‘Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less’: The Political Context and Rights’ Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables‐Thompson Case

Abstract

In 1993 Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were found guilty of the abduction and murder of two‐year‐old James Bulger. Aged ten at the time of the offence, the children were tried in an adult court before a judge and jury amidst a blaze of publicity. They were named by the trial judge and sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure [HMp]. The Home Secretary set a minimum tariff of fifteen years imprisonment. In December 1999 the European Court of Human Rights held that, in the conduct of the trial and the fixing of the tariff, the United Kingdom government was responsible for violating the European Convention on Human Rights. This article maps how the case became a watershed in youth justice procedure and practice influencing Labour’s proposals for reform and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Examining the progression of appeals through the domestic and European courts, it explores the dichotomous philosophies separating the United Kingdom and European approaches to the age of criminal responsibility, the prosecution and punishment of children, and the influence of political policy on judicial decisions. Finally, the ‘backlash’ against ‘threatening children’, the affirmation of adult power and knowledge, and the implications of the European judgments in the context of a rights‐based agenda are analysed.

Troubling Times for Young People and Families With Troubles – Responding to Truancy, Rioting and Families Struggling With Adversity

“…Similarly John Major promised to lead Britain back to a basic morality of decency, self-discipline, family values and respect for the law (Major, 1993). As shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair wrote, 'we should never excuse the commission of criminal acts on the grounds of social conditions' (Blair, 1994: 3), instead he characterised youth antisocial behaviour as a descent into moral chaos (Haydon and Scraton, 2000). This reflects Blair's view that failure to accept responsibility and to respect the moral order of society justifies harsh penalties, or 'no rights without responsibilities', which Giddens described as a 'prime motto' for New Labour's (Giddens, 1998).…”

Has Welfarist Criminology Failed? Juvenile Justice and the Human Sciences in Victoria

“…Here, the role of the human -social and psychological -sciences is seen as not so much discredited as ignored, that is, as a wilful ignorance that was early captured in the United Kingdom with Michael Howard's pronouncement at the time of the Venables and Thompson trial, while he was Home Secretary, that it was time to 'condemn a little more' and 'understand a little less' (in Haydon & Scraton, 2001). …”

Exploring the relationship between sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

“…The European Court of Justice subsequently held there had been a violation of Article 5(4) of the ECHR because Venables and Thompson were unable to have the continuing lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a judicial body, and Article 6(1) in respect of the trial and the fixing of the sentence, especially on the point that tariff fixing by the Home Secretary, who was a politician and therefore not independent of the executive, amounted to sentencing. For further discussion; see, Haydon and Scraton (2000). 5 Structural changes precipitated by government may well pre-empt the likely effectiveness of such limited reforms.…”