Raise age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, says Bar Council

Aine Fox, Press Association Social Affairs Correspondent

The minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to 14, a legal organisation representing barristers has said.

Wales and England have become “an outlier in how we use the criminal justice system to treat children” with a system that “funnels them towards further crime and prison”, the Bar Council said.

The organisation, which describes itself as the voice of the barrister profession in the two nations, has been reviewing whether the current age of criminal responsibility remains appropriate.

Both the Law Commission and England’s children’s commissioner have backed the Bar Council’s recommendation.

The current age means children who are 10 can be arrested and charged with a crime.

Children aged between 10 and 17 are dealt with by youth courts and sent to secure centres for young people rather than adult prisons.

The Bar Council report, published on Sunday, said the age of 10 “remains low by contemporary global standards”.

The Government, in a paper on youth justice published in May, said it would “carefully consider” the review and recommendations.

The Bar Council said 14 is the lowest age recommended by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) for children to be held criminally responsible, and is the most common age in operation worldwide.

Scotland raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 in 2019.

While efforts were being made recently in Northern Ireland to raise its threshold from 10, the change looked set to be rejected by way of an Assembly veto mechanism to block such a move.

Campaigners for a change have previously argued that the case of the murder of two-year-old James Bulger in Liverpool by 10-year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in 1993 has led to a reluctance to increase the age of criminal responsibility.

Bar Council chairwoman Kirsty Brimelow acknowledged any debate about the age of criminal responsibility “brings back the memory of the James Bulger case”, but said while that case was “terrible and grave” it was also “exceptionally rare”.

More recently, two boys were sentenced for the murder of Shawn Seesahai in Wolverhampton in 2023 when they were both aged 12. At the time it was reported they were the UK’s youngest knife killers.

In summer 2024, children as young as 12 were convicted in relation to widespread public disorder which broke out in the wake of the Southport murders.

The Bar Council report states that of the 1,590 children aged between 10 and 14 found guilty of offences in the year to March 2025, just 22 were sentenced to immediate custody, and argues that such a small number “makes it clear that any argument for criminalisation of this cohort cannot realistically be supported by an appeal to the need for criminal process in order to protect the public, even for the short duration of a custodial sentence”.

Of the status quo, Ms Brimelow said: “As well as setting children on a separate track, which funnels them towards further crime and prison, this approach also

produces inconsistencies within UK law.

“This report does not diminish the need for intervention and protection of the public.

“Rather, it asks whether criminalisation at such an early age is the most effective, proportionate or just response. It returns a definitive negative answer.”

The report states that the evidence “overwhelmingly supports” the conclusion that young children being criminalised “undermines public safety and has adverse outcomes for the child by increasing future offending and perpetuating and punishing underlying vulnerabilities and disadvantage”.

The report concludes that age 14 “provides a clear and developmentally informed threshold below which children are not rendered criminally culpable”.

It adds that there can still be interventions for children under 14 “without being criminalised”, such as child protection, education, welfare, mental health and family support.

Raising the age “allows greater scope for diversion and rehabilitation, better serving prevention of a younger child becoming the older child who commits serious crime and, by doing so, protects those who would be the victims of the future”, it concludes.

Ms Brimelow added: “A ‘tough on crime’ approach to the treatment of children which focuses only on punishment as a method of shaping children’s behaviour is very rarely an effective strategy.

“Mechanisms that reduce the number of children brought into the criminal justice system, through diversion as well as raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, are less likely to result in an increase in crime amongst this cohort.

“Bringing children into the criminal justice system is more likely to result in further offending. Diversionary programmes are more beneficial to the individual child and to the public in terms of reducing future crime and attendant resources.

“It is also cost-effective financially as well as societally. Increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility is essential as it can tackle reoffending and prevent future victims of harm.”

President of the Law Society of England and Wales, Mark Evans, said: “We support raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years; the current age of 10 years is far too low.

“This would be an important step towards aligning the system with evidence on child development and ensuring more effective responses to children who do wrong. We call on the government to accept this proposal as part of its youth justice reforms.”

England’s Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said: “I believe no child at the age of ten should be sentenced for a crime; instead, they need a robust and well-enforced alternative – but one which doesn’t push them into the criminal justice system.

“I hope the Government seriously considers the recommendations of the Bar Council.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The current age of criminal responsibility is 10 and no decision has been made on changing it.

“Any decision we make will always be guided by expert evidence and have the public and victims’ best interests at its heart.”