R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20

Facts

  • Before R v JTB, children aged 10 to 13 in England and Wales were protected by the doctrine of doli incapax, which presumed they could not recognize that their conduct was seriously wrong.
  • R v JTB involved appeals concerning two 12-year-old boys, referred to as JTB, who faced charges of sexual offenses.
  • The Crown Court applied the automatic doli incapax presumption and dismissed the cases.
  • The prosecution argued the presumption conflicted with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which assures the right to a fair trial.
  • The appeal reached the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal rejected the prosecution’s challenge.

Issues

  1. Whether the automatic application of the doli incapax presumption for children aged 10 to 13 was compatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial).
  2. Whether the continued use of doli incapax was appropriate in light of modern understanding of childhood development and criminal responsibility.
  3. Whether the law should require prosecutors to prove a child’s awareness that their actions were seriously wrong.

Decision

  • The House of Lords unanimously ruled that the automatic use of doli incapax should be ended for children aged 10 to 13.
  • The Lords found the doctrine outdated and acknowledged contemporary understanding of children's cognitive development.
  • The court determined that the automatic presumption could result in unfair outcomes by preventing convictions where proof showed the child knew their actions were seriously wrong.
  • It held that prosecutors must now demonstrate, with clear evidence, that a child defendants understood they were doing something seriously wrong.
  • The court’s reasoning was influenced by concerns that the automatic presumption conflicted with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.

Legal Principles

  • The presumption of doli incapax for children aged 10 to 13 is abolished and no longer applies automatically in criminal prosecutions.
  • Prosecutors bear the burden of proving that the child knew their actions were seriously wrong, requiring evidence of such knowledge.
  • The test centers on the child’s ability to distinguish “seriously wrong” conduct from mere naughtiness, focusing on moral wrongdoing, not just the awareness of illegality.
  • Later cases reaffirmed the focus on evidence addressing a child’s age, maturity, and actual awareness of the moral wrongfulness of their actions.

Conclusion

The decision in R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20 fundamentally reformed the law on criminal responsibility for children by removing the automatic doli incapax presumption, requiring individual assessment of a child's understanding of wrongdoing, and aligning practice with human rights and modern research on child development.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal