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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll