R v Gorrie

JurisdictionIreland
CourtCentral Criminal Court (Ireland)
Date1919
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
6 cases
  • K.M. v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1994
    ...to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that the conduct was seriously wrong and not merely mischievious. R. v. GorrieUNK (1919) 83 J.P. 136 approved. 7. In the circumstances, there was evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the presumption should be rebutted and consequen......
  • J. M. (A Minor) v Runeckles
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • R v T
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 April 2009
    ...9 More recently, where the question of whether a child was doli incapax has arisen, the courts have put a gloss on this test. Thus, in R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136 Salter J directed the jury that the prosecution had to satisfy them that when the boy who was accused committed the act charged ......
  • B v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 July 2021
    ...by Morris J (as he then was) in the KM v. DPP case. He adopted the definition of the presumption as given by Slater J in R v. Gorrie [1919] 83 JP 136, where Morris J stated as follows at p.523:- “[…] I take as a correct statement of the law that contained in the direction given in Slater J.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Unfitness to Plead and the Overlap with Doli Incapax: An Examination of the Law Commission's Proposals for a New Capacity Test
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 75-5, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...edited by A. M. Pritchard (1961) 420.17 Ibid. at 419.18 See n. 6.19 Increased to 10 by statute, see above n. 9.20 (1830) 4 C & P 236.21 (1919) 83 JP 136.22 As opposed to naughty or mischievous: JM (A Minor) vRuneckles (1984) 79 Cr AppR 255.23 (1845) 1 Cox CC 265.24 R v Gorrie (1919) 83 JP 1......
  • The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Medico-Legal Perspective
    • United Kingdom
    • Youth Justice Nbr. 13-2, August 2013
    • 1 August 2013
    ......However, since the time of Edward III (1312−1377), the principle of  doli  incapax  – the notion that at certain ages children are incapable of distinguishing between  right and wrong and, more latterly, ‘seriously wrong’ (R v Gorrie, 1918) − provided addi- tional legal protection. . Corresponding author: Enys Delmage, Lowther Building, St Andrew’s Healthcare, Billing Road, Northampton NN1 5DG, UK.  Email: ejdelmage@standrew.co.uk . . Delmage  . 103 . The 1778 edition of Hale’s History of the Pleas of the ......
  • No Defence of Doli Incapax
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 73-4, August 2009
    • 1 August 2009
    ......The effect of the rebuttable presumption was that the prosecution had to adduce evid- ence that, at the time of the offence, the child understood that what he was doing was seriously wrong as opposed to merely naughty or mis- chievous ( R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136; JM (A Minor) v Runeckles (1984) 79 Cr App R 255). The prosecution could not rely solely on the evidence of the offence itself, however serious or obviously wrong the crime might be ( R v Smith (1865) 1 Cox CC 260; JBH and JM (Minors) v O’Connell [1981] Crim LR 632). ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT