Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 27 April 2010

27 Apr 2010 · S3 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP) Watch on SPTV

I will start where Richard Baker left off. I agree with his closing comments, in which he made some valid points about the age of criminal responsibility. All of us have struggled with the issue. Through the evidence and our stage 1 report, we struggled to strike the appropriate balance when dealing with the very rare cases in which young children have taken another’s life. Great moral difficulties are associated with changing the law in that area.At the same time, great moral difficulties are associated with not changing the law in the area. As other members have said, the ages of criminal responsibility and criminal prosecution in Scotland are among the lowest—if not actually the lowest—in the developed world. That weighs heavily on a number of us.I understand the process that Richard Baker is trying to put in place in amendment 389 and the reasons for that, but I agree with Robert Brown that it is overly onerous, given the exceptionally small number of cases to which it relates. Robert Brown noted that the number of children under 12 who are prosecuted is zero.I do not think that Richard Baker’s proposal adds anything except a rather bureaucratic and unnecessary process. Given the number of children, small though it is, who are already going through the children’s hearings system at that age, for those odd cases that might have been prosecuted—we can never say whether a case would or would not have been prosecuted, which is a difficulty with the amendment—but which go to the children’s hearings system in the future, I think that the children’s hearings system is well placed to ensure that it does its job appropriately. Therefore, I do not think that there is a problem in that respect.I agree that the age of prosecution in this country is too low. It should be raised to 12; therefore, I support the current provisions in the bill. However, I also support the idea that the age of criminal responsibility should remain what it is, although it may seem strange to keep those things separate. Valid arguments have been made that many children over the age of eight can understand the difference between right and wrong and can be seen to be responsible for their actions. At the same time, there is no doubt that children aged nine, 10 and 11 who commit criminal acts—heinous criminal acts, in some cases—are the responsibility of the adults who have failed to care for them and raise them properly, and I honestly think that the acts that those children have committed are more a welfare issue than a case for criminal sanction. Although I accept that the age of prosecution should be raised because of that argument, I think that there is an issue about responsibility for their actions. Therefore, I do not accept Robert Brown’s amendments, nor do I support the convener’s amendments.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 27 April 2010

In the same item of business