R v JA

Case [2007] ACTSC 51 12 July 2007

Type to search within this case.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

R v JA
[2007] ACTSC 51 (12 July 2007)

CRIMINAL – Criminal capacity of children (doli incapax) – relevant legal principles – whether 11 year old boy had necessary mental intent to be convicted of an indecent assault

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 144

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (as at 19/1/2006, Republication No 44), ss 53(1), 60(1)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 26, 10(1)

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 11(2), 20(2), 21(2)

UN General Assembly Resolution 40/33, Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules)

Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law, 19^th ed, 1966

Criminal Code (Qld)

Pope’s Treatise on the Law and Practice of Lunacy (2^nd ed, 1890)

R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718

R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589

Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358

R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182

R v Smith (1845) 1 CoxCC 260

McDonald v Lucas [1922] VLR 47

Keen, “The History of the Criminal Liability of Children”, (1937) 53 LQR 364

R v Brooks [1945] NZLR 584

R v B [1979] 1 WLR 1185 (CA)

R v B (an infant) [1979] Qd R 417 (CCA)

O’Toole v Arnold (1982) 61 FLR 372

R v Anunga (1976) 11 ALR 412

M v AJ (1989) 44 A Crim R 373 (SCTas)

R (a child)v Whitty (1993) 66 A Crim R 462

B (1958) 44 Cr App R 1

Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358

C (a minor) v DPP [1966] AC 1

R v ALH (2003) 6 VR 276

No. SCC 104 of 2006

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 12 July 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 104 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R

v

JA

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  12 July 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A verdict of “not guilty” be entered on both counts of the indictment.

The accused ‘JA’ is charged that:
… on the 19^th day of January 2006 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [he] threatened to inflict actual bodily harm on [GL] with intent to engage in sexual intercourse with [GL].
… on the 19^th day of January 2006 [he] did commit an act of indecency on [GL] without the consent of [GL] and knowing the said [GL] had not consented thereto.
Upon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty to each count.
The accused has elected to be tried by judge alone. Accordingly, the provisions of s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) apply. That section states:
Verdict of judge in criminal proceedings
(1)A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v JA

Details

AGLC: R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51
Case: [2007] ACTSC 51
Decision Date: 12 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, R v JA presented a significant inquiry into the criminal responsibility of an 11-year-old boy, JA, charged with two counts of indecent assault. The case revolved around whether the boy possessed the requisite mental intent, or mens rea, to be held criminally liable under the law. The court was tasked with determining whether JA had the understanding of his actions and their wrongfulness, a crucial element in assessing his criminal capacity in light of the principle of doli incapax.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an 11-year-old child could be deemed to have the necessary mental intent to commit a crime of indecent assault. This required an examination of JA's cognitive development and understanding at the time of the alleged offences. The court needed to evaluate if JA could comprehend the nature and quality of his actions and appreciate that they were wrong. This assessment was pivotal in determining if he could be held criminally liable.

The court carefully considered the evidence and expert testimonies regarding JA's intellectual and emotional maturity. It found that JA did not have the necessary understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions due to his young age and developmental stage. Consequently, the court concluded that JA lacked the requisite mens rea for the charges of indecent assault. As a result, the court directed a verdict of “not guilty” on both counts of the indictment.

The final orders of the court mandated that a verdict of “not guilty” be entered on both counts against JA. This decision underscored the importance of considering a child's cognitive and emotional development in criminal cases, reaffirming the principles surrounding the criminal capacity of minors.

Orders

Orders of the court

A verdict of “not guilty” be entered on both counts of the indictment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v PM [2023] VSC 560

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (No 2)
[2024] ACTSC 126

…ACTSC 245 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 457 R v Gordon [2018] ACTSC 94 R v Hall; R v Barker [2016] ACTSC 11 R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Lovelock [2020] ACTSC 376 R v McFarlane (1993) Tas R 201 R v M…
Director of Public Prosecutions v PM
[2023] VSC 560 Para 1

…t he is not doli incapax.[67] The evidence relevant to the question of doli incapax can be broadly grouped into the following categories: [67] R v JA (2007) 161 ACTR 1, 12 [81].…
LRW v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
[2022] WASC 437 Para 3

…he prohibited act. It is not sufficient that the child knows that there would be 'disapproval' of the act by a parent or even police.[52] [52] R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51; 1 ACTLR 126 [69].…
Williams v Im
[2019] ACTSC 234 Para 1

…The Magistrate referred to R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51; 1 ACTLR 126 ( JA ) and R v B (an infant) [1979] Qd R 417 before concluding:…
Queensland Police Service v DSL
[2019] QChCM 2 Para 1

…ghtiness or mischief’. BP v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 172 (1 June 2006) [27]. See also RP v The Queen [2016] HCA 53; (2016) 259 CLR 641; R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51; (2007) 161 ACTR 1; R v ALH [2003] VSCA 129; (2003) 6 VR 276; R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589. The High Court in RP v The Queen confirmed the approach, noting that…
Gates and Capps (No.2)
[2012] FMCAfam 153 Para 1

…ion to criminal capacity of children and the presumption of doli incapax , see the helpful and important discussions in the following cases: R v JA (2007) 161 ACTR 1; 212 FLR 309; 174 A Crim R 151 (Higgins CJ); C (a minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] AC 1; R (A Child) v Whitty (1993) 66 A Crim R 462. Se…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v ALH
[2003] VSCA 129 Para 36

…ircumstances, provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, regard should be paid to the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v ALH (2003) 6 VR 276.…
Stapleton v The Queen
[1952] HCA 56 Para 9

…the test is whether he knew that it was wrong according to the ordinary principles of reasonable men ( Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358).…
R v Porter
[1933] HCA 1 Para 1

…ity of the judgment an accused person was required to be capable of bringing to the situation was addressed by Dixon J (as he then was) in R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 (at 189-90): If through the disordered condition of the mind he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure it ma…
Attorney General v Parnther
8 ER 718 Para 9

…The link with the M’Naghten sometimes spelt “M’Naghton”, ( R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718) test of capacity in the particular case, that is, to understand and appreciate that what was being done was “wrong” was emphasised by Bray CJ in R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589, 590-1: In the nineteenth and twe…
[1966] AC 1
[1966] AC 1 Para 33

…I note that in C (a minor) v DPP [1966] AC 1, a 12 year old boy was accused of interfering with a motor cycle with a view to theft. He and another boy attempted to force a restraining chain and padlock. They fled when disturbed. The justices at Liverpool had found that he knew what he had been doing was ‘serio…
[1945] NZLR 584
[1945] NZLR 584 Para 2

…In R v Brooks [1945] NZLR 584, the accused, then aged 13½ years, shot and killed his mother and brother (aged 9). A question of his capacity was raised for the consideration of the Court of Appeal. A question as to insanity had been raised by medical evidence called by the Crown.…
[1979] 1 WLR 1185
[1979] 1 WLR 1185 Para 13

…R v B [1979] 1 WLR 1185 (CA) similarly addressed the issue of the relevance of prior findings of guilt. A number of 13 year olds were charged with blackmail. The appellants formally admitted doli capax to avoid evidence of prior misconduct being called.…
176 ER 234
176 ER 234 Para 25

…not to be done. In appropriate cases it may require a degree of intellectual maturity as well as ability: cf Vamplew [(1862) 3 F & F 520; 176 ER 234]…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
11(2), 20(2), 21(2) 4 mentions (from Para 5)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
144 2 mentions (from Para 5)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68C 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)