R v Gorrie
1918 · 83 JP 136
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A boy of thirteen wounded another boy with a penknife. The wounded boy later died of septicaemia. The charge was manslaughter.
- Issue
- Had the presumption that a child between seven and fourteen is been rebutted?
- Held
- He was . The jury was not satisfied that he knew the act was seriously wrong, as distinct from an act of mischief.
- Principle
- Between seven and fourteen the prosecution must prove knowledge that the act was gravely wrong. Naughty is not enough.
- Why it matters
- B v R is the case where a confession did rebut the presumption.
Words and Latin in this note
- Doli incapax
- Incapable of crime. Under seven the bar is absolute. From seven to fourteen there is a presumption that the child did not know the act was seriously wrong, and the prosecution may rebut it. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.