Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility

As youth justice practitioners, we are often confronted with some of the most difficult cases in the criminal justice system. Cases involving serious violence, sexual offending and significant harm to victims rightly provoke strong public concern and calls for accountability. However, difficult cases should not distract us from an important legal and ethical question: at what age should a child be held criminally responsible for their actions?

The recent Southampton case involving three boys convicted of raping two teenage girls has reignited debate about youth justice and sentencing. The boys, aged 13 and 14 at the time of the offences, initially received sentences that prompted widespread criticism and were subsequently referred for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme.

Like many practitioners working with children, I understand the public concern generated by cases of this nature. The harm caused to the victims was profound and demands a serious response. However, the case also highlights a fundamental tension within youth justice: how do we balance accountability with our legal and moral obligation to recognise that children are developmentally different from adults?

The current position in England and Wales

England and Wales have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe.

A child can be arrested, prosecuted and punished through the criminal courts from the age of 10. Although the youth justice system differs from the adult system, children as young as 10 are still exposed to criminalisation and its potentially lifelong consequences.

This position sits increasingly uneasily alongside contemporary research into child development. We now know far more about adolescent brain development than was understood when many of our criminal justice frameworks were established.

The parts of the brain responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, emotional regulation and consequential thinking continue to develop throughout adolescence. Children often act impulsively, are heavily influenced by peers and may struggle to appreciate long-term consequences in the way adults do. These are not excuses for offending behaviour; they are developmental realities that should inform how the law responds to children.

What do international standards tell us?

The United Kingdom has repeatedly been criticised by international child rights bodies for maintaining such a low age of criminal responsibility.

In General Comment No. 24, published in 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child concluded that an age of criminal responsibility below 14 years is not internationally acceptable and encouraged states to adopt a minimum age of at least 14. The Committee relied on developments in neuroscience, child psychology and evidence-based youth justice practice.

The Committee has also specifically recommended that the UK raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 and expand the use of diversionary and welfare-based interventions, while recognising the need for proportionate responses to the most serious harmful behaviour.

Similarly, the Council of Europe has long advocated for child-friendly justice systems that prioritise rehabilitation, participation and the best interests of the child. Its guidance recognises that children require a fundamentally different legal response from adults and that justice systems must reflect children’s developmental needs.

As legal practitioners, we should ask why England and Wales continue to resist a reform that much of the international community now regards as settled.

The Southampton case and the limits of punishment

The Southampton case illustrates why this debate is often emotionally charged. The offences were exceptionally serious, the harm to the victims significant, and public outrage entirely understandable.

However, law reform should never be driven by the most extreme cases.

Youth justice policy is at its weakest when it responds to exceptional examples rather than wider evidence. We must resist the temptation to formulate policy based on rare but highly publicised offending.

The reality is that most children who enter the criminal justice system present with significant vulnerabilities. Many have experienced adverse childhood experiences, exploitation, family instability, unmet educational needs, trauma, mental health difficulties or substance misuse within the family.

For many children, offending behaviour is a symptom rather than the root problem.

As practitioners, we regularly represent children whose lives have been shaped by neglect, violence and exclusion long before they enter the courtroom. Criminalisation often addresses the behaviour without addressing its causes.

Why raising the age matters

Raising the age of criminal responsibility does not mean abandoning accountability. Nor does it mean that serious offences such as rape, homicide or grave violence should be met with anything less than a robust, protective and proportionate response.

This is perhaps the most common misconception in public discourse.

A higher age threshold would not prevent professionals, local authorities, schools or safeguarding agencies from intervening when a child engages in harmful behaviour. Nor would it prevent robust responses to serious incidents.

Rather, it would shift the focus from punishment towards safeguarding, welfare and rehabilitation.

Children below the age of criminal responsibility could still be subject to intensive interventions, behavioural programmes, family support and protective measures. The crucial difference is that they would not acquire a criminal record or enter a system that research consistently associates with poorer long-term outcomes.

Evidence suggests that unnecessary criminalisation can increase the risk of reoffending by reinforcing a criminal identity and entrenching young people within the justice system. By contrast, diversionary approaches have been shown to reduce reoffending and improve long-term outcomes.

A youth justice system fit for children

The principal aim of the youth justice system is the prevention of offending.

If that remains our objective, we must be willing to ask whether our current approach is achieving it.

A justice system that prosecutes children from the age of 10 may satisfy calls for punishment, but punishment alone does not necessarily make communities safer. As youth justice practitioners, we repeatedly see that children are capable of extraordinary change when given the right support, intervention and opportunities.

The question is not whether children should be held accountable.

The question is whether accountability is best achieved through criminalisation or through a framework that recognises childhood vulnerability, developmental immaturity and the capacity for rehabilitation.

Conclusion

The Southampton case is a reminder that children can commit serious and harmful offences. It also demonstrates why youth justice requires a careful, evidence-led approach rather than one driven solely by public outrage.

From a youth justice perspective, the case for raising the age of criminal responsibility is compelling. International bodies have called for reform, developmental science supports reform, and decades of youth justice practice demonstrate that children are fundamentally different from adults.

The true measure of a justice system is not how harshly it punishes children, but how effectively it prevents future harm. Raising the age of criminal responsibility would not weaken accountability. Rather, it would strengthen our commitment to a child-centred, evidence-led system focused on rehabilitation, protection and long-term public safety.

“I am passionate about securing the best outcomes for children and young people in the justice system. Alongside leading the Youth Team, I am Co-Chair of the Ministry of Justice Youth Justice Quality Working Advisory Group (QWAG), a member of the Criminal Advocacy Committee, and a Trustee of the Alliance for Youth Justice, reflecting my commitment to improving youth justice policy, practice and advocacy at a national level.”
Caroline Liggins, Partner and Head of Youth Team

If your child has been accused of or charged with a criminal offence, our nationally recognised Youth Justice Team can provide expert advice, representation and support for both children and parents. Call 0330 822 3451 to discuss your case or request a callback.