4,000 criminals escape punishment because they are 'too young'

The louts, also responsible for arson, criminal damage and wounding, were aged below ten - when the Government says they become 'responsible' for their offences.

But, if the offences had been committed in Scotland, most of the tearaways would have faced prosecution.

Scroll down for more

The revelation, which comes amid huge public alarm at violence involving children, last night sparked demands for the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered to eight - bringing it in line with the Scottish system.

Crime experts said it made no sense for a child sex attacker to escape justice simply because he lived on the English side of the border.

The call to lower the age was also backed by the solicitor for Jon Venables, the child killer of James Bulger.

Lawrence Lee said: "If I wear my citizen's hat, I would say if you go along to any estate and see the age of kids marauding around like a pack of wolves, you'd see that reducing the age of criminal responsibility to eight or nine would be vital."

The crimewave involving under-tens was revealed by Freedom of Information requests for BBC Radio Five Live yesterday.

A survey of 32 of the 43 forces in England and Wales revealed 2,840 crimes where the main suspect was under ten, so no action could be taken.

These included around 1,300 incidents of arson and criminal damage. There were also 66 sex offences, including a number of sexual assaults on under 13s.

Other crimes listed by police included harassment, wounding and burglary.

Once the 11 forces not included in the survey are added - including the Metropolitan Police, where more than a sixth of all offences take place - the total is likely to reach 4,000.

David Green, of the Civitas think tank, said there was a case for bringing the rest of the UK in line with Scotland.

As a result of not being charged, children are spared the shock of being hauled to a police station or court - which could frighten them into changing their ways.

This also applies to parents, who normally have to accompany children to the police station for an interview to take place. Mr Green said:

"Children do know a sense of right from wrong at the age of eight or nine, which is given to them by teachers and any good parent, and they do have a conscience.That is the essence of criminal responsibility."

The scale of offending follows the conviction last Friday of a boy aged ten when he killed retired draughtsman Ernest Norton.

The child, now 12, was part of a gang who stoned a father of two to death as he played cricket with his son in February last year.

Five of his attackers - none of them more than 13 at the time - were found guilty at the Old Bailey of manslaughter and violent disorder.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, said: "Every piece of new evidence shows that the age of criminality is becoming younger.

"This demonstrates only too clearly that some of the fundamental answers to Britain's broken society start in the home and the school."

But, despite the widespread concern, penal reform groups last night made it clear they would resist any attempt to lower the age of "criminal responsibility".

They said that, while it stands at six in some U.S. states, it is currently 12 in Canada, 13 in France; 14 in Germany, Japan and Russia and 15 in Italy.

Youth Justice Minister David Hanson said: "There are no current plans to change the age of criminal responsibility. We will continue to identify children at a risk of offending by working with schools, police, health and social services.

"The Government has introduced a range of measures to allow us to intervene effectively at an early stage, to prevent further offending and to help children and young people, and their parents, to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their misbehaviour."