The Labour government is facing significant calls to reform the youth justice system by raising the age of criminal responsibility, a policy that has remained unchanged for decades. The current law in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland holds that a child can be held criminally responsible from the age of 10, a threshold that is among the lowest in Europe.
A Legacy of Low Thresholds and International Criticism
This longstanding legal position has drawn consistent criticism from children's rights advocates, legal experts, and international bodies. Organisations such as the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child have repeatedly urged the UK to increase the age, arguing that the existing framework fails to recognise the developmental capacity of young children. The stark contrast with other European nations is clear; Scotland raised its age of criminal responsibility to 12 in 2019, with plans to increase it further to 16, while many other countries set the bar at 14 or higher.
The debate centres on whether children under a certain age possess the maturity to fully understand the consequences of their actions and the legal proceedings against them. Critics of the current system argue that prosecuting very young children often criminalises trauma and vulnerability, pulling them into a justice system ill-equipped to address the underlying causes of their behaviour, such as abuse, neglect, or exploitation.
The Political Challenge for Starmer's Government
For Prime Minister Keir Starmer's administration, this issue presents a complex political and policy challenge. While in opposition, Labour figures, including former shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry, voiced support for reviewing the age. However, since taking power, the government has signalled a focus on a 'tough but smart' approach to youth crime, emphasising prevention and early intervention without committing to a specific change in the age threshold.
This cautious stance is likely influenced by the fraught political landscape surrounding law and order. The government may be wary of appearing soft on crime, a traditional attack line used effectively by political opponents. Any move to raise the age would require careful navigation of public perception and media narratives, despite the strong evidence-based arguments from the child welfare sector.
Potential Pathways and Systemic Reforms
Advocates for change are not simply calling for an arbitrary number to be adjusted. They propose a holistic overhaul of how society responds to children in conflict with the law. This could involve diverting children away from the formal court process entirely and towards welfare-based, multi-agency support systems designed to address root causes.
Such a shift would require substantial investment in children's social care, mental health services, and youth work. The potential benefits, however, are significant: reducing the cycle of reoffending, improving life outcomes for vulnerable young people, and aligning the UK with international human rights standards. The experience in Scotland is being closely watched as a potential model, demonstrating that change is politically and practically possible.
The pressure on Labour is now intensifying. With a parliamentary majority and a mandate for change, children's charities and justice reform groups are urging the government to seize this opportunity. The decision will be a key test of the government's commitment to evidence-based policy and its vision for a modern, compassionate justice system. Failure to act would mean the UK continues to stand apart from much of the developed world in holding very young children criminally accountable.
