SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
FULL COURT
Case Title: | UD v Bishop |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSCFC 1 |
Hearing Date: | 17 August 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 12 November 2021 |
Before: | Mossop J, Collier J and McWilliam AJ |
Decision: | See [95] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY – Criminal responsibility of children aged between 10 and 14 years – whether a child between the ages of 10 and 14 bears an evidential burden under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) of denying that they knew their conduct was wrong – interpretation of ss 26 and 58 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT), ss 7, 8, 71 Children and Young People Amendment Act 2000 (ACT) Children and Young People Bill 1999 (ACT), clause 69 Children’s Services Ordinance 1986 (ACT), s 27 Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT), s 27 Children’s Services Amendment Act 2000 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 13 |
Cases Cited: | Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27 Baini v The Queen [2012] HCA 59; 246 CLR 469 Williams v IM [2019] ACTSC 234; 14 ACTLR 147 |
Texts Cited: | Criminal Law Officers Committee, Model Criminal Code Chapter 2: General Principles of Criminal Responsibility (Discussion Draft, July 1992) Criminal Law Officers Committee, Model Criminal Code Chapter 2: General Principles of Criminal Responsibility (Final Report, December 1992) Explanatory Statement, Children’s Services Ordinance |
Continue reading UD v Bishop
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- UD v Bishop [2021] ACTSCFC 1
- Case
- [2021] ACTSCFC 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidential burden placed on a child aged between 10 and 14 years to prove they did not know their conduct was wrong aligns with the principles of justice and the protection afforded to children under the law. The court considered whether the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) required a child in this age group to actively demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the wrongfulness of their actions or if the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child knew their conduct was wrong.
The court concluded that the evidential burden should not be placed on the child to prove they did not know their conduct was wrong. Instead, the court held that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child knew their conduct was wrong. The court reasoned that placing the evidential burden on the child could potentially conflict with the protective principles underpinning the law regarding children in this age group. The court found that the legislative framework, when read as a whole, intended to ensure that the prosecution bears the ultimate responsibility to prove the child's knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions.
The final orders of the court included the direction that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that UD knew their conduct was wrong, and that no evidential burden is placed on UD to deny such knowledge. This interpretation of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ensures that the legal protections for children aged between 10 and 14 years are upheld, aligning with the broader principles of justice and fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [95]
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.