RP v The Queen

In RP v The Queen, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by a young person, RP, who had been convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years. RP was approximately 11 years and six months old at the time of the offending and had a very low intelligence. The central dispute concerned whether the presumption of *doli incapax*, which presumes children under 14 lack criminal capacity, had been rebutted by the prosecution.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to rebut the presumption of *doli incapax* in relation to the appellant's offending. This required the Court to consider what constitutes "knowledge of the moral wrongness of the act" for a child of RP's age and intellectual capacity, and whether the specific circumstances of the offending demonstrated such knowledge.

The High Court reasoned that the presumption of *doli incapax* is not automatically rebutted by the commission of an offence. Instead, the prosecution must adduce evidence demonstrating the child's intellectual and moral development, specifically their understanding of the serious wrongness of their conduct. The Court noted that while answers given in police interviews or evidence of school progress and home life can be relevant, the focus must be on the individual child's development. The Court found that the evidence in this case, particularly concerning RP's low intelligence and the nature of the offending, did not sufficiently establish that RP understood the serious moral wrongness of his actions, thereby failing to rebut the presumption of *doli incapax*.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions for the two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, and entered verdicts of acquittal for those counts.