Search

"A letter", Nietzsche once wrote, "is an unannounced visit, the postman the agent of rude surprises". Given the extremely personal nature of many family law judgments, it is rare and rather surprising when parties, their children or, indeed, the judiciary set out their views in the form of a published letter. Two recent cases in which courts have communicated their decision by letter (Patrick v Patrick and Re A letter to a Young Person) are therefore worthy of note. In each case, the letter was addressed to the children in respect of whom orders were sought. The children ranged in age from six to fourteen years.Patrick, a decision of Sheriff Anwar at Glasgow, concerned a “bitter and acrimonious dispute” regarding whether a father should be entitled to “contact, in any form” with his three children described as being “aged between 12 and 6 years”. In Re A letter to a Young Person, Mr Justice Peter Jackson determined a relocation dispute involving a fourteen year-old boy who had been the subject of repeat family court orders since he was one year old. Both judicial letters received publicity, with excerpts from each being published in national newspapers.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘CRC’) is the most ratified treaty in the world. Through rights, therefore, it offers uniform protection and priority to almost all of the world’s population aged under 18. As part of this, the Article 3 ‘best interests’ rubric holds out the promise of ‘really good’ decisions for children being taken by public bodies, courts and tribunals. This chapter considers the application of Article 3 to children who offend looking both at how it is applied and how it ought to apply in their cases. The chapter’s key argument is that Article 3 mandates ‘really good’ outcomes for all children including, equally, for those who do wrong, a position which is fully supported by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The paper will firstly consider the negative perception of children who offend in relation to their rights. It will then turn to the terms of Article 3 itself and examine the ways in which it is incorporated into Scots law as it applies to offenders, and its application. Finally it will look at recent research reports compiled by the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice and by the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration which shed some light on young peoples’ own views of decision-making allegedly in their best interests. Overall, it concludes that the terms of Article 3 provide the framework to offer and achieve much more in terms of outcome than is currently the case.