C (A Minor), Re

The House of Lords held that the common law presumption of doli incapax — that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is presumed not to know that his act is "seriously wrong" — remains part of the law. The presumption can be rebutted only by clear positive evidence that the child appreciated the gravity of his conduct, and that evidence must be something more than proof of the acts constituting the offence. The court answered both certified questions in the affirmative and allowed the appeal, directing that the charge against the appellant be dismissed and urging Parliament to review the doctrine.

The appellant, a boy just under 13, was convicted in the Youth Court of interfering with a motorcycle with intent to commit a theft or taking and driving away without consent contrary to section 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. On a case stated the Divisional Court ([1994] 3 W.L.R. 888) considered whether the presumption of doli incapax remained part of the law and concluded that it should be abolished; leave to appeal was granted to the House of Lords.

The House was asked (i) whether the presumption that a child between 10 and 14 is doli incapax continues to operate, and (ii) whether it can be rebutted only by clear positive evidence that the child knew the act was seriously wrong, such evidence not consisting merely of the acts constituting the offence.

The House reviewed historical authorities, committee reports, statutes and recent case-law. It emphasised principles limiting judicial law-making and noted that government and Parliament had repeatedly considered the matter, most recently as part of policy statements and statute. The majority concluded that the presumption remains part of the law. They held that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child knew his act was seriously wrong and that mere proof of the offending acts is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Applying that legal standard, the court found there was no admissible evidence apart from the acts themselves to rebut the presumption in the appellant's case and ordered that the Youth Court's conviction be quashed with a direction to dismiss the charge; the Lords also invited Parliamentary review of the rule.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords held that the common law presumption of doli incapax for children aged between 10 and 14 remains part of English law and that it can be rebutted only by clear positive evidence showing that the child knew his act was seriously wrong; such evidence must be more than proof of the acts constituting the offence. On that basis the conviction was quashed and the charge ordered dismissed, and the House urged Parliament to consider reform.

Youth Court conviction (interfering with a motorcycle; appellant just under 13) -> appeal by case stated to the Divisional Court which heard the matter and (while dismissing the appellant's appeal) concluded the presumption should be abolished ([1994] 3 W.L.R. 888) -> appeal to the House of Lords allowed; House answered certified questions and remitted to High Court with direction to dismiss the charge ([1995] UKHL 15).