometimes complicated – how to deal with children who commit crime and the age at which we even start to think about it has been changed over time’.
The top prosecutor also noted that the age of criminal responsibility had in the past been even lower than 10, and was set at 12 in Scotland.
Pointing to Scandinavia, where it is generally 15, he observed: ‘In other countries around Europe the age is quite different’.
He also pointed out that in the US the age of criminal responsibility varies between states – set at 12 in Massachusetts with no exceptions and six in North Carolina.
‘I completely understand that there are people here and around the world who want to talk about whether the age should be changed in their country, and that would include this country,’ Mr Hill said. ‘But it’s a decision that can only be taken by Parliament.’
Speaking to the Times, Ms Denis-Smith said she had been shocked to learn from her barrister parents how the criminal law would view her.
She called 10 ‘too young’ because ‘we are still in primary school and we still don’t understand how law works and what the world expects’.
The 10-year-old added that she thought 15 was a ‘good age’ to raise it to because that is the age at which ‘you are allowed to go travelling alone and you can start taking responsibility for what you do wrong’.
Tory MP Sir Robert Neill, chairman of the Justice Select Committee and himself a barrister, told MailOnline that Mr Hill’s remarks ‘reinforce our view that this should be looked at’.
‘In November last year the Justice Select Committee recommended that the Government should review that age of criminal responsibility,’ he said.
‘The DPP’s comments reinforce our view that this should be looked at. There are arguments on both sides, but it is a fact that England and Wales have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Western Europe, and Scotland doesn’t seem to have a problem with setting it at 12. Max Hill is a hugely experienced prosecutor, and certainly no ‘soft touch’, so his views should be listened to with respect.’
A Government spokesperson said: ‘There are no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is set at 10 to provide flexibility in addressing criminal behaviour and allows for early intervention to prevent further offending.’
The CPS refuted suggestions that Mr Hill had called for the age to be raised, with a spokesperson calling the claims ‘misleading’.
It comes after MPs called on the Government to consider raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, amid fears that too many children are facing adult justice.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) told the Justice Select Committee that ‘the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is inconsistent with accepted international standards’.
The equalities watchdog made reference to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which found that children’s brains continue to develop and mature past the age of 10 so are ‘unlikely to understand the impact of their actions or to comprehend criminal proceedings’.
Several child psychologists told the Justice Select Committee in November that children’s brains are not fully formed by the age of 10.
Kids Law podcast host Alma-Constance Denis-Smith asked Mr Hill why the age at which children can be held criminally responsible was 10, calling it ‘very young’ (stock)
Mr Hill, 57, said: ‘I agree – we all have a lot of growing up to do still, even when we reach the age of 10.’Everybody recognises that as we all grow up, we all go through the same process, which is that we develop. And that development hasn’t finished when you’re 10’
The law that would have let James Bulger’s killers off scot-free: Human rights bosses want to raise the UK’s age of criminal responsibility to 14
Youths suspected of crimes could be spared prosecution under controversial proposals outlined by Britain’s human rights watchdog.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has called on the Government to lift the age of criminal responsibility from ten to 14.
Under the proposals, children in England and Wales could not be arrested and charged for offences until they were ‘significantly’ older.
This would mean that youngsters involved in crimes as serious as murder could not be arrested, charged or dealt with by the courts and would instead have to be managed through the social care system.
The proposals mean ten-year-olds Jon Venables (pictured) and Robert Thompson, who tortured and killed two-year-old James Bulger, in 1993, would have been spared prosecution
The proposals mean ten-year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who tortured and killed two-year-old James Bulger, in 1993, would have been spared prosecution. They were found guilty that year – making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern British history.
But the EHRC said Britain’s current age of criminal responsibility, which was set at ten in 1963, is lower than in many European countries and ‘inconsistent with accepted international standards’.
The parliamentary committee, chaired by Sir Robert, recommended that the Ministry of Justice review the age of criminal responsibility and ‘report on the implications of raising the age in England and Wales to 12 and to 14’.
MPs want the Government to assess the likely effect this change would have on reducing the number of children in custody and alternative methods of dealing with children below the proposed ages who have committed serious offences.
Dr Pamela Taylor from Royal College of Psychiatrist said that England and Wales is ‘out of sync’ with the rest of the world on this issue.
Dr Alexandra Lewis, chair of the adolescent forensic faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said the current age of responsibility was based on the outdated proposition that the ‘most significant period of brain maturation was in the first five or possibly eight years’.
She told MPs: ‘Previously, it was thought that the most significant period of brain maturation was in the first five or possibly eight years.
‘We now know that a second critical period takes place in adolescence and is a very dramatic development of the frontal lobes, which are, essentially, responsible for decision-making, planning, consequential thinking, getting ideas about ourselves and social interaction.’
She added that ‘a second critical period takes place in adolescence… so it does not make sense to treat somebody at 10 the same as an adult’.
MPs were ultimately ‘not persuaded that [the age] should be immediately increased’. but called on the Ministry of Justice to consider the effects of raising the age of criminal responsibility.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told the Guardian: ‘The Committee said it is not convinced there is a reason to change the age of criminal responsibility – and we have no plans to do so.’
Two years ago, the EHRC called on the Government to lift the age of criminal responsibility from ten to 14.
Its proposals would mean children in England and Wales cannot be arrested and charged for offences until they are ‘significantly’ older.
This would mean that youngsters involved in crimes as serious as murder could not be arrested, charged or dealt with by the courts and would instead have to be managed through the social care system.
The proposals mean Venables and Thompson, who tortured and killed James Bulger in 1993, would have been spared prosecution.
They were found guilty that year – making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern British history.
But the EHRC said Britain’s current age of criminal responsibility, which was set at 10 in 1963, is lower than in many European countries and ‘inconsistent with accepted international standards’.
In a report submitted to the United Nations to review, the watchdog claimed criminalising children at such a young age could have a ‘detrimental impact on their wellbeing and development and risks making them more likely to re-offend as adults’.
David Isaac, former chairman of the commission, said: ‘Increasing the age of criminal responsibility is crucial to stop very young children being exposed to the harmful effects of detention and protect their future.’
The watchdog said the Government should instead introduce ‘therapeutic, welfare-based approaches for dealing with the harmful behaviour of children’.
An MoJ spokesman told the Mail at the time: ‘Younger children who offend are often diverted from the justice system or dealt with out of court.
‘In the last decade, there has been an 86 per cent reduction in the number of under-18-year-olds entering the youth justice system.’