R v Gorrie

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

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
7 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
4 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 No. 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......
  • An Age of Complexity: Children and Criminal Responsibility in Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Youth Justice No. 13-2, August 2013
    • 1 August 2013
    ...of the complexity of this concept. Leaving to one side the generally accepted doli incapax test, set down in 1919 in the case of Gorrie (1919 83 JP 136), which will be discussed subsequently, judicial authority on the nature of the understanding required was, at best, singular to the case t......
  • Das Strafmündigkeitsalter in Irland: Ist die Zeit nun reif für eine Reform?
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XVIII-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...des Dritten Teils vom Titel V AEUV im Moment leider nicht beteiligt. Der Richtlinienentwurf basiert auf dem Artikel 82 II 40 R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136; JM (A Minor) v Runeckles (1984) 79 Cr. App.R. 255; R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. 253 Trinity College Law Review [vol 18 AEUV (ex-Artikel 31 EUV......
  • Merely Naughty or Seriously Wrong? ‘Childish Sexual Experimentation’ and the Presumption of Doli Incapax
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-5, October 2017
    • 1 October 2017
    ...cogent evidence that the child knewtheir conduct was seriously wrong, rather than an act of naughtiness or childish mischief (R v Gorrie[1919] 83 JP 136; B v R [1958] 44 Cr App R 1; C v DPP [1996] AC 1). In the leading case of C v DPP,the House of Lords confirmed (at p. 38) that this eviden......

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