UPDATED 19 FEBRUARY 2009

2.5   CHILD DEFENDANT, CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.

By Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 the rebuttable presumption that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is incapable of committing an offence (unless he knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong) is abolished. The Article came into force on 1 December 1998. This direction should therefore only be given in relation to offences committed before that date. In relation to offences committed after the Article came into force no direction should be given.

“You are trying a child of (age). A child of that age cannot be guilty of a criminal offence unless at the time of the alleged offence he knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong as distinct from an act of mere naughtiness or childish mischief.

Therefore, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the acts alleged, you must go on to ask yourselves whether you are satisfied beyond that he knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong as distinct from an act of mere naughtiness or childish mischief. Only if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt both that he did those things and knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong can you find him guilty.”

NOTE.

(1)   In C (a minor) v DPP [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 166 the House of Lords reaffirmed that a child under the age of 10 was incapable of committing a crime. Over the age of 14 he was fully responsible for his actions. A child between those ages was presumed not to be capable of criminal behaviour and not to know the difference between right and wrong unless that proposition was rebutted by the prosecution. The words underlined have been included to reflect the observations of Lord Lowry in C v DPP at pp.181C and 187B.

(2)   Where a specific intent or state of mind is an element of the offence, an appropriate direction must be given in addition to the above.

ARCHBOLD 2010:  1-91

BLACKSTONE 2010:  A3.39