Resources
The Evidence is Clear - 10 is Too Young
Video
Ten Reasons Why 10 is Too Young
We can keep criminalising children as young as 10 years old, or we can finally seize the opportunity to say 10 is too young.
Watch the video to find 10 simple reasons why 10 is too young.
Key Briefing
Ten is Too Young
Our joint briefing outlines the case and the evidence for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility.
The Evidence for Raising MACR in NI
Learning from Europe
We are behind and we are failing vulnerable children and young people. Find out what's happening in the rest of Europe in this detailed briefing paper.
Key Briefing
The Case Against Exceptions
Introducing exceptions to the minimum age of criminal responsibility would undermine both the rationale and impact of raising MACR. Read our key briefing to find out why.
FAQs
Common Questions About Raising the Age
What will happen to children who break the law?
Our social care system already deals with the vast majority of children engaged in harmful behaviour. The numbers involved are tiny. Serious cases are even rarer. In order to reduce reoffending and protect the public we need to provide those children with stability, support, supervision and protective relationships. We are talking about children with trauma, neglect or adverse experiences. A justice response punishes the symptom; a welfare response addresses the causes.
What about Justice for victims?
Victims tell us they want one thing above all – no more harm. Leading organisations working with victims are clear about this. Raising the age is the best way to achieve that. Accountability still happens, but we do it in ways that actually work: structured interventions, supervision, therapeutic programmes, and restorative approaches where appropriate.
Should there be exceptions to the minimum age of criminal responsibility?
Introducing exceptions to the minimum age of criminal responsibility would undermine both the rationale and impact of raising MACR.
Serious cases already trigger very extensive multi‑agency responses, including safeguarding, compulsory measures and – where necessary – secure care.
These responses are designed to reduce repeat harm by addressing a child’s underlying trauma, behaviour and circumstances, rather than relying on prosecution and punishment.
Including exceptions for certain offences is also not child‑rights compliant. International children’s rights standards require one minimum age, with no offence‑based carve‑outs, and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly raised concerns about exceptions for “serious” offences.
The UN Committee has warned that these exceptions are “usually created to respond to public pressure” rather than a rational understanding of children’s development – something we should keep firmly in mind.
We recognise how sensitive this issue is for victims and communities. But the evidence is clear: a welfare, health and social care response is more likely to reduce future risk, support reintegration and keep more people safe.
Many children who cause serious harm are also children who have been failed; preventing harm means investing earlier in the supports that stop children reaching crisis point.
You can read more about the case against exceptions in our detailed briefing paper.
Will raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility put the public, and other children, at risk of further harm?
No, because it will not remove consequences, it will replace ineffective criminalisation with more intensive, therapeutic and enforceable interventions delivered through health and social care. These have a far better track record of reducing risk and preventing further harm.
Surely a 15-year-old child knows the difference between right and wrong?
A child’s brain is still developing at that age and can be particularly exposed around risk taking behaviour. This is scientific fact.
The picture is even less clear when a child has suffered adverse childhood experiences, when right and wrong can become seriously blurred where, for example, abuse or mistreatment has taken place.
On the positive side, this also demonstrates that with the correct intervention, a child who has exhibited what is viewed as criminal behaviour can be effectively rehabilitated. This means they would be less likely to reoffend.
Countries with higher minimum ages of criminal responsibility do not ignore harmful behaviour. Instead, they respond to them through the child protection and welfare systems.
What tabled amendment does the 10 is too young coalition support
We welcome that amendments have been tabled, and it is critical that the issue is debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is long overdue.
The Ten is Too Young Coalition is clear that the most rights compliant change is to increase the age to 16 without exceptions.
But what is most important at this stage is that MLAs maximise this opportunity. There have been calls for change for over 30 years. It’s time to raise the age.
What would happen if a child under the minimum age does something serious or harmful?
It’s important to be clear: we are not suggesting harmful behaviour should be ignored. It must be addressed – but in the most effective way.
The evidence, both locally and internationally consistently shows that criminalising very young children is not the best way to prevent further harm.
The response should be health and social care-led rather than criminal – that is best for the child, victims and wider public safety.
Early intervention for children below the minimum age requires child‑friendly, multidisciplinary responses at the first signs of behaviour that would otherwise be treated as an offence. International guidance promotes family and community based programmes as evidence‑based prevention strategies that can also be used for children under the minimum age.
There must still be accountability – there must still be a response, and there can still be consequences – but those consequences can sit outside the criminal sphere, through safeguarding, structured interventions and therapeutic support. The evidence also shows that deeper involvement in the justice system can worsen outcomes and increase the likelihood of future offending – so prevention and early support must be the focus.
You can read more about how other European countries with a higher MACR respond to harmful behaviour from children under that age in our more detailed briefing paper.
"Children in conflict with the law represent some of our most vulnerable children, and despite some of the good work that takes place within our youth justice system, dealing with welfare issues and complex needs through criminal justice mechanisms can add to some of the difficulties these children already experience."
– Professor Laura Lundy, Co-Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights
and
-Dr Siobhan McAlister, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Queen’s University Belfast