The document discusses the age of criminal responsibility and juvenile justice system in Australia. It notes that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old according to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Children under 10 are considered doli incapax, meaning they are incapable of criminal intent or wrongdoing. Children between 10-13 can be charged if it's proven they understand the difference between right and wrong. The document brings up examples of high-profile youth crime cases that resulted in calls to remove the doctrine of doli incapax.

1. AGE OF CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Crime: Young Offenders

2. Juvenile Justice
 Law and policy which relates to “minors” (i.e.
people under 18 years of age)
 Our legal system recognises that people who
aren’t yet adults may have a different level of
responsibility for their actions
 Juvenile justice aims to combine welfare
programs (which relate to the wellbeing of the
child) and justice programs (which generally
involve sanctions and punishment)

3. Age of criminal responsibility
 10 years of age
 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW)
 “no child who is under the age of 10 years can be
guilty of an offence” (s.5)
 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRoC)
 Children from10-13 may be charged in
Australia, if it’s demonstrated that they
understand right from wrong
 Young people from 14-17 are considered to
understand right from wrong

4. doli incapax
 Children under 10 years
of age are said to be doli
incapax – Latin for
“incapable of wrongdoing”
 Means that children under
10 cannot have mens rea -
don’t understand that it’s
“seriously wrong” (R v
Gorrie 1919); they cannot
be charged with a crime
 Children aged 10-14 are
presumed to be doli
incapax – can be proven
to be otherwise.

5. Examples
James Bulger case (1993)
R v LMW (1999) Corey Davis
case

6. When there are high-profile youth cases, there are often calls to remove
doli incapax. Is this right? Or is doli incapax important? Why?
Should we remove doli incapax?