In the UK, a child’s life changes significantly at age 10. They are still three years away from being allowed a part-time job and six years away from being able to drive. Yet, under current law in England and Wales, a 10-year-old is considered old enough to be arrested, charged, and placed on trial.
Recently, Lady Hale made headlines by calling this system fundamentally wrong. Her demand is simple: the government must raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14.
Is the current system failing?
The debate is not about allowing children to “get away with it.” Rather, it is about recognising that a primary school child is not a miniature adult. Critics argue that prosecuting children as young as 10 is inhumane, disproportionately criminalises vulnerable children, and ignores the need for welfare-based interventions. Many also point out that children of this age are not yet cognitively or emotionally developed.
Modern neuroscience supports this position. Research shows that the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for impulse control, reasoning, and decision-making) does not fully develop until the mid-20s. A 10-year-old simply lacks the maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. Treating such children as criminals risks punishing immaturity rather than intentional wrongdoing.
Statistics further demonstrate that the younger a child enters the criminal justice system, the more likely they are to reoffend. The idea of “scaring them straight” has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective. Instead, early criminalisation often entrenches a criminal identity. Many children who offend come from backgrounds involving trauma, neglect, poverty, or neurodivergence. A courtroom cannot resolve trauma but welfare-based support might.
The UK has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe. In contrast, Germany, Italy, and Spain set the age at 14, while Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland set it at 15. These countries adopt a welfare-first approach, prioritising education, social services, and rehabilitation rather than criminal prosecution.
Where the UK relies heavily on the criminal justice system, these jurisdictions focus on social and educational responses. The result is a system that seeks to address the root causes of behaviour rather than imposing punishment on children who are still developing.
Beyond the moral and developmental concerns, there is also a strong financial case for reform. Community-based and therapeutic interventions are significantly more cost-effective than custodial detention facilities. Investing in early support not only benefits children but also reduces long-term costs associated with repeated offending, court proceedings, and incarceration.
Raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 would be a humane and evidence-based reform that better reflects child development and prioritises rehabilitation over punishment. Of course, serious and exceptional cases such as the James Bulger case must be carefully considered. Public protection remains essential; but public protection can coexist with a system that recognises the development needs of children.
Raising the age does not remove accountability. It simply recognises that children should be treated as children – supported, guided, and rehabilitated rather than branded as criminals before they have even reached secondary school.
Contact our Specialist Criminal Defence Lawyers
If you would like further advice or assistance regarding the matters discussed in this article, please contact us on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form.