## Facts

- A 15-year-old boy repeatedly asked a 13-year-old girl on a bus to perform oral sex; she refused and no physical act occurred.
- He was charged in youth court with inciting a girl under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, contrary to § 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
- The primary facts were admitted, including that he honestly believed the girl was 14 or over; there was no finding that this belief was reasonable.
- The youth court ruled that § 1(1) imposed strict liability as to age, making honest mistake as to age irrelevant; the boy then pleaded guilty and received an 18-month supervision order.
- The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, agreeing the statute imposed strict liability regarding the child’s age.
- The House of Lords granted further appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1(1) requires mens rea regarding the child’s age, such that an honest belief the child was 14 or over can require acquittal.
2. If mistake as to age is relevant, whether the belief must be reasonable or merely honest.
3. Whether the prosecution or the defendant bears the burden of proof on the belief about age.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
- The court held that § 1(1) includes a mens rea requirement as to the age element, absent express language or necessary implication to the contrary.
- An honest belief that the child was 14 or over, even if unreasonable, is capable of negativing mens rea and therefore defeats liability.
- The prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not honestly believe the child was 14 or over.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute is silent on mental element, there is a strong presumption that mens rea is required, especially for serious offenses carrying stigma and imprisonment.
- Mens rea will be displaced only by express statutory language or necessary implication drawn from the legislative scheme.
- For age-based elements in serious sexual offenses, an honest (subjective) mistake of fact may negative mens rea; reasonableness is evidentially relevant to credibility but not a legal requirement.
- Because absence of an honest belief is part of proving mens rea, the prosecution must disprove the asserted belief beyond a reasonable doubt; it is not a “special defense” carrying a reverse burden.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords rejected strict liability as to age under § 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, holding that a defendant’s honest belief that the complainant was 14 or older can preclude conviction and that the prosecution must disprove that belief beyond a reasonable doubt.


B (A Minor) v. Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, [2000] 2 A.C. 428 (H.L.)