Dr Rhian Croke, Strategic Litigation and Policy Advocacy Lead, Children’s Legal Centre Wales
In a landmark shift, 16-year-olds have recently been granted the right to vote in the next UK General Election — a move that acknowledges their ability to engage in democratic decision-making and that they should have a voice in shaping the society they live in. This is a long overdue reform that brings England and Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and Wales. In Wales, young people aged 16 and 17 years have been able to vote in Senedd elections since 2020.
Yet this advancement throws into sharp focus a glaring contradiction within our legal system: while 16-year-olds have only just been deemed mature enough to vote, children as young as 10 years old in England and Wales can still be arrested, charged, and prosecuted in a criminal court.[i] This raises serious questions about how we define maturity, responsibility, and justice.
What is the Age of Criminal Responsibility?
The age of criminal responsibility (ACR) is the minimum age at which a person can be prosecuted and punished under the law. In England and Wales, that age is 10 years and is the lowest in Europe.
In simple terms, this means a 10-year-old child who commits an offence can be:
- Interviewed and detained by police
- Subject to strip searches
- Prosecuted in youth or crown court
- Sentenced to a youth offender institution
- Given a criminal record that can follow them into adulthood.
Historically, English law recognised the doctrine of doli incapax, which presumed children aged 10–13 years were incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise. However, this safeguard was abolished in 1998 by the Crime and Disorder Act, meaning children over the age of 10 are now treated as having full criminal capacity—just like adults. This is set against recent findings from our legal education programme, that children had no idea they were criminally responsible at this young age.
The Problem: What We Know About Child Development
Modern neuroscience and developmental psychology offer compelling evidence that children aged 10 are not developmentally mature enough to be held fully accountable for criminal behaviour.
- Are still developing impulse control and moral reasoning
- Are highly susceptible to peer pressure and external influence
- Often lack the ability to anticipate long-term consequences.
While they may understand basic concepts of right and wrong, they frequently struggle to apply that understanding in emotionally charged or high-stress situations—precisely the scenarios in which youth offending often occurs.
According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the frontal lobe—the part of the brain responsible for decision-making and regulating behaviour—is not fully developed.
Furthermore, the children most likely to come into contact with the justice system are not miniature criminals—they are often among the most vulnerable in society. Many are living in poverty, have experienced maltreatment, are in the care system, are neurodivergent, or have unmet mental health needs. Their behaviour is frequently a reflection of trauma and unmet support needs, not evil malice or moral failing.
There is also the danger that the low ACR results in blocking welfare and social support for children, transforming them into criminals/offenders, as opposed to being what they are, children who deserve support and quality services. Children do not need criminalisation—they need compassion, structure, safety, and the chance to heal.
A Stark Inconsistency: Voting vs. Criminal Responsibility
The decision to allow 16-year-olds to vote, acknowledges that young people gain political and social maturity with age, and that their voice and evolving capacities matter. But this reform sits uncomfortably alongside a system that still deems 10-year-olds criminally culpable.
It’s a glaring contradiction:
- Too young to vote at 15 years
- Old enough to be convicted of a crime at 10 years
This legal mismatch is not just technical—it reflects a deeper inconsistency in our attitudes towards children. On the one hand, we delay rights like voting, full medical consent, or signing contracts until 16 or 18. On the other, we impose adult-like punishments on children still in primary school. The age of criminal responsibility contradicts other legal standards for maturity and decision-making.
The Real Impact of Criminalising Children
Criminalising children as young as 10 can cause significant and lasting harm:
- The experience of arrest, detention, questioning is often traumatising.
- A criminal record may hinder future education, employment, and social relationships
- Reoffending is more likely, not less, particularly when support and rehabilitation are lacking.
Far from correcting behaviour, the low age of criminal responsibility serves to increase children’s interactions with the criminal justice system—turning youthful mistakes into lifelong disadvantages.
International Comparisons
England and Wales have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe, when it comes to the age of criminal responsibility, see examples from Europe in the Table below:
|
Further afield, it may be interesting to learn that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is higher in China and Russia than it is in England and Wales, highlighting that England/Wales are truly international outliers.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly criticised the UK’s low age of criminal responsibility, and again in their Concluding Observations 2023, urged the UK State party to raise the age.
In Wales, the Commission on Justice has also recommended raising the age of criminal responsibility. Since early devolution, Wales has strongly promoted a Child First and Children’s Rights Approach,[ii] it’s time the UK Government gives Wales, devolved powers for criminal justice as recommended by the Silk Commission in 2011, Thomas Commission in 2019 and the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales in 2024.
Wales could then ensure criminal justice legislation is aligned with international children’s rights standards and become compliant with the requirements of Welsh specific children’s rights legislation.
Final Reflections
The decision to give 16-year-olds the vote is a welcome move that recognises that young people should have the right to participate in democratic decision making. However, unless we address the inconsistency of criminalising children much younger than that, we are sending mixed messages with regards to age thresholds of maturity and decision making. Raising the age of criminal responsibility does not mean ignoring harmful behaviour, it means responding to it in ways that are, child-centred, children’s right compliant with international standards, trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate. It’s time for England and Wales to raise the age of criminal responsibility!
ENDNOTES
[i] For a helpful academic article discussing the Age of Criminal Responsibility and with reference to Wales –Brown, A., & Charles, A. (2019). The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: The Need for a Holistic Approach. Youth Justice, 21(2), 153 171.
[ii] From early devolution with the All-Wales Youth Offending Strategy that communicated the importance of treating children as children first and offenders second, to the Youth Justice Blue Print and most recently the Youth Justice Blue Prevention Framework, Wales has been committed to Child First and Children’s Rights Principles. The legal age of criminal responsibility is a contradiction to these long-term developments that have been embraced in Wales.