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• The Lords found the doctrine outdated and acknowledged contemporary understanding of children's cognitive development.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.