R v F; ex parte

The parties involved in this case were the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, who sought a reference of points of law, and the respondent, referred to as F. The dispute centred around the criminal responsibility of a person under the age of 15 years, specifically the presumption of doli incapax and the evidence required to rebut this presumption. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the surrounding circumstances of the commission of the offence could be considered as evidence of the accused's relevant capacity to rebut the presumption of doli incapax. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a child accused's previous convictions and dealings with police could be admitted as evidence to rebut the presumption, even if they did not fit the description of similar fact evidence or be admissible on some other basis.

The court found that the surrounding circumstances of the commission of the offence were not admissible as evidence of the relevant capacity of the accused to rebut the presumption. The court held that such circumstances could only be considered if they directly demonstrated the accused's capacity at the time of the offence. Regarding previous convictions and dealings with police, the court ruled that these could not be admitted in evidence to rebut the presumption unless they directly addressed the accused's capacity at the time of the offence.

The final orders of the court were that the surrounding circumstances of the commission of the offence could not be admitted as evidence to rebut the presumption of doli incapax, and previous convictions and dealings with police could not be admitted unless they directly addressed the accused's capacity at the time of the offence. This decision clarified the scope of admissible evidence in cases involving the criminal responsibility of individuals under the age of 15 years.