The Bar Council's report recommends that the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in England and Wales be raised from 10 to 14, arguing that criminalising younger children is unjust, counter-productive and out of step with developmental science and international norms. It advocates a shift towards non-criminal, welfare-based responses for children under 14.
Details
The MACR is the age from which a child may be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced. It is currently set at 10 by s.50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended), having been raised from 8 in 1963. The rebuttable presumption of 'doli incapax' for children aged 10 to 13 was abolished in the late 1990s, and the report does not favour its revival.
The report's principal points are:
- England and Wales is an outlier: Scotland's MACR is 12 and much of Europe uses 14, which is the lowest age recommended by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the most common age worldwide (pages 4–5). The UN committee has urged an increase in 1995, 2002, 2008, 2016 and 2023.
- Developmental neuroscience shows adolescence (10–24) is a period of prolonged brain development, with decision-making driven by impulsivity, peer pressure and immaturity rather than measured moral reasoning (page 14).
- Very few young children receive custody: of 1,590 children aged 10 to 14 found guilty in the year to March 2025, only 22 received immediate custodial sentences (pages 22–23).
- Criminalisation falls disproportionately on the most vulnerable, including children who have been excluded from school, who are eight times more likely to have a police record for serious violence, and Black, Brown and Racialised children, who face 'adultification' at every stage (pages 36–37).
- 'System contact' is itself criminogenic, increasing the likelihood of reoffending, so raising the MACR is expected to improve outcomes and public safety (page 50).
The report recommends a bright-line at 14 with no exception for serious offences, noting that stratification by seriousness produces perverse and inconsistent outcomes (pages 55–57). Children under 14 who cause harm could still be dealt with through child protection, education, welfare, mental health and family support, drawing on existing powers such as the Children Act 1989 and out-of-court resolutions.
Commentary
For practitioners representing children, although it does not change the law, this report is a useful point of reference. The material on children's limited adjudicative competence and communication needs supports applications for effective-participation adaptations, 'ground rules' and, in the clearest cases, an abuse-of-process stay where a child cannot participate fairly. The findings on the criminogenic effect of system contact reinforce the case for diversion at the earliest stage, and practitioners should press for out-of-court disposals wherever available (see YJLC's legal guide on Out of Court Resolutions). The report's treatment of adultification and the disproportionate criminalisation of Black, Brown and Racialised children is a reminder to scrutinise decision-making from first police contact onwards. If the MACR is raised, most of these children would move out of the criminal courts and into child protection, welfare and family proceedings, so practitioners may find their work shifting away from youth and Crown Court defence towards family court and welfare-based interventions. Momentum is building: the Government's Youth Justice White Paper (21 May 2026) has undertaken to consider and respond to the Bar Council's findings, so this is an area to watch closely.