Legal Research
Cases
C (A Minor), Re

C (A Minor), Re

Case [1995] UKHL 15

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE

CAUSE

IN RE C (A MINOR) (A. P.)

(APPELLANT)

(ON APPEAL FROM A DIVISIONAL COURT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)

ON 16 MARCH 1995

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Ackner
Lord Lowry
Lord Browne-Wilkinson

LORD JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE

My Lords.

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry. I am grateful to him for his detailed analysis of the authorities and notwithstanding the forceful and persuasive judgment of Laws J. I agree that, as the law now stands, your Lordships have no alternative but to answer the certified questions in the manner which my noble and learned friend proposes.

I should however like to add a few words of my own in relation to the desirability of retaining the presumption in its present form. It is, no doubt, undesirable that a young person who commits an offence and who genuinely does not know that he is doing something seriously wrong should suffer the rigours of the criminal law. But is a blanket presumption such as exists in England and Wales at the moment the best way to achieve protection for such a person? There must be many youthful offenders under the age of 14 who are very well aware that what they are doing is seriously wrong. Indeed it is almost an affront to common sense to presume that a boy of 12 or 13 who steals a high powered motor car, damages other cars while driving it, knocks down a uniformed police officer and then runs away when stopped is unaware that he is doing wrong.

The presumption has been subject to weighty criticism over many years, by committees, by academic writers and by the courts as explained in detail in the speech of my noble and learned friend. I add my voice to those

critics and express the hope that Parliament may once again look at the presumption, perhaps as pan of a larger review of the appropriate methods in a modern society of dealing with youthful offenders.

No such presumption operates in Scotland where normal criminal responsibility attaches to a child over 8 and I do not understand that injustice is considered to have resulted from this situation. In this connection it is worth mentioning that the system of children's hearings constituted by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which enables many offending children between 8 and 16 years of age to be effectively dealt with outside the criminal courts works extremely well.

LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH

My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend. Lord Lowry. I agree with him that in the present state of the law your Lordships have no alternative but to allow the appeal and answer both parts of the certified question in the affirmative.

In today's social conditions the operation of the…

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 C (A Minor), Re

Details

Case: [1995] UKHL 15
Decision Date