New figures show 25 youngsters under ten committed offences last year

Children as young as five have committed offences in West Yorkshire.

West Yorkshire Police figures show that 25 children under ten, the minimum age that a criminal can be prosecuted, committed an offence last year – up from 16 in 2009.

Nationally, figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that at least 3,000 under-age children committed crimes in 2010.

In West Yorkshire, 14 under-tens committed an offence of criminal damage, six were responsible for theft and handling stolen goods, three committed sexual offences and two youngsters were apprehended for violence against the person.

Most of the children were aged nine or eight. But two, who committed offences of criminal damage and theft and handling, were aged six, and one five-year-old committed an offence of criminal damage.

West Yorkshire Police said that children under ten alleged to have committed a criminal act were deemed unable in law to understand the potential impact of their behaviour and could not be cautioned or charged with that offence.

Any young person under the age of criminal responsibility linked to alleged offending is still interviewed by police staff and, where necessary, individuals and their families are referred to social services and the Youth Offending Service to divert the person from potential further criminality.

The Force said: “West Yorkshire Police understands that every report of criminal behaviour received from a member of the public matters, irrespective of the age of the person who has allegedly committed the offence. We recognise that this contact with a young person is an opportunity to establish their involvement in criminal offending and the reasons behind it.”

Andrew Tempest-Mitchell, chairman of West Yorkshire Police Federation, representing rank and file officers, said it was alarming there were children as young as five or six committing offences.

Mr Tempest-Mitchell said the number of under-tens involved in West Yorkshire did not provide a big case for lowering the age of criminality.

  • Read the full story Wednesday’s T&A

Comments(3)

John_Phillips_V says...
1:31pm Wed 29 Jun 11

Let me guess: the areas in question are Fagley, Queensbury, Holmewood, Buttershaw, Idle, and Eccelshill...

dellorri says...
4:13pm Wed 29 Jun 11

John_Phillips_V wrote:
Let me guess: the areas in question are Fagley, Queensbury, Holmewood, Buttershaw, Idle, and Eccelshill...
But then again that's making an assumption isn't JP_V.... After all I could just as well say, " Let me guess, the areas in question are manningham, thornbury and Great Horton and the boys involved all have been shown what to do by their well behaved older brothers, who wouldnt dream of going round in feral packs, physically attacking pensioners, or pregnant women" that would be totally wrong of me to make an assumption like that..............
Wouldnt it?

John_Phillips_V says...
4:35pm Wed 29 Jun 11

dellorri wrote:
John_Phillips_V wrote:
Let me guess: the areas in question are Fagley, Queensbury, Holmewood, Buttershaw, Idle, and Eccelshill...
But then again that's making an assumption isn't JP_V.... After all I could just as well say, " Let me guess, the areas in question are manningham, thornbury and Great Horton and the boys involved all have been shown what to do by their well behaved older brothers, who wouldnt dream of going round in feral packs, physically attacking pensioners, or pregnant women" that would be totally wrong of me to make an assumption like that..............
Wouldnt it?
Not sure...

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree