A High Court judge today questioned the wisdom of prosecuting very young or very handicapped people in the criminal courts.

The judge said there might be better ways of dealing with inappropriate behaviour, even in cases involving alleged sex offences.

Lord Justice Hughes, sitting with Mr Justice Treacy, said other disciplinary action should be considered rather than subjecting vulnerable individuals to the full panoply of a criminal trial.

Those experienced in dealing with the young and the handicapped should be co-opted to assist, said the judge.

He spoke out while dealing with the case of a boy with severe learning difficulties put on trial at Bishop Auckland magistrates court, Durham, for touching a girl under 14 on her breasts and on the vaginal area.

Both were aged 13 and attending a special school for children with learning difficulties at the time of the alleged incident in December 2004.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecuted R, who must not be identified, under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act for indecent assault, alleging the touching was sexual and he did not reasonably believe the girl was aged 16 years or over.

A clinical psychologist told the court that R was functioning at "severe learning disabled level" and he was within the bottom 0.1% of the population.

By the time of the trial, delayed until May-June 2006, both boy and girl were aged 15.

The girls evidence in chief, contained in a video recorded soon after the alleged offence, described how R had touched her breast and twisted it, which she had not welcomed.

At the trial, her video evidence was admitted but she said she had no personal recollection of what had happened and could only rely on what she had said in the recording.

The magistrates ruled she was not competent to give evidence because of her mental condition, but allowed her video to be admitted as hearsay.

The boy himself had made what appeared to be admissions relating to the alleged incident in a police interview.

But the magistrates ruled that, because of his disability and evidence that he was highly suggestible, that evidence could not be relied upon.

Today the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against Rs acquittal.

Lord Justice Hughes said the magistrates had been wrong to find the girl was not competent to give evidence - it was just that she could not give any useful evidence because of lack of memory.

He said her interview evidence could legally be admitted as she could give perfectly intelligible answers.

But the magistrates were entitled not to rely on it and find R not guilty.

In an apparent bid to discourage further similar cases involving vulnerable people being brought to court, the judge said: "Even where there is a complaint of inappropriate sexual behaviour, it should not be thought invariable that it should be investigated by means of a criminal trial, rather than disciplinary action, co-opting those who are experienced at dealing with children of this age and this handicap."