«Reconsider its position on upholding the legality of corporal punishment of children. (Sweden) The Committee also notes from the same source that the abolition of corporal punishment in all schools in England, Wales and Scotland has not yet been extended to all private schools in Northern Ireland. He requested that the next report contain more information in that regard. Each school should specify in its behavioural policy the power to use force and the circumstances in which violence may be used. The policy may include: A survey of 55 health professionals working primarily with children (including paediatricians, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, school nurses and health visitors) in Scotland found that 47% mistakenly believed that the law protected children more from abuse than adults, 40% correctly stated that this was not the case and 13% did not know. The school does not need your child`s consent to search them if it thinks your child has banned items, including: However, when asked what parents were allowed to do in cases of corporal punishment, the UK replied through the Department of Education:[11] The Committee is also concerned that corporal punishment in the home is legal and constitutes a form of violence against children, including girls. Legal defences against the use of corporal punishment are contained in section 58 of the Children in England Act 2004 and section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2006 (Northern Ireland). These provisions must be explicitly repealed and all corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment must be prohibited in the home and in all other environments where adults have control over children. «The Committee takes note of the arguments put forward by the Government against the finding of non-compliance. First, the Government submits that section 17, when enacted by the United Kingdom in 1961, did not require the prohibition of all corporal punishment of children. Article 17 was revised in 1996 to explicitly require the State to prohibit all forms of violence against children, but the United Kingdom has not ratified the subsequent version. It was not clear whether a definition of force applied by the Committee to the later version of article 17 of 1996, which the United Kingdom had not ratified, now also applied to the 1961 version. It notes from another source that no legislation has yet been adopted in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland prohibiting corporal punishment in all forms of childcare, including child care.
As the exact situation is not clear, the Committee requests that the next report include detailed information on the prohibition of corporal punishment in all childcare institutions, including private institutions. «In interpreting Article 17 of the Charter, the Committee has noted that the prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment of children is an important step that avoids discussing and addressing the line between what might be an acceptable form of corporal punishment and what would be unacceptable (General Introduction to concluding observations XV-2). The Committee recalls its interpretation of article 17 of the Charter with regard to corporal punishment of children, most recently in its decision in World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) v. Portugal (application No. 34/2006, decision on the merits of case 5. December 2006; §§ 19-21): (b) Promote positive, participatory and non-violent forms of discipline and respect for the equal right of children to human dignity and physical integrity, involve children and parents and all those who work with and for them, and conduct public education programmes on the negative consequences of corporal punishment. The government rejected the seven recommendations, saying: «The UK does not tolerate violence against children and has clear laws to deal with it. The defence of «reasonable corporal punishment» in section 58 of the Children Act 2004 cannot be invoked where a person is charged with assault, grievous bodily harm or child abuse. Parents should not be criminalized for gently hitting a child to control their behaviour.
» [9] «. Legislative measures are recommended to prohibit the use of corporal punishment in privately funded and operated schools. «According to the report, nothing has changed in the situation. The Committee considers that the situation it previously considered incompatible with the Charter has not changed. It therefore reiterates its earlier conclusion that there was no respect on the grounds that not all forms of corporal punishment of children are prohibited in the home. Schools should ensure that high standards and expectations of good conduct permeate all aspects of school life, including school culture, ethics and values, how students are taught and encouraged, the response to misconduct, and the relationships between staff, students and parents. The school`s behavior should be easily obvious to anyone joining or attending the school. Everyone should treat each other with dignity, kindness and respect. The government rejected the recommendations on the grounds that: «. British law allows corporal punishment of children only in very limited circumstances. Corporal punishment is illegal in all-day public and independent schools, kindergartens and day-care centres, children`s homes and safe institutions. The Government of the United Kingdom does not accept that it is violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to corporal punishment; and consider that the United Kingdom complies with Articles 19 and 37 on abuse and violence against children.
[6] The 2014 mid-term review of the UK reiterates this point by stating that «parents should not be criminalised for giving their child a slap in the face». [7] The March 2010 mid-term report reiterates this assertion and draws attention to the prohibition of corporal punishment in educational and care institutions and to the review of corporal punishment in some educational institutions that do not fall under the legal framework. [4] The report refers to previous legislative reforms that limited the use of the «appropriate sentence» defence so that it can no longer be invoked in cases of actual or serious bodily harm or bodily harm. Then, however, she tries to defend the continued legality of some level of corporal punishment in the education of children by stating that the government «does not tolerate» corporal punishment but «does not want to criminalize decent parents who choose to administer a mild slap»: the government considers that the promotion of positive disciplinary techniques is sufficient to solve the problem. A survey conducted in November-December 2016 on behalf of the Commissioner for Children and Young People of Northern Ireland (NICCYP), which interviewed a sample of 1,500 people, found that 63% of respondents would support or tend to support a change in the law to provide children with the same protection from beatings and blows as adults. Only 33% of adults and 37% of parents were aware that the law currently allows a parent to physically punish a child. Only 24% of adults and 18% of parents said corporal punishment was acceptable, and more suggested that removing treats such as pocket money was much more acceptable (73%), followed by anchoring, negotiating or discussing, and downtime. «Consider further measures to address violence against children, including corporal punishment. (Italy) (b) Ensure that corporal punishment is explicitly prohibited in schools and all other institutions and forms of alternative care throughout the United Kingdom and in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; «The Committee recommends that the State party take appropriate measures to eliminate corporal punishment in schools where this practice is still permitted, i.e. in private schools.» Therefore, any injury to a child that is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault with actual bodily harm cannot be considered the result of an appropriate sentence. Section 58 and the amended tariff standard mean that for any injury to a parent or person acting in loco parentis that constitutes more than temporary redness of the skin, and if the injury is more than temporary and minor, the defence of an appropriate penalty is not possible.
In defining «moderate corporal punishment» in paragraphs 1 and 2, S58CA04 implicitly defined «moderate punishment» as an antonym (and «reasonable» as a bilateral synonym for «moderate») as an injury less than ABH and therefore only capable of being charged with a less serious offence of common assault for which the sentence is imposed under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Paragraphs 3 and 4 contained a legal definition of «substantial harm» in civil proceedings, such as investigations by social services under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 as ABH.