I find it hard to believe but, this month, I will have been in Jersey for two years. Somehow, that time seems to have flown in many ways, while on other days I feel like I have only just taken up my post. The latter days are often the ones that I would definitely call ‘school days’, where I learn something new about the island and its people, as well as about the progress it has made for its children and young people, in particular. But when I look back on the past two years, it feels like progress in some areas has been slower than I might have hoped.

One of the first things I did when I became Commissioner for Children and Young People was to make a formal submission to, and attend a meeting of, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. One of the key issues we raised with the Committee was the low minimum age of criminal responsibility in Jersey.

At just 10 years of age, any child on the island can be charged with a criminal offence (and therefore be expected to understand not just the difference between right and wrong, but also between legal and illegal). Just to add a little context: this is six years before they can have a say in who is elected to the States Assembly; six years before they can give sexual consent; three years before they can officially have a social media account; three years before they can control their own personal information; and six years before they can decide to leave school.

Importantly, this age of just 10 years does not apply only to the most serious crimes, such as murder or manslaughter, but to all offences, including relatively minor ones such as petty theft. This is despite a substantial body of robust and creditable research that shows that contact with the criminal justice system at a young age can result in lasting and harmful impacts on children.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights agreed that this age was too low and recommended that Jersey consider raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. This recommendation was made in 2024 and yet, to date, there has been little visible progress beyond political commitments that have still to be acted on. While the Jersey Youth Justice Roadmap, published in June 2025, commits to consulting on raising the minimum age at which children can be criminalised, it remains unclear who will be consulted, how that consultation will take place, or when it will happen.

Again, in the interests of adding a little context, perhaps it would be useful to consider where we were at, in terms of our collective understanding of how children and young people develop, when this crucial legal parameter was set. The UK and Jersey set the age of criminal responsibility at 10 in 1963 – before MRI scanners existed, before the first experiments on children’s impulse control, and decades before neuroscience showed that the brain systems responsible for judgment and self-regulation are still developing well into early adulthood.

The most recent high-profile commentators on this issue have been Lady Hale, the former president of the English Supreme Court, and Lady Butler-Sloss, previously the highest-ranking female judge in England and Wales, who supported an amendment to the UK crime and policing bill, seeking to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14.

While the UK Government has said that it will oppose this amendment, there remains widespread support for change among organisations that work closely with children who become involved in the criminal justice system. Many of these organisations point to the widening gap between the minimum age of criminal responsibility set by the criminal justice system and what we now know from neuroscience about children’s development, maturity and neurodiversity.

Jersey, England, Wales and Northern Ireland all share the same age of criminal responsibility. All are now considered to be outliers in Europe, where the minimum age ranges from 12 to 18 years, with some countries having a lower age for named and serious crime, usually murder, manslaughter or rape. Many states with very poor human rights records, such as China (12 to 16 years based on proven intent and nature of the crime), Russia (14 to 16 years) and even North Korea (14 years), have a higher age threshold than Jersey for criminal responsibility.

It is important to note that raising the age of criminal responsibility does not mean that children can, or should, be permitted to commit crimes without consequence or intervention under that age. Rather, it means responding to harmful behaviour in ways that are more appropriate to children’s development and circumstances, and protecting them from the known harm of contact with the criminal justice system. Restorative justice and diversion are just two options that can be used in such cases.

Raising the age of criminal responsibility is not necessarily easy and would require changes in law, policy, guidance and practice. However, neither is it impossible. What is required is a fundamental shift in how we think and talk about children who come into conflict with the law. This requires a shift away from criminalisation and harsh punishment, which we know is harmful and contrary to international human rights standards, to one based on welfare and care that recognises the structural and systemic causes of crime among children, seeking redress and rehabilitation instead.

This change in approach will, I fear, be difficult to achieve. It will require political and legal will, as well as changes towards more holistic, child-centred services to meet the needs and rights of the children involved. But we have to try.