House of Lords: C v. DPP [1995] 2 all ER 43

Abstract

Facts The appellant was a boy of 12 in 1992 when he was seen by police holding a motor-cycle parked in a private driveway; another boy was trying to force the padlock and chain with a crowbar. The boys ran away as the police approached, leaving the crowbar behind with the bike, which had been damaged. The appellant was caught in a nearby nursing home. He was subsequently convicted of interfering with a motor vehicle with the intention to commit theft, contrary to s. 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The magistrates inferred that the appellant knew he was in serious trouble. They drew this inference from the nature of the damage done to the motor-bike, and from the attempt to escape from the pursuing police. On appeal to the Divisional Court by way of case stated (C v. DPP [1994] 3 All ER 190), the defence submitted that these facts were insufficient to support the inference drawn by the magistrates, and that there was therefore no evidence to rebut the presumption that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is doli incapax; that is, that the child did not know his or her act to be seriously wrong. The doli incapax rule provides that unless the presumption is rebutted the child must be acquitted; it is sometimes described as a requirement that the prosecution prove the young defendant acted with a ‘mischievous discretion’.