The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from nine to 16 according to voluntary organisation Mid-Dlam Għad-Dawl that fights for prisoners' rights.

The director of the organisation, Charles Cassar, agreed with the Children's Commissioner's recommendation to raise the age, adding it should be raised by a further two years beyond what was suggested in her report.

The Children's Commissioner's annual report, released on Thursday, pointed out that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had expressed concern over Malta's low age of criminal responsibility that stands at nine.

The committee was also concerned about the Maltese law's assumption that children between nine and 14 could act with "mischievous intent".

Lawyer Ramona Frendo explained that the law distinguished between three categories of minors.

Those under nine years were completely exempt from criminal responsibility as they were deemed not to be capable of having criminal intent.

When it came to children between nine and 14, the prosecution had to prove that they committed the crime with mischievous intent. If convicted of a serious case, these children could be jailed for up to a maximum of four years.

Those between 14 and 18 were tried according to the same principles that applied to adults but, if convicted, their punishment was reduced by one or two degrees.

Dr Frendo pointed out that there was a discrepancy in that the Juvenile Court Act laid down that minors under 16 were to be tried in the Juvenile Court whereas the Criminal Code did not mention the age of 16 at all.

As a practising lawyer, Dr Frendo said she personally believed that, given the children's ever-increasing awareness and earlier development, rather than increasing the age of criminal responsibility from nine to 14, a solution could lie in changing the law so that children under 14 would not be jailed and those under 18 would be tried in the Juvenile Court.

She pointed out that there had to be room for the justice system to take legal action against those who committed a serious crime, even if they were under 14.

The question remains: At what age do children become capable of forming criminal intent? "It is not until the age of 16 plus that children, in essence, actually have the mental and intellectual faculties to reason on the basis of moral and ethical internal principles, that is to truly know the difference between right and wrong," explained counselling psychologist Cher Engerer.

Ms Engerer, who has worked with juvenile offenders, cautioned that it really depended on the children's intelligence and the environment they were brought up in.

Speaking in general terms, she said the actions of children between seven and 10 years often depended on the type of people present in their environment. Therefore, they could not be held exclusively responsible for their actions.

Those aged between 10 and 16 thought more about the intent behind the act.

Ms Engerer said she personally agreed with increasing the age of criminal responsibility. "I don't believe that any minors under 16 should be treated in the same manner as adults if convicted. We need to seriously think about creating a structure for these juvenile offenders, one that will offer a therapeutic rehabilitation for them, not simply punishment. Otherwise, I believe we are failing them as a system, as, perhaps, they have been previously failed by their caregivers," she said.

This point was also raised in the Children's Commissioner's report that called for an alternative method of detention for convicted children.

Last year, five boys and two girls, aged between 15 and 17, were detained at Corradino Correctional Facility. Four were awaiting trial and the others were serving time.

The issue of criminal responsibility in minors has been a source of debate in the UK following the brutal murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two 10-year-olds in 1993. They walked the toddler more than two miles to a railway line, where they beat him to death.

England's Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, recently criticised the authorities' treatment of the two accused - Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. She said the two should not have been prosecuted because children under 12 did not fully understand their actions. She later sent a letter to the victim's mother apologising for the hurt that was caused by her comments.