Talk:Youth justice in England and Wales

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

i would like to know how old a child has to be befor a parent has to be present for the law officals question them?

...[edit]

Why does 'youth justice' refer to the article on youth justice in Engand and Wales? Surely a bigger article should be created on youth justice. Dorkules (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the subsection "community sentences" in the "Sentencing" section[edit]

In the section mentioned in the title, there is a note stating "This section is obsolete". If that is teh case, then surely that section should be deleted? Thehistorian10 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age of criminal responsibility[edit]

After seeing this edit to the Defense of infancy article (which now contradicts this article), I looked here for more info. A cite in the Age of criminal responsibility subsection here led me to Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That section reads

Abolition of rebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax
The rebuttable presumption of criminal law that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence is hereby abolished.

That appears to contradict the info it is cited to support.

I'm not sure that I understand this properly -- perhaps it is not saying that the presumption is abolished but rather that the rebuttable nature of the presumption is abolished. I will leave it to regular editors of this article to sort out what, if anything, needs to be done here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged both articles {{contradict other}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]