B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 House of Lords

A boy aged 14 was charged with an offence of inciting a child under

14 to commit an act of gross indecency, contrary to section 1(1) of
the Indecency with Children Act 1960. He had sat next to a 13 year
old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with
him. She refused. The boy believed the girl was over 14. The
question for the court was whether the offence under s.1(1) was of
strict liability in relation to the age of the victim.

Held:

The House of Lords held that R v Prince did not lay down a rule that
all offences relating to age of the victim were outside consideration
of the general presumption in favour of mens rea. Moreover, the law
had moved on since this decision favouring an honest belief of the
defendant which was not dependent upon the belief being
reasonable. Where a charge was a true crime of gravity, the
stronger the presumption of mens rea. The defendant's conviction
was quashed.
DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 House of Lords

The appellant whilst intoxicated raped a 13 year old girl and put his
hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. She died of
suffocation.

Lord Birkenhead LC:

"Under the law of England as it prevailed until early in the 19th

century voluntary drunkenness was never an excuse for criminal
misconduct; and indeed the classic authorities broadly assert that
voluntary drunkenness must be considered rather an aggravation
than a defence. This view was in terms based upon the principle
that a man who by his own voluntary act debauches and destroys
his will power shall be no better situated in regard to criminal acts
than a sober man.

Where a specific intent is an essential element in the offence,

evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable
of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in
order to determine whether he had in fact formed the intent
necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that
he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be
convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was
proved. ... In a charge of murder based upon intention to kill or to
do grievous bodily harm, if the jury are satisfied that the accused
was, by reason of his drunken condition, incapable of forming the
intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm ... he cannot be
convicted of murder. But nevertheless unlawful homicide has been
committed by the accused, and consequently he is guilty of unlawful
homicide without malice aforethought, and that is manslaughter"
DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705 House of Lords

The appellant, a 15 year old boy, killed a middle aged man by

hitting him over the head with a chapati pan. At his murder trial the
defendant raised the defence of provocation stating that the
deceased had raped him and then laughed at him at which point he
lost his control and hit him. The trial judge directed the jury on
provocation that they should consider whether a reasonable adult
would have done as the defendant did and told them that they
should not take acount of the defendant's actual age. The jury
convicted him of murder and the defendant appealed contending the
judge was wrong to direct the jury that age was irrelevant.

Held:

The appeal was allowed. The jury should be allowed to consider the
age of the defendant.

Lord Diplock:

"In my opinion a proper direction to a jury on the question left to

their exclusive determination by section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957
would be on the following lines. The judge should state what the
question is using the very terms of the section. He should then
explain to them that the reasonableman referred to in the
question is a person having the power of self-control to be
expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the
accused, but in other respects sharing such of the accused's
characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the
provocation to him ; and that the question is not merely whether
such a person would in like circumstances be provoked to lose his
self-control but also would react to the provocation as the accused
did."