The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: The Need for a Holistic Approach
| Author | Aaron Brown,Anthony Charles |
| Date | 01 August 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225419893782 |
| Published date | 01 August 2021 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225419893782
Youth Justice
2021, Vol. 21(2) 153 –171
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473225419893782
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
The Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility: The Need for a
Holistic Approach
Aaron Brown and Anthony Charles
Abstract
The minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales remains 10 years: something which
has attracted criticism globally by policy makers and youth justice practitioners. Yet, the Westminster
Government refuses to consider changes to minimum age of criminal responsibility, despite evidence
supporting reform. This article, drawing on the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child’s
consultation to revise General Comment No. 10 (2007) and the activities of UK devolved administrations,
explores the need for minimum age of criminal responsibility reform, considering how a holistic approach
focused on diversion and the provision of rights respecting appropriate interventions can create positive,
even transformative outcomes for children.
Keywords
appropriate interventions, children’s rights, diversion, human rights, MACR, youth justice
Introduction
In the 2018 consultation regarding revision of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s
General Comment No. 10 (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), 2007), it was proposed that minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR)
globally should be set no lower than 14 years of age. Such would arguably assist in devel-
oping an internationally accepted and appropriate global MACR standard (UNCRC,
2018). However, at this point in time, MACR has been applied asymmetrically by differ-
ent countries. In continental Europe, for example, there has arguably been a continuing
liberalisation of approaches towards children, which has been reflected in generally higher
MACR (Crofts, 2009; Dünkel and Pruin, 2012). Although, it should be noted that the
picture is sometimes much more nuanced, with a diverse array of treatment pathways and
Corresponding author:
Anthony Charles, Department of Criminology, Swansea University, Richard Price Building, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2
8PP, UK.
Email: a.d.charles@swansea.ac.uk
893782YJJ0010.1177/1473225419893782Youth JusticeBrown and Charles
research-article2019
Original Article
154 Youth Justice 21(2)
interventions, engagement with which can be required of children by the state, even where
they are below MACR (Campistol and Aebi, 2018). Elsewhere, such generally progres-
sive approaches have been less visible (or even invisible), with certain countries continu-
ing to employ an extremely low MACR. For instance, in the United States, many states do
not employ a MACR, while a number of those that have adopted legislation have set their
MACR as low as 7 years of age. In addition, in other jurisdictions, there is evidence that
some governments have sought to regressively amend existing MACR legislation.
Recently in the Philippines, a bill was introduced to Congress in January 2019 which
sought to lower MACR. From these examples alone, it is clear to see that a universal
approach to MACR has not yet been deployed.
In England and Wales, it is the case that substantive progress in respect of raising
MACR has not been forthcoming and such arguably has significant implications which
flow beyond legal considerations into the very lives and future potential of children
(Cipriani, 2016). This article, reflecting upon key messages from the literature and the
work undertaken by devolved administrations in the United Kingdom to assist children
who may come into conflict with the law, notably in Scotland and Wales, considers
whether the time is finally right for reform of MACR. Yet, and as will become evident,
reform is intended to be understood as embracing critical areas of activity not merely
concerning a legal threshold but relating to the provision of rights respecting appropriate
interventions for children and diversion. It is, in fact, a central contention of this article
that it would be a mistake to view any reform of MACR, especially in Wales, as an iso-
lated legal artefact or a type of sequestered legislative action which is detached from the
wider Welsh policy climate. Rather, it is contended that conditions are now right for pro-
gressive MACR reform to occur. However, and poignantly, it is contended that MACR
has ‘moved on’ and any argument regarding it should be located within a broader debate
concerning rights respecting appropriate interventions for children and the adoption of
diversionary approaches, rather than being constricted to considerations of a legal con-
struct. In Wales, significantly because there already exists a mesh of child-support and
diversionary provision which would complement progressive MACR reform, the possi-
bility of a unique model, and one that encapsulates the type of model envisaged in draft
General Comment No. 24 (UNCRC, 2018), appears possible. Such would though require
a new conceptualisation of what is meant by ‘rights respecting appropriate interventions’
(as opposed to earlier and sometimes negatively construed types of welfare support),
‘diversion’ and MACR itself, as well as a new understanding of how not merely national
policy, but devolved or more locally determined policy interconnectedness could trans-
form the way that ‘the system’ engages with children who come into conflict with the law.
The Remaining MACR Stalemate: An Unmoveable
Westminster Parliament?
The MACR in England and Wales is 10 years, meaning that a child from that age can be
arrested and sent to court if they commit a criminal offence. Since the beginning of the
1960s, the MACR in England and Wales has, at least nominally, remained unchanged
(Bateman, 2014; Goldson, 2013). Yet, legislative activity, notably the regressive steps
To continue reading
Request your trial