Overhauling youth justice
This is the third in my short series of blog posts summarising the Government’s plans to reform the youth justice system “Cutting Youth Crime. Changing Young Lives” which was published on Monday (18 May 2026). This post focuses on the third of its four chapters “Right Response, Right Time”. The White Paper sets out the Government’s ambition to introduce significant change at every point in the youth justice system.
The “right response, right time” mantra seems to reflect the Government’s wish to reduce the number of children processed through the system including reducing the use of remands in youth custody, while, at the same time, reassuring the public that they are not “soft on crime”. Here’s the introduction to the chapter in full:
“Children who come into contact with the youth justice system need timely, fair and proportionate responses that reflect both the seriousness of their behaviour and their potential for change. Getting this balance right is critical.
The system must protect the public and children must face serious consequences for serious offending – recognising that seriousness is not only defined by a single high-harm offence, but also by the persistence and frequency of offending over time. The government is clear and unapologetic about that.
But we are also seeking to avoid unnecessary criminalisation or use of custody, in line with what we know gives children the best chance of changing their lives for the better.”
There are six key areas of work promised under this heading which I summarise in brief below.
Overhauling diversion
The Government argues that the current approach to diversion is falling short, and failing to deliver the consistent, effective intervention that children need, and that victims and communities deserve.
They advocate a more robust and more consistent approach, with greater focus on addressing children’s underlying needs.
It promises plans for a fundamental reform of the youth out-of-court resolution framework, exploring issues such as the question of whether and how children are currently required to admit guilt.
Change for youth courts?
The Government, quite rightly, observes that children who appear in front of the youth court today are typically accused of serious crimes and present with complex needs, but the system supporting them has not kept up with those changes. It has commissioned David Ormerod to take a “fundamental look at the function and purpose of criminal courts for children“. While many will endorse this goal, the fact that the report is not expected until August 2027 means that the prospect for substantial change within the period of this Government seems, to me at least, unlikely.
The Government is also working with the legal sector to develop specialist training requirements for lawyers representing children, and intends to pilot Youth Intervention Courts for children to test a new, problem-solving models. This call for expressions of interest provides more details.
Custody
Most people will agree with the Government’s statement that too many children are held in custodial remand unnecessarily. “Whilst always ensuring public protection”, the Government aims to reduce this population by 25% this Parliament by reforming funding arrangements, expanding investment in robust community alternatives, and introducing legislation.
Sentencing framework
The Government also pledges to modernise the youth sentencing framework, prioritising rehabilitation throughout. Their two primary goals are to reduce the number of short custodial sentences and strengthen community sentences, particularly for first time offenders.
Age of criminal responsibility
Almost twenty years ago the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended an “absolute minimum” age of 12 for criminal responsibility, and urged countries “to continue to increase it to a higher age level”.
However, there remains a truly vast variation in practice across the world, with the most common minimal age of criminal responsibility (MACR) 14 years old. England and Wales is badly out of step with its current MACR of just ten years.
The government intends to “carefully consider” the Bar Council’s review about whether the age of criminal responsibility remains appropriate.
Criminal Records
Finally, the Government makes an overdue and very welcome pledge to review if and how people are required to disclose criminal records relating to childhood offences. It says it will set out plans for a “targeted, proportionate package of potential reforms” for the childhood criminal records regime by the end of the year.
Thanks to CharlVera for kind permission to use the header image in this post which was previously published on Pixabay.
