The case is a clear demonstration of the futility of using the adult court system and adult criminal codes to deal with deeply troubled and troubling children.

Evidently even the mother went to social services years ago and warned of the dangers of keeping the brothers together.

 what use (or indeed true Justice)will it be to sentence these children to lengthy terms of custody as though these horrific actions were not mainly the result of society’s shortcomings in detecting their problems and preventative treatment.

 It must be emphasised that we are virtually the only country in Europe to subject children as young as this to the unnecessary ritual of criminal proceedings. Maybe Doncaster will be holding an internal enquiry but this is not good enough. surely we need an independent enquiry into what can be done about the relatively small number of children in England and Wales who are likely to prove themselves a danger to others and inter-alia our disgracefully low age of criminal responsibility. To those who recommend intervention below the age of 3:  good idea but what do we do over the next decade for those who have already  achieved that age?.”

* The Guardian, Thursday 16 April 2009

Blake Morrison, in his thoughtful article on the Edlington case (Let the circus begin, 11 April), made the point that 10-year-old children in the UK, alone in the civilised world, are tried for serious offences by adult courts using adult criminal codes, suffering adult punishments.

Two recent cases disclose how unfairly these children are likely to be treated at trial. Take the case that caused the creation of our group. In October 2007 five boys appeared in the central criminal court and were sentenced to two years’ custody, having been convicted of manslaughter after a full adult trial. They were aged between 10 and 12 at the time of the incident concerned and the trial was given the full circus treatment. What went virtually unreported was that two months later the convictions were quashed by the appeal court. Neither the Crown Prosecution Service or trial judge had noticed that the evidence supporting such a serious charge was insufficient.

Again virtually unreported, in June last year a 14-year-old girl sentenced to 18 months’ detention for falsely accusing her brother and his friend of indecently assaulting her when she was nine had her sentence quashed by the appeal court. But the legacy of the Bulger case is the effect it has had in frustrating any attempt at law reform in this area. The fear is that as a result of Edlington the circus will go on for another generation.
Stephen Jakobi
Convener, Children Aren’t Criminals

following the UN report on the rights of the child issued today  

,

we call for the immediate raising of the age of criminal responsibility to 12 as an interim measure, pending the outcome of the enquiry that government  promised us in February of this year and which  so far as we can judge has yet to commence.

 WE have obtained some statistics from the Youth Justice Board on the criminal activity of the 10 and 11 year olds our government persist in designating as “youths.”

The activity disclosed is miniscule compared to older age cohorts.e.g in each of the years 2004 to 2006 only some 800  10 and 11 year olds were found guilty by the juvenile court system of any category of offence.  In older two year cohorts  of 14 to 17, the comparable figure is 20,000.  Or, put another way, only 1% of criminal cases before the juvenile courts concern this age group

  Whatever the merits or demerits  of the current juvenile justice system, its codes of procedure and criminal law it must be conceded that  a “one fits all” system that applies these basics to the immature pre-adolescent  10 year old ,  in the same manner as with the mature 17-year-old is an affront to common sense as well as all national and international experience and evidence-based practice.

The campaign group “children aren’t criminals”, issued the following statement on the heels of The Barnardos study “Locking up or giving up - is custody for children always the right answer?”

,

Stephen Jakobi, the group’s spokesperson said.

These figures are not new, and have been publicised by such major organisations in the field as the Prison Reform Trust, and the Howard League for over a year.  But whilst any publicity on the shocking number of very young children being locked up in England and Wales is to be welcomed, and indeed timely in view of the imminent forthcoming UN report on the practice, it is clear that the practice is the symptom of the major British disease of criminalising the very young.

The disease itself is an age of criminal responsibility, lower than any other comparable society in Europe.  In Spain, Germany, France and Italy the median age is 14. In England and Wales it is 10.

Moreover, it is over 40 years since this problem was examined by any government enquiry. In February, we were informed by the Joint Ministers responsible for Youth Justice that they were that they were gathering evidence about how other jurisdictions deal with young  people who have committed offences and part of that process would include obtaining comments and contributions from all interested parties: indeed we were invited to contribute. We have not been contacted in the eight months that have since passed and a letter of enquiry as to the progress of this  investigation sent in July has received no response.

Perhaps Barnardos will join with us .

• The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008
• 
  

A 14-year-old girl who was sentenced to 18 months detention for falsely accusing her brother and his friend of indecently assaulting her when she was nine has had her sentence quashed by the appeal court, which said it “should never have been passed”.

The appeal court last week substituted an 18-month supervision order on the girl, whose allegations split her family and sent her brother into care.

Experts said the tragic consequences of her lie highlight the drawbacks of the low age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales - lower, at 10, than in other European countries. In many, such a case would not have come into the criminal justice system but would have been dealt with through child welfare procedures.

The girl, named only as O, was 11 when she made allegations in 2005 of indecent assault by her brother G and his friend J, which she said had happened two years before, when she was nine, G was 11 and his friend J was 12. G and J were prosecuted and convicted in April 2006. They were sentenced to supervision and made to sign the sex offenders register. G’s mother felt she could no longer have him in the family home and he spent two years in care.

In 2007, O’s mother discovered her daughter had lied about other things, and questioned her allegations against G and J. She admitted she had lied because she was “fed up” about G’s behaviour at home.

The police were called, but O changed her story again. However, she later confessed to her aunt that she had lied because she wanted G to be “told off” and had been scared of getting into trouble if she retracted.

She was charged with perverting the course of public justice and pleaded guilty. G and J both made statements for the court case. G described his miserable time in care and the bullying he had experienced, and J said he had “suffered greatly as a result of his conviction and consequent stigma”, the appeal court judges said.

The judge who sentenced O to 18 months detention had made condemnatory remarks about what she had done. The appeal court judges agreed that her actions were “quite dreadful”, but said “the effects of her behaviour could not have been imagined or understood by a child of her age”, only 11, when she made the allegation. The sentence of detention should never have been passed, they added. She and her family had required support, rather than punishment.

Dr Hamish Cameron, an experienced expert witness in child cases, said: “Early investigation by child protection professionals could have brought out the truth sooner. This welfare approach would have avoided the terrible effects on the three children’s lives and on their families.”

Alison Fiddy, of the Children’s Legal Centre, said: “The low age of criminal responsibility has repeatedly been criticised in the international community.”

while Todays youth Justice survey demonstrates bankruptcy of current government policies a recent Parliamentary question reveals government incompetence and ignorance. 

The report published today by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) at King’s College London said most youth justice targets had been missed despite a “substantial” increase in spending.

Stephen jakobi, convener of the “children aren’t criminals.”  (CAC) campaign added.

” Not least of the problems is a policy that is “tough on crime, tough on the symptoms  of crime.” and the  consequent failure by concentration on the criminal justice system to deliver measurable impact on problematic and disruptive behaviour by very young children.

Behind the scenes, joined up government is so ineffective that the criminal justice system has been unable to marry up the  ASBO System, administered by ordinary magistrates courts, with a youth justice system pursued through juvenile courts.

Symptomatic of this is that in answer to a recent PQ by Susan Kramer MP concerning the number of young children under 14  imprisoned through the mechanism of the ASBO system the reply given by government was that it had no idea since statistics were not recorded centrally.

This amounts to an admission by government that it has no clear idea of the reasons why  very young children are imprisoned: a horrific and disgraceful situation.  

The background bodes ill for the fate of their “Youth Crime Action Plan” promised for this summer.  No doubt 10-year-olds will continue to be lumped in with 17-year-olds as “youth” and continue to be dealt with under essentially adult criminal codes in an adult criminal justice system.  No doubt the dual control of education and Justice established by the Brown administration will continue.

It is quite clear that the under 14s should be taken out of a failed system targeting  older teenagers.”

We demand a Royal commission to look at the whole problem of the younger age range currently thrown in with older children within the youth justice system.  10 to 13-year-olds should be taken out of the criminal justice system entirely”

Stephen Jakobi, originator of the Eurobail concept for cross-border provisional liberty as an alternative to pre-trial detention, will be speaking and chairing a session at a conference to be held in May, sponsored by the European Academy of Law in Trier Germany.

For further details http://www.era.int/web/en/html/nodes_main/4_2127_474/conferences_0000_Date/5_1796_5543.htm

Stephen Jakobi, convener of the umbrella group said “It would appear that the scheme will target up to a thousand children as young as 10 by methods that will inevitably raise the numbers of very young children in custody for non violent offences when we already have the worst record in Europe.

In 1992 only 100 children under I5 were sentenced to penal custody and  sentences were all awarded under the ‘grave crimes’ provision (Section 53 of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act) for children who had committed serious offences such as robbery or violent offences. In 2005 - 2006, 824 children under 15 were incarcerated but only 48 of these came into the same grave crimes sentencing framework. How many more will be incarcerated under the new Scheme ?.

Ladling out good behaviour contracts on complaints from teachers and neighbours and targeting the very young children, as opposed to their backgrounds, in attempting to prevent a life of crime is doomed to failure.

A disturbed and troubled child causing disruption of this sort has almost inevitably background problems that children of this age cannot possibly handle

In 2005 the British Institute for Brain Injured Children made a national ASBO survey. Youth Offending Teams confirmed that 37% of ASBOs go to mentally impaired youngsters.Problems included : clinical depression, autism, psychosis, suicidal tendencies,personality disorders learning disabilites and ADHD.  Even more remarkable according to the government’s own evaluation reports ( e.g. Housing Research Summary No. 230 ; DfCLG) in the ‘ASB Intensive Family Support’ (Sin Bin) projects introduced to supplement ASBOs,80% of the families targeted had serious mental health and learning disability problems.60% were recognised as victims of ASB.Project managers described many families as ‘easily scapegoated’ in neighbour disputes..

Intensive work with the children concerned is good, but can be only part of the story.  What is going to happen to the children’s problems created by others that give rise to the behaviour?

The government is fully aware that any young child inducted into the criminal justice system is probably destined to become an adult professional criminal.

What in fact, we are witnessing is a piece of “ad hocery” continuing  the government recklessness in demonising and criminalising the very young.”

,

Any article that begins “Britain is in danger of becoming a nation of paedophobics” must be highly commended; but in fact it has missed the bus (Thinktank calls for use of asbos to be reviewed, December 10). We became the worst demonisers of children in Europe many years ago.
Your summary of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on the “asbo culture”, which says that asbos “can be a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to offending, and suggest their use should be reviewed. Children under 12 should not be given asbos.”

________________________________________

It is also significant that asbo court orders were introduced by Tony Blair, whose government continued and expanded on the thinking of Tory home secretary Michael Howard in regard to the criminal prosecution of the very young.
In 1992 only 100 children under 15 were sentenced to penal custody, and sentences for children who had committed serious offences, such as robbery or violence, were all awarded under the “grave crimes” provision of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act. In 2005-06, 824 children under 15 were incarcerated, although only 48 of these came into the same grave crimes framework.
Our organisation would join with the IPPR in deploring any use of the courts, whether criminal or civil, for very young children. Indeed, many of the report’s recommendations for alternatives (staffed adventured playgrounds, more social workers, behavioural psychologists and family welfare officers attached to schools) might well be incorporated into a holistic approach to the problems of children in trouble.
We would, however, in the interests of a common approach, suggest that the IPPR modify its demands to include all children under 14. This would have the merit of bringing us into line with most of Europe.
Your article ended with a direct quote from Carey Oppenheim, the IPPR co-director. “The problem with ‘kids these days’ is the way adults are treating them. A nation fearful of its young people: a nation of paedophobics. We need policy, which reminds adults that it is their responsibility to set norms of behaviour and to maintain them from positive and authoritative interaction with young people.” And so say all of us.
It is against this background that we were hoping, as part of the 10-year plan for children announced last week by Ed Balls in the House of Commons, for a strategic review of asbos and of the criminal justice system as applied to the very young.
Notably, there was much argument over educational standards between government and official opposition, citing international comparisons and league tables. No one mentioned that we are bottom of the European league tables for both age of criminal responsibility and number of young children in custody.
It is a scandal that the last time the age of criminal responsibility was fully reviewed was in the 1960s. There can be few social problems of such importance that have been neglected for more than 40 years.