B v. Director of Public Prosecutions

The House of Lords held that section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 contains an age-related ingredient for which mens rea is required: an honest belief that the complainant was aged 14 or over negatives the requisite age element and is therefore a defence. The court applied the common law presumption in favour of mens rea (Sweet v. Parsley) but adjusted its previous formulation in light of later authorities (for example DPP v. Morgan) so that an honest, albeit unreasonable, mistake of fact will suffice to negative the necessary intent. The court rejected the submission that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and decisions such as Reg. v. Prince compelled a contrary conclusion and held that Parliament had not, expressly or by necessary implication, excluded mens rea for the age element in section 1(1). The burden remains on the prosecution to disprove an honestly held belief once the defendant raises some evidence to that effect.

Background and facts:

The appellant, a 15 year old, was charged with inciting a girl aged 13 to commit an act of gross indecency contrary to section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. At first instance the justices ruled that belief as to age could not be a defence, the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted. The justices stated a case and the Divisional Court ([1999] 3 WLR 116) affirmed. The appeal to the House of Lords challenged the interpretation of section 1(1).

Nature of the appeal and issues:

• The appellant sought to quash his conviction on the ground that an honest belief that the other person was aged 14 or over is a defence to the age element of section 1(1).
• The certified issues were whether mens rea is required as to age for the offence in section 1(1); whether any belief must be held on reasonable grounds; and on whom the burden of proof rests.

Court's reasoning and decision:

• The court started from the common law presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of statutory crimes (Sweet v. Parsley), and considered whether that presumption is displaced expressly or by necessary implication in section 1(1). It emphasised that any necessary implication must be compellingly clear.
• The House reviewed later authorities (notably DPP v. Morgan, Regina v. Kimber, Reg. v. Williams and Beckford) and concluded that the modern trend requires recognition of a subjective honest belief defence; the traditional formulation requiring reasonable grounds should be read down.
• The statutory context of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and previous cases (including Reg. v. Prince, Rex v. Forde and R. v. Maughan) was considered, but the court found the 1956 Act to be an inconsistent collection of provisions and not manifesting a clear legislative intention to displace the presumption. Prince and related authorities were treated as not decisively controlling.
• The court held that an honest belief that the complainant was 14 or over negatives the age ingredient in section 1(1). The belief need not be reasonable. Once the defendant adduces some evidence of such belief, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not hold that honest belief.

Outcome:

The appeal succeeded and the appellant's conviction was quashed. The Lords observed that Parliament remains free to legislate if it wishes a different result.

Appeal allowed. The House held that section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 requires mens rea as to the age ingredient: an honest belief that the complainant was 14 or over negatives the necessary age element and is a defence. The belief does not have to be based on reasonable grounds. Once the defendant raises evidence of an honest belief, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that no such belief existed. The statutory context (Sexual Offences Act 1956) and earlier authorities did not demonstrate a necessary implication excluding mens rea.

Youth Court conviction following plea of guilty (supervision order imposed) -> justices stated a case -> Divisional Court affirmed the ruling of the justices ([1999] 3 W.L.R. 116) -> Appeal to House of Lords ([2000] UKHL 13) allowed.