The children standing in the dock who put our juvenile justice system on trial

THE case of two boys found guilty of attempting to rape an eight year-old girl has shocked many people.

The pair, who were both 10 at the time of the incident, are believed to be Britain's youngest ever sex offenders and were ordered to sign the sex offenders' register ahead of sentencing.

During the two-week trial, the court heard that the boys lured the girl into a block of flats in London before attacking her in a stairwell, a lift and a field. Both boys were cleared of rape but found guilty of attempted rape.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Defence lawyers pointed out there was no medical evidence to show the girl had been sexually assaulted and argued that the boys were being naughty, or playing an age-old game like doctors and nurses.

Such fraught cases are thankfully rare, but this particular one has provoked an outcry over the way children are handled by the legal system, with experts questioning whether justice is being delivered when those standing in the dock don't even know what a barrister is, never mind the proceedings of an adult court.

Writing in The Times, former director of public prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald QC argued such cases risked "making fools of ourselves and

worse, demons of damaged children". "Put bluntly," he said, "we've been witnessing a spectacle that has no place in intelligent society. Very young children do not belong in adult criminal courts. They rarely belong in criminal courts at all."

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Speaking yesterday, Scotland Yard boss Sir Paul Stephenson said that everyone should be concerned by the case, although he didn't criticise the decision of prosecutors to put the boys on trial, saying he did not envy their responsibility. However, he supported a review of the case in the wake of comments by trial judge Mr Justice Saunders who

concluded that "we should do everything we can to improve how we deal with these things by looking at the lessons that we can learn".

But should children so young even be appearing in an adult court? Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, believes the way the case had been dealt with was completely wrong. "Obviously, if these boys did something they need help. Their young age and the young age of their victim makes it absurd that this took place in an adversarial court situation. I think it reflects horribly on our whole system, that a case like this with children should be tried in this way. It should have been held in camera (in a judge's private chambers] with no publicity at all. The whole thing is horrific, all the way along."

The NSPCC also raised concerns that the eight-year-old victim was too young to cope with cross-examination. Had the boys in this case been under the age of 10 they could not have been charged. Barrister Michael Wolfkind QC says 10 is an "unusually low" age for children to face trial in an adult court, but points out this is the age at which the law states a person knows what they are doing. He admits it is a "difficult and delicate" issue but says public opinion often changes depending on the nature of the allegations. "If you have a case involving children of 12 or 13 who have been roaming the streets with knives then no one bats an eyelid."

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

When it comes to criminal cases involving children, there needs to be a balance between retribution and rehabilitation. But at what age should they lose their innocence and take on adult responsibility? The murder of James Bulger touched a raw nerve in Britain and still produces powerful feelings among people 17 years on. But had his killers, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, been just a few months younger, the law would not have allowed them to be charged, let alone convicted – the public reaction to which hardly bears thinking about.

Less than two years after the toddler's murder there was a similar case in Norway, where a five-year-old girl was beaten to death by two little boys in Trondheim. Yet the reaction of the community and the handling of her young killers contrasts to that of the Bulger case. "Their society is more forgiving," explains Mr Wolfkind. "The boys were not seen as criminals, they were seen as damaged children and social workers stepped in and they were back in the community within weeks."

Sometimes, though, compassion is in short supply, as in the case of the Edlington brothers who sadistically tortured two young boys in 2009. The temptation in such cases is often to lock the door and throw away the key, but this would be tantamount to saying that a child is beyond redemption. Mr Wolfkind says there should be a proper assessment made by social workers and psychologists in serious criminal cases involving children. "I think there should be some examination of individuals to make sure they understand that what they did was wrong. If they do not understand that what they did was morally wrong then they should be tried."

Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee, believes the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

low. "It's one of the lowest in Europe and I really question whether 10-year-olds should be in the criminal justice system. In many

Scandinavian countries it is 14 or 15, so 10 seems unconscionably young for someone to be facing criminal charges which will have serious ramifications for the rest of their lives."

Mr Kelcey would like the Government to review the age of criminal responsibility in the wake of this latest case. "What we want to be looking at is some form of therapeutic treatment whereby a child could be given proper sex education and taught about sexual boundaries and made to realise that what they did was wrong. Instead, what will happen is they will probably go into a system where they are locked up in secure accommodation and demonised," he says.

"We need to reflect on what has happened and whether we think children as young as 10 should be criminally responsible. We can address the issues involved by putting them in care, we don't need to bring them into the criminal justice system. By doing that we are demonising and criminalising children because they will be on the sex offenders' register," he says. "More importantly, what does the criminal process bring at the end of the day – do we really want children to be labelled criminals at such a young age? It makes society seem very vengeful."

Related topics: