header-logo header-logo

A false alarm

06 September 2007 / Thomas Crofts
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

The defence of doli incapax still awaits resurrection, says Dr Thomas Crofts

It is widely understood by academics and practitioners that the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998), s 34 completely abolished the doctrine of doli incapax, with the effect that children from the age of 10 are held as responsible for their behaviour as adults.

A recent case in the High Court now challenges this accepted understanding of the effect of s 34, questioning whether it abolished merely the presumption of doli incapax or the whole doctrine. If the latter is the case then it would still be open for a defence to be raised that the child was doli incapax.

EFFECT OF S 34

DPP v P [2007] EWHC 946 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 244 (Apr) concerned an appeal against a decision to stay proceedings as an abuse of process against a 13-year-old boy. This was based on a finding that the boy would not be able to effectively participate in the trial due to attention deficit hyperactivity

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll