Source: https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/isle-of-man/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:58:27+00:00

Document:
The right of parents to administer “reasonable chastisement” is recognised under English common law and in article 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1966. This defence should be repealed, together with any confirmations of this right in written legislation, and prohibition should be enacted of all corporal punishment by all persons with authority over children.
Day care – Corporal punishment should be prohibited in all early childhood care (nurseries, crèches, kindergartens, preschools, family centres, etc) and all day care for older children (day care, after-school childcare, childminding, etc).
Corporal punishment is lawful in the home, where parents may exercise “reasonable chastisement” under English common law. This is confirmed in the Children and Young Persons Act 1966: article 1 punishes cruelty to persons under 16 but also states: “(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control or charge of a child or young person to administer punishment to him.” Provisions against violence and abuse in the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 and in criminal law are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing.
The UK’s state party report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2014 states that in the Isle of Man there are currently “no plans to reconsider the position in relation to corporal punishment by parents or legal guardians in the home”. The UK Government states in the report that it “does not condone any violence towards children and has clear laws to deal with it” but “our view is that a mild smack does not constitute violence”. A similar statement was made to the Human Rights Committee in 2015. The UK Government has on three occasions rejected recommendations to prohibit all corporal punishment of children made during the Universal Periodic Review of the UK (see below).
The Regulation of Care Act 2013, which includes provisions including registration requirements aimed at protecting children in children’s homes, residential family centres, foster care, voluntary adoptions schemes and health-related settings does not prohibit corporal punishment. However, it states in article 9 that all registered persons “must ensure that the care service meets all minimum standards applicable to the care service”. The Fostering Services Minimum Standards state that it must be made clear to the foster carer(s) “that corporal punishment is not acceptable and that this includes smacking, shaking and all other humiliating forms of treatment or punishment” (standard 9.4).
Corporal punishment is possibly unlawful in preschools under the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 (unconfirmed) (see under “Schools”) but it is not prohibited in other early childhood care and in day care for older children. Under article 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 – which applies to children’s homes, fostering, childminding and day care – the Department may make regulations to provide “for the control and discipline” in children’s homes but it does not specify that these should exclude corporal punishment and is silent on the issue with respect to other forms of care.
The Regulation of Care Act 2013, which includes provisions including registration requirements aimed at protecting children in day care centres and childminding settings does not prohibit corporal punishment. However, it states in article 9 that all registered persons “must ensure that the care service meets all minimum standards applicable to the care service”. Minimum standards state that physical punishment must not be used in day care centres (Child Day Care Centres Minimum Standards 2014, standard 11.4) and childminding (Childminding Minimum Standards 2014, standard 9.2).
Corporal punishment is unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. Article 16(1) of the Custody Act 1995, provides for the Department of Home Affairs to make rules (“custody rules”) “for the regulation and management of every institution”. Article 17(1) of the Act states: “Custody rules shall not … (d) authorise corporal punishment to be inflicted in an institution.” Article 37 of the Secure Care Home Custody Rules 2002, pursuant to the Custody Act 1995, states: “(1) Order and discipline shall be maintained in the home, but with no more restriction than is required in the interests of security and well-ordered community life. (2) In the control of detainees, care workers shall seek to influence them through their own example and leadership, and to enlist their willing cooperation.” Article 40 addresses the use of force: “(1) A care worker in dealing with a detainee shall not use force unnecessarily and, when the application of force to a detainee is necessary, no more force than is necessary shall be used….” Article 41(1) states that physical restraint may be used only to prevent the detainee from “(a) escaping from custody, (b) injuring himself or others, (c) damaging property, or (d) inciting another detainee to do anything specified in (a), (b) or (c)”.
Corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime. Provisions allowing the higher criminal courts to impose a sentence of corporal punishment on male offenders as young as 10 years of age were repealed in article 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 2001: “Abolition of whipping. (1) The power of the Court of General Gaol Delivery to sentence a person to be whipped is abolished. (2) The following enactments (which deal with the sentence of whipping) are repealed — (a) sections 14, 15 and 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1963; and (b) section 31(8) of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1993.” There is no provision for judicial corporal punishment in the Administration of Justice Act 2008 or the Children and Young Persons Act 2001.
Note: According to the UK’s 2014 Common Core Document, the following treaties apply in the Isle of Man: the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Convention against Torture, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
“In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVII-2) the Committee held that the situation in the United Kingdom was not in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter as corporal punishment was not prohibited in the home.
“The Committee notes from another source that despite the amendments to legislation in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which restrict the application of the defense of ‘reasonable chastisement’, this defense has not been removed. The UN-CRC is concerned at the failure to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment in the home and emphasises its view that the existence of any defence in cases of corporal punishment of children does not comply with the principles and provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, since it would suggest that some forms of corporal punishment are acceptable.
“The Committee notes from the report of the Governmental Committee of the Social Charter to the Committee of Ministers (TS-G (2005) 24, § 230) that while domestic law provides a defence to an alleged crime of violence against a child if the person against whom the allegation is made is a parent administering physical punishment, this applies only if it is deemed to be ‘reasonable’ in manner. This defence, termed ‘reasonable punishment’, has been restricted by Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, to the least serious category of assault. The defence is not absolute, and may be accepted or rejected by a jury. Revised guidance to prosecutors by the Director of Public Prosecutions has clarified the kind of action that may be construed as an assault, and in effect, only a mild smack is likely to be excluded.
“The Committee further notes from another source that corporal punishment is lawful in the home. In England and Wales, section 58 of the Children Act (2004) provides for ‘reasonable punishment’ of children. In Northern Ireland, Article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order (2006) provides for ‘reasonable punishment’. In Scotland, ‘justifiable assault’ of children is lawful under section 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (2003), defining blows to the head, shaking and use of implements as unjustifiable. In rejecting the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review, the Government stated that it sees no need for law reform since it believes the current law is working well, parents should be allowed to discipline children and surveys show that the use of corporal punishment in childrearing has declined.
“The Committee takes note of the Government's arguments against the conclusion of nonconformity. Firstly, the Government states that when Article 17 was accepted by the UK in 1961 it did not require the banning of all corporal punishment of children. Article 17 was revised in 1996 to expressly require that State prohibit all forms of violence against children but the UK did not ratify the later version. It is not clear whether a definition of violence that the Committee has applied to the later 1996 version of Article 17, which the UK did not ratify, is also now applied to the 1961 version.
“Secondly, according to the Government, the UK does not sanction violence that would be likely to affect the physical integrity, dignity, development or psychological well being of children. Therefore, the UK does not consider that it would be in breach of Article 17 even when the latter is interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment. In the Government's view, punishment for which the defence of reasonable punishment is available in England and Wales and Northern Ireland does not constitute violence within the meaning of Article 17. The Government is pleased that research in English and Wales shows that fewer parents now choose to use physical punishment and that more parents use alternative approaches to discipline, and hope that trend continues. According to the report, since 2006 significant resources have been invested in helping parents to access behaviourally based parenting courses which have a proven record of helping parents to manage their children's behaviour more effectively and without resorting to physical punishment. The Committee also takes note of the amendments to the Crown Prosecution Service Charging Standard.
“As regards the Government's first argument, the Committee recalls that its interpretation of Article 17 of the Charter in 2001 (General Introduction to Conclusions XV-2) equally applies to all states having accepted either Article 17 of the 1961 Charter of Article 17§1 of the Revised Charter.
“As regards the Government's second argument, the Committee recalls that the Charter was envisaged as a human rights instrument to complement the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a living instrument dedicated to certain values which inspired it: dignity, autonomy, equality, solidarity and other generally recognised values (FIDH v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, decision on the merits of 8 September 2004, § 27). It must be interpreted so as to give life and meaning to fundamental social rights (FIDH v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, decision on the merits of 8 September 2004, § 29).
“In its General Observation to Conclusions XV-2, regarding Articles 17 and 7§10, the Committee held that it attached great importance to the protection of children against any form of violence, illtreatment or abuse, whether physical or mental. It stated in this General Observation that when interpreting the scope of Article 17 it was influenced by an emerging international consensus on the issue. As regards its reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee recalls that the treaty is one of the most ratified treaties, and has been ratified by all member states of the Council of Europe including the United Kingdom and therefore, it was entirely appropriate for it to have regard to it as well as the case law of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Complaint No 18/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Ireland, decision on the merits of 7 December 2004, §61).
“The Committee does not find it acceptable that a society which prohibits any form of physical violence between adults would accept that adults subject children to physical violence. The Committee did not consider that there can be any educational value in corporal punishment of children that cannot be otherwise achieved. The Committee holds that to prohibit any form of corporal punishment of children, is an important measure for the education of the population in this respect in that it gives a clear message about what society considers to be acceptable. It is a measure that avoids discussions and concerns as to where the borderline would be between what might be acceptable corporal punishment and what is not (General Introduction to Conclusions XV-2).
“The Committee further recalls (Complaint No 18/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Ireland, decision on the merits of 7 December 2004, § 64) that its case law is to the effect that the prohibition of all the forms of violence must have a legislative basis. The sanctions available must be adequate, dissuasive and proportionate.
The Committee considers that in the instant case, although the criminal law will protect children from very serious violence in the home, it remains the fact that certain forms of violence, which fall under the definition of 'reasonable chastisement' are permitted. Therefore, the Committee holds that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter as not all forms of corporal punishment are explicitly prohibited in the home.
“The Committee recalls that Article 17 of the Charter requires a prohibition in legislation against any form of violence against children, whether at school, in other institutions, in their home or elsewhere. It furthermore considers that this prohibition must be combined with adequate sanctions in penal or civil law.
“The Committee notes that information from the report on the Regulations on Children’s Homes which do not allow corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in children’s homes, in England, Wales and Scotland. It asks whether such a regulation exists for Northern Ireland.
“It notes from another source that legislation prohibiting corporal punishment in all forms of day care, including child minding, has not yet been put in place in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Since the precise situation is not clear, the Committee asks that the next report contain detailed information on the prohibition of corporal punishment in all child-care settings, including private ones.
“The Committee further 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 cover all private schools in Northern Ireland. It asks that the next report provide more information on this.
“The Committee notes that corporal punishment within the family is not prohibited. It further notes from the abovementioned source that the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ still exists and the State has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in the family. Therefore, it considers that since there is no prohibition in legislation of all corporal punishment in the home, the situation is not in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter.
“As regards corporal punishment, the Committee notes that it was prohibited in private schools by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, with the result that corporal punishment is now prohibited in all schools. The Committee wishes to be informed whether legislation prohibits corporal punishment in other institutions caring for children. It notes that not all forms of corporal punishment are prohibited within the family. The Committee refers to its general observations on Article 17 in the General introduction and decides to defer its conclusion on this point pending more information from the British Government on the situation and on its intentions in this regard. It also wishes to receive information on the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland….
Only the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply in the Isle of Man.

References: § 230
 v. 
 § 27
 v. 
 § 29
 v. 
 §61
 v. 
 § 64