Children who do not understand the serious wrongness of their actions lack criminal capacity and cannot be convicted. At common law, children under seven are deemed to lack criminal capacity, children over 14 possess full capacity and children between seven and 14 are rebuttably presumed to lack capacity; the prosecution must prove capacity beyond reasonable doubt. Australia has increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to 10 and is considering a further increase. England & Wales and Northern Ireland have raised the MACR to 10 but have abolished the rebuttable presumption: at age 10, all children are assigned full criminal capacity. This article agrees with international calls for the MACR to be raised but argues that it is more important that the rebuttable presumption should be retained and extended. Children's brains and decision-making capacities continue to develop throughout their teenage years at different rates. The rebuttable presumption provides individualised justice for children facing developmental difficulties. To wrongfully convict a child who lacks capacity will unjustly damage their life chances. Where a child does have capacity, a variety of evidence may be available to the prosecution to prove it. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, the child should be acquitted. The acquittal may be mistaken, but this error is far less harmful than a wrongful conviction.
What does it mean for a specialist department of legal studies, such as the Law of Evidence, to have, or to acquire, 'philosophical foundations'? In what sense are the theoretical foundations of procedural scholarship and teaching distinctively or uniquely philosophical? The publication of Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (OUP, 2021), edited by Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein and Giovanni Tuzet, presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on these existential questions of disciplinary constitution, methodology and design. This review article critically examines the volume's idiosyncratic selection of topics, structural taxonomy, epistemological priorities, and enigmatic thesis that modern evidence law is turning from rules to reasons as its organising intellectual framework. Whilst the volume is impressively interdisciplinary and cosmopolitan in authorship and outlook, some doubts are expressed about its implicit US orientation, limited engagement with institutional or doctrinal details, and marginalisation of normative criminal jurisprudence.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：