Not all calls for “clarification” of the law are nonsense, but it is well worth being sceptical about such calls generally: often they rest on the assumption that the law should always rely on clear-cut black and white definitions. An assumption I think is wrong, and which can be dangerous.

Take this BBC news story about the dangers, for parents, of leaving children alone at home. It tells us there is concern because the law – section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 – “fails to specify” the precise age at which children can be left alone. But the least helpful thing you could possibly do for parents and children would be to write into law an arbitrary “home alone” age for children. Would you take a cautious approach, trying to minimise risk to children, and therefore make it illegal to leave any child of 15 at home alone? Parents like Joyce Hazard (great name, especially in the context) who’s quoted in the BBC story would obviously find that even less realistic and workable than the law is now. Or would you give the green light to parents to leave kids over 12 alone, regardless of what might happen? You only have to think about the alternatives to realise that there is good reason why the law “fails to specify” a cut-off age and why any attempt to do so would be met with howls of protest.

To be fair to the Children’s Legal Centre, I can find nothing on their website or in what their spokeswoman Kelly Everett (another great name…) said to the BBC that actually calls for such a “clarification” – although the fact that the CLC supported Shabina Begum’s ultimately unsuccessful claim in effect to a legal right to wear the jilbab at school makes me wonder how well this charity really does speak up for children’s rights.

2008-07-11T13:46:00+00:00Tags: |