To be expecting more from the police than this?

[Whatshouldhappenhere]

I did start a thread over in chat a few days ago and received some helpful responses but I’m just looking for some general advice about the police/legal system in general and hoping someone can help. Also wondering whether I’m expecting too much.

Background is: 12 yo DS was attacked on his way home from school last week by a boy he recognised from school but had never interacted with before and didn’t even know his name. DS overtook three boys from his year at school, one boy pulled his airpod from his ear as he walked past so DS snatched it back, shouted at them and ran away. After a short while, DS realised they weren’t chasing so stopped running but this boy then decided to start chasing, caught up with DS and punched him 4-5 times in the face. A woman who lived on the street intervened so the boy stopped and ran away (who knows how long the attack would have gone on for had she not intervened).

My first port of call was the school as soon as I found out, they said the student liaison officer would phone me back. Then I called 101 who took all of the details, gave me a crime number and said an officer would visit to take a statement. The SLO found out the boy who attacked DS was expelled before Christmas so the school had no jurisdiction and couldn’t act. He found the other two boys and had a chat with them but that’s the end of school involvement. The assistant head spoke to me on the phone last Thursday and promised he would have a chat with DS on Friday morning but never did. I believe this was simply damage control more than anything, he was acting like my best friend throughout the chat but didn’t follow through with the promise to chat to DS so I’m fairly disappointed although I do understand why the school can do very little else.

A police officer visited on Saturday. I thought he would sit and take a lengthy statement and be here a while but he was here for 5 minutes. He simply asked DS what happened and told me he would go talk to the boy and his parents now. I asked why it wouldn’t be taken any further and he said they don’t like putting children through the legal system over what was probably a heat of the moment thing. He said he’s sure I wouldn’t want DS’s life potentially ruined if he did something like this so I said DS wouldn’t do something like this though whereas this boy has and he’s already been expelled from school.

Basically police stance was they don’t like to charge children because it can affect their lives forever so deal with it. I contacted 101 later that day after mulling over it to ask to speak to the officer or someone else about it because I’m disappointed in the outcome. They said the officer would call me straight back but I’m still awaiting that call. Contacted 101 again yesterday to chase the call back and they said someone would call me but they’re unable to offer a timescale so I’m not hopeful anyone will.

Where do I go from here, if anywhere? Have the police done enough? Is a chat with the boy sufficient and I’m being horrible expecting anything beyond this? It’s just the fact it was a totally unprovoked attack and my DS is a really good boy, his only mistake was walking past the wrong person at the wrong time.

The Police will refer to LA Children's Social Services probably, if they aren't already involved. The fact he's been expelled leads me to believe "home life" might not be as rosey.

If he continues to assault people, the record will be built and youth justice can step in. But if this is his "first offence" at 12 they will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope a talking to by the police nips the behaviour in the bud.

It's obviously in no way great for your son, and you both probably feel no justice has been given to the victim of an assault, and I completely get that, I think it's fair to say many of us would feel the same. But we can't become a country that hands out criminal records to 12 year olds for infractions that could well be a one off, and due to absolute shit personal judgment by the child.

I am sorry your son was attacked though, it is awful.

It sounds like the officer did explain to you in the first place that children aren't criminalised these days.

Realistically all that would happen if the officer spent 30mins-2hrs taking a statement, then chasing witnesses for x amount of hours etc, would be that CPS/Youth offending team would say "no". That is why the officer has managed your exceptions in the first place. The outcome if they had done all that would be the same, the boy would only be spoken to.

As above the police is a really overstretched service and it would not be proportionate or a good use of police time do all these actions for the same outcome. If this boy was a prolific offender there would further action.

@Face2facet its not that it doesn't matter or the victims feelings don't matter or that it is "okay" what happened to them. But there is only so much police can do in relation to children/youths as I've explained in detail in my posts. They have been visited by police and the offender will be spoken to. Although the OP may not agree with this action, it is still the police taking positive action.

I 100% have sympathy for you. I understand your upset and anger and wanting to protect and "get justice" for your son. The issue with that is identifying what that looks like for you and whether that is something that is realistic.

I also think it's a bit naive to expect a clearly troubled boy to turn his life around becuase he has been expelled. I would imagine that being a moment of clarity is a rarity for most troubled kids. If anything it's probaby made him feel worse. That's of course not your issue, but this idea that when children hit 12 then they can think and understand consequences like an adult is not sound.

I am not saying this because you need to feel sympathy for the other boy. But perhaps trying to look at it more objectively will help you come to terms with it better.

There are likely a tiny number of cops on duty at any one time in your local station. FAR FAR fewer than you'd imagine. The crime will be assigned to one officer. It will be in his/her "basket". They will have tasks to do, including speaking to the boy. They will get to it when they can but they will have a LOT of crimes in their basket, many far more serious and with a higher likelihood of prosecution. They do not get specific time allotted to deal with crimes in the basket so they do this around attending 999 calls. The crimes in their basket don't get passed to another officer when they are off-shift or on leave. This means that it can take a LOONNGGG time to get round to less urgent crimes. Be patient!

I’d just like to live in a country where we can send our kids to school without the danger of them getting beaten up. If a child can’t help but beat people up, they need to be detained. It’s not acceptable to let them continue their behaviour, and I can’t see that continuing to let them get away with it is good for either them or future victims.

and no I am not a daily mail reading Tory nutter thanks.

I mean surely this is one of the reasons why we have such a thug problem in this country? Gangs of 'youths', as in, teenage boys and young men being violent, aggressive, using intimidation, getting into drugs, etc. When they start exhibiting this kind of behaviour at such a young age nothing is done about it. Surely, we need to be coming down hard on them to show them that it isn't acceptable. Obviously not Prison but where are the options of getting this lad help, rehabilitation, learning, etc.? If nothing is done then it just gets worse. This is the type of lad that in ten year times is likely to be in prison. Why not prevent that by doing something that now before it escalates. It's just not on. I'm sorry for you and your son, OP. I completely understand. I'd be wanting more if this happened to my boy.

Can the police no longer ban kids from certain areas?
When I was at school a girl in my year was expelled and banned from the immediate area around the school (think it extended about a mile round the school). She had form for bullying and assaulting kids both inside and out of school.
It meant that most kids safe from her as they got on buses etc and the rest had dispersed without her presence. Im pretty sure she wasn't taken to court. But more the threat of court if she broke the ban.

I remember your initial post. I agree with others that the message sent to your son is that he doesn't matter. As someone who was attacked by a gang when they were a similar age and with a partner who was attacked at a different time I completley let empathise with both yourself and your son. Whilst I understand the pressure son the police. I have seen first hand that by leaving such perpetrators or being soft on them, they do indeed go on to escalate in terms of crimes throughout their lives. I went to court in the 1990s as did my partner. It was an awful experience. I was asked what I was wearing (a Benetton jumper!). It's not a nice process for the victim. What I wish I had more of was victim support, counselling that is what I would work on with your son. I would ask for a restorative written statement of apology perhaps it should be detailed on their records but not stand as a criminal record as such. It does very importantly paint a picture going forward though - I would clarify with police. Then I would put my effort into supporting your son, through school support and therapy. He may seem 'ok' but these things can have massive effects years later without you realising. Happy for you to DM me if it helps, both myself and hubbie have been sep. incidents as teenage victims.

He should be given a criminal record and spend a night in a cell. Maybe a taste of their future would be more of a deterrent.

Police can't just throw whoever they like in cells. There is legislation to follow and this would not meet an arrest necessity. If he was arrested he wouldn't get past the custody desk.

I can't believe what I'm reading OP. People don't want to criminalise kids? Then perhaps said kids shouldn't break the law and assault people. By the age of 12, most children know that hitting is wrong and it hurts people etc so why should they not be punished?

I had something similar said to me by a police officer as there were teenagers kicking our door and targeting my daughter. He said to me "we don't want to go around criminalising kids". If they are committing a crime then they deserve to be criminalised in my opinion.

As someone said further up in the thread, this is why we have antisocial behaviour and youths harassing people, because they know they can get away with it.

I really feel for your son, I don't have any words but to say that you are entirely justified to want more doing than has been done.

There is no wonder that people take the law into their own hands these days.

The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 12. Little fucker should be prosecuted. At very outside his parents should be given a fine and that might make them speak to their little bully about his actions. Honestly no wonder the world is the way it is when stuff like this is shoved under the rug.

Sorry 10. Typo!

I feel the same way, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with bruising another child. If an adult did that to a child they would be prosecuted.

Criminal age of responsibility is 10 in England and Wales (not sure about the devolved countries) which is sending the message that children age 10 and above are capable of realising what they are doing (bar some exemptions like cognitive impairments etc).

Yeah sorry the fact we cant edit here means my typo has to stay. It is 12 here in Ireland but either way a kid of that age knows right from wrong and chose wrong therefore should be punished.

We are literally in the same boat op. Except ds is 14 and I didn't even bother reporting it as I expected the same outcome as you. Naff all doing.

I completely agree with you. I think the OP has shown tremendous calm to be honest. I don't think I could be as calm if that had happened to my child.

That's a shame. So basically little shits can beat up whoever they like with no fear of repercussion. Great system. Clearly not fit for purpose. The boy has been expelled and is going round beating people up randomly. He is clearly going to end up in prison at some point and continue ruining other people's lives until he does something bad enough to criminalise him.

Have you thought about a civil injunction if the police can't do anything? This would stop the attacker from being able to come near your son or your home (depending on the conditions of it and if you can get one against a minor). It would be worth looking into.

It's not that police "don't want to" criminalise kids, it's because the evidence shows that criminalising children does not have a good outcome for anyone. Police forces have policies in place to this effect as to how children and youths are to be dealt with and it isn't anything to with the individual officer "not wanting" to criminalise a child. It's not just the police, CPS (independent of the police), will not touch such cases in order for there to be prosecution or a criminal record...

For people commenting about youth thugs, kids being able to run wild with no punishment these days etc. while I don't disagree in some cases, in many you will find that kids exhibiting these behaviours are victims themselves.
This can be due to their home life, being groomed or exploited criminally by older people, drawn into gangs, CSE, any number of things.

Doesn't make it right that an incident like this has occurred at all. But the police have taken action, just not the action that OP wants. There could be other interventions behind the scenes in relation to this child that the OP is not privy to.

For those that disagree with police not criminalising children, you could write to the Chief Constable of your local police force and ask them for an explanation.

I've already suggested the OP enquire about a community resolution in relation to this, this may give herself and her son a bit more sense of something having been done.

Me too. He knows right from wrong, if the little scrote gets a criminal record who cares.

Or dead (if anyone remembers the Dele Little case, violent boy who couldn't be stopped, ended up picking on someone who was armed). Surely the police would prefer kids set on the straight and narrow instead of getting more feral and ending up stabbed to death?

Not criminalising doesn't have a great outcome either though, does it? We all know that the message this boy is getting is that he can assault people and nothing will happen to him. So he's pretty much guaranteed to keep on doing it.....

I agree with you. Does 'being ok' have to mean he didn't require medical attention? Of course he isn't ok, he must be very shaken. He was walking home, minding his own business and this little thug set on him. How are we meant to encourage our teens (even pre-teens) to be independent and get themselves from A to B sensibly if they have to put up with this nonsense.

What I'm saying is the police will have looked at the history of the suspect, if he has no history of doing things like this it unlikely something like this would he touched by a youth offending team or CPS.

Will the suspect have a history if nothing is done, on each occasion? Do police keep a "criminal record" of all incidents in which no official action is taken?

Just wondering how it works. I would have thought that if someone isn't "convicted" (which I guess would include cautioning) then all that would exist is an unsubstantiated accusation, which it would be wrong to use against them, so in fact there would be no record of any report. And therefore no history to consult.