News

NEWS EXTRA

Background to: Church leaders speak up for right to smack

Families First was founded in 1993 as a Christian national family advocacy group committed to upholding the responsibility of parents to protect and guide their children, and to bring them up in a reasonable manner according to their religious and philosophical convictions

The current law in England and Wales permits parental smacking provided it is moderate and reasonable.

MPs are due to be debating amendments relating to parental discipline at Report Stage and Third Reading of the Children Bill on Tuesday 2 November 2004.

During the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, peers voted on 5 July by 250 votes to 75 against an amendment which would have made all parental smacking a criminal offence.

However, they supported by 226 votes to 91 an amendment moved by Lord Lester which would limit the defence of reasonable chastisement to charges of common assault. When the Government previously considered pursuing this option in a public consultation in 2000, it concluded that: "Although it seems attractive to limit the defence to the lesser charge, the legal responses strongly suggest that restricting the availability of the reasonable chastisement defence to common assault could result in overcharging in order to avoid the defence."1

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) held that it would be ‘wrong’ to limit the defence to charges of common assault since there was "an overlap between common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For example, a very minor bruise could, as a matter of law, be charged as actual bodily harm". The CPS also stated that such a change in the law was "unnecessary because whether the defence will succeed will be dependent on the circumstances, including the injuries inflicted".2

Four years on, concerns that limiting the defence of reasonable chastisement could lead to overcharging have been heightened by proposals to amend the charging standards used to guide prosecutors. During the course of the House of Lords debate on 5 July, the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) intended to amend the CPS charging standards in such a way that "even minor assaults by a parent on a child" would "normally be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm", even where the level of injuries would usually lead to a charge of common assault. This was justified on the basis that an 'assault' on a child by an adult was to be regarded as a "serious aggravating feature".3

The practical effect of Lord Lester’s amendment is uncertain and there are genuine fears that it could lead to intervention in families where children are at no risk of harm. In a letter to the Police Review (16 July 2004), the Chairman of the Kent Police Federation, Ian Pointon, has expressed concern that good and loving parents could be criminalised under the new proposals. He saw no evidence that the reasonable chastisement defence had become a child abusers’ charter, and feared that a change in the law had the potential to divert valuable resources away from the very cases that the police should be investigating.4

The reasonable chastisement defence has been used on only 11 occasions in court cases in England and Wales between December 2001 and August 2004, and was employed successfully on just four occasions. Following a government review of cases, Children’s Minister, Margaret Hodge, concluded that the defence was being treated in a proper manner by the courts.

References
1 Department of Health (2001), Analysis of Responses to the Protecting Children, Supporting Parents Consultation Document.
2 Crown Prosecution Service response to Protecting Children, Supporting Parents
http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pcspresponse/documents/2011.pdf
3 Hansard (House of Lords), 5 July 2004, col. 563.
4 Ian Pointon, letter to the Police Review, 16 July 2004 http://kentpolfed.org.uk/publications/040716.htm

© Christian Family Network
is run by CPO, supported by
Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting,
Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.


		NEWS EXTRA Background to: Church leaders speak up for right to smack Families First was founded in 1993 as a Christian national family advocacy group committed to upholding the responsibility of parents to protect and guide their children, and to bring them up in a reasonable manner according to their religious and philosophical convictions The current law in England and Wales permits parental smacking provided it is moderate and reasonable. MPs are due to be debating amendments relating to parental discipline at Report Stage and Third Reading of the Children Bill on Tuesday 2 November 2004. During the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, peers voted on 5 July by 250 votes to 75 against an amendment which would have made all parental smacking a criminal offence. However, they supported by 226 votes to 91 an amendment moved by Lord Lester which would limit the defence of reasonable chastisement to charges of common assault. When the Government previously considered pursuing this option in a public consultation in 2000, it concluded that: "Although it seems attractive to limit the defence to the lesser charge, the legal responses strongly suggest that restricting the availability of the reasonable chastisement defence to common assault could result in overcharging in order to avoid the defence."1 The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) held that it would be ‘wrong’ to limit the defence to charges of common assault since there was "an overlap between common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For example, a very minor bruise could, as a matter of law, be charged as actual bodily harm". The CPS also stated that such a change in the law was "unnecessary because whether the defence will succeed will be dependent on the circumstances, including the injuries inflicted".2 Four years on, concerns that limiting the defence of reasonable chastisement could lead to overcharging have been heightened by proposals to amend the charging standards used to guide prosecutors. During the course of the House of Lords debate on 5 July, the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) intended to amend the CPS charging standards in such a way that "even minor assaults by a parent on a child" would "normally be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm", even where the level of injuries would usually lead to a charge of common assault. This was justified on the basis that an 'assault' on a child by an adult was to be regarded as a "serious aggravating feature".3 The practical effect of Lord Lester’s amendment is uncertain and there are genuine fears that it could lead to intervention in families where children are at no risk of harm. In a letter to the Police Review (16 July 2004), the Chairman of the Kent Police Federation, Ian Pointon, has expressed concern that good and loving parents could be criminalised under the new proposals. He saw no evidence that the reasonable chastisement defence had become a child abusers’ charter, and feared that a change in the law had the potential to divert valuable resources away from the very cases that the police should be investigating.4 The reasonable chastisement defence has been used on only 11 occasions in court cases in England and Wales between December 2001 and August 2004, and was employed successfully on just four occasions. Following a government review of cases, Children’s Minister, Margaret Hodge, concluded that the defence was being treated in a proper manner by the courts. References 1 Department of Health (2001), Analysis of Responses to the Protecting Children, Supporting Parents Consultation Document. 2 Crown Prosecution Service response to Protecting Children, Supporting Parents http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pcspresponse/documents/2011.pdf 3 Hansard (House of Lords), 5 July 2004, col. 563. 4 Ian Pointon, letter to the Police Review, 16 July 2004 http://kentpolfed.org.uk/publications/040716.htm © Christian Family Network is run by CPO, supported by Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting, Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.