3. Memorandum from Children are unbeatable!
Alliance
RESTRICTION OF
"REASONABLE CHASTISEMENT"
DEFENCE
The aim of the Children are unbeatable! Alliance,
which now includes among its supporters more than 400 organisations
and projects, many parliamentarians and other prominent individuals,
is equal protection for children under the law. We are confident
that the New Clause tabled in the House of Lords would achieve
that, while providing reasonable reassurance to parents that they
can use physical actions to protect children and others and property
and prevent the commission of a crime.
We are also satisfied that, with appropriate guidance,
this law reform will not lead to inappropriate prosecutions or
other formal interventions that are not in the best interests
of children.
We note that the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP), in his evidence to the Committee, reasonably noted that
his office would not issue guidance "which would absolve
all minor acts of battery against children from criminal prosecution".
He noted that most minor assaults of adults are not prosecuted,
and suspected that such prosecutions for minor assaults on children
would be very rare. He emphasised correctly the much greater vulnerability
of children and that there could be special circumstances—disability
being one of them—in which prosecution could be in the public
interest. This could not be ruled out by guidance which left no
discretion.
We note that the Association of Chief Police Officers
has issued a statement confirming their belief that children should
receive protection of the criminal law and calling for clear guidance.
The DPP referred to the possibility of abolishing
the use of the defence in relation to all offences except common
assault. We hope that the Joint Committee will agree that such
a limited change to the law would not meet the UK's human rights
obligations, and would send a very confusing and potentially dangerous
message to parents and the public. It would highlight, rather
than diminish, the lack of equal protection for children under
the law.
When the Department of Health consulted on law reform,
this was one of the proposals in the Department's consultation
document, Protecting children, supporting parents (2000).
The document quoted the "Offences Against the Person Charging
Standard", agreed by the police and the Crown Prosecution
Service, which states that common assault will be the appropriate
charge "where injuries amount to no more than the following:
grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising and swellings, reddening
of the skin, superficial cuts or a black eye". This is still
the applicable Standard.
To retain the defence in cases of common assault
would imply that such injuries can be justified as lawful punishment.
The Joint Committee should note that the Department
of Health consultation document published the results of a government-commissioned
poll revealing that over 95 per cent of the public rejected punishment
which left "a red mark" or "a bruise" lasting
a few days. The report concluded: "Nearly all respondents
considered punishment that leaves a red mark or bruising to be
unreasonable (96% and over 99% respectively)."
We hope that the Joint Committee will re-emphasise
its recommendation that retention of the "reasonable chastisement"
defence is incompatible with the UK's human rights obligations
and that the Children Bill presents an obvious opportunity for
law reform to remedy this breach.
27 May 2004
| 
