Criminal law has long been influenced by developments in science. Without this, many of those who have been wrongly or dubiously convicted would spend hard years attempting to convince the Court of Appeal of their innconence. But these technological advances are also changing the ways in which court hearings are being conducted, evidence is being gathered and disclosed, and cases are being investigated.
Developments in forensic science, for a long time now, have proved to be an invaluable source to police and prosecutors looking to revisit “cold cases” or investigate crime scenes, where there are no other leads. A recent and high profile example of this can be found in the Stephen Lawrence murder case. Psychological and psychiatric reports are often routinely obtained in criminal prosecutions, to establish the mental capacity, mental health and intentions of both defendants and victims. It therefore stands to reason that when science advances, the law should be seen to make changes in order to take account of our new understanding. This is the legal equivalent of realising that the world is not flat.
On 13th December 2011 the Royal Society published findings in relation to the neurological development of adolescents that could have an impact on the age of criminal responsibility. This is the age at which chldren can be held accountable to the law for their criminal actions. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland children must have reached the age of ten before they can be charged with a criminal offence. In Scotland the age is twelve years.
The vast majority of children who are charged with a criminal offence will be dealt with by the Youth Court. The Youth Court is part of the Magistrates Court and deals with offenders under the age of eighteen for most offences. The Youth Court is by design a less formal environment, with simpler language used and specially trained Magistrates to deal with child defendants. However, there are some circumstances, where the young offender has been charged with a particularly serious crime, that they may (must in the most serious of cases) be dealt with by the crown court.
The measures taken by the Youth Court to address the needs of children recognise that their needs are not the same as those of adults. This differential approach is sensible in any civilised society. However the Royal Society study suggests that the current law may need to be further amended, not only to address issues relating to the needs of the very young, but also to answer the vexed question of whether they should be facing prosecutions at all. The study suggests that the human brain remains in development until the age of 20, influencing the behaviour of young people. The conclusions of the study suggest that in light of the new research, the age of criminal responsibility in England is “unreasonably low”.
Northern Ireland is consulting on a change in the law raising the age to twelve but a suggestion to do so by England’s children’s commissioner was rejected in March 2010. The Royal Society has cautioned against the use of their neuroscientific findings as evidence in a court of law in cases of child defendants at this time. The research in itself is not sufficient to trigger a change in the law but no doubt responsible parents, legal professionals and policy makers will be watching this area of scientific development with acute interest.
Bastian Lloyd Morris LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Registered in England under company no: OC329737.