Age of criminal responsibility

The parents of a child, aged six, were charged in a British court with receiving a tricycle from their son knowing it was stolen from another child. The court held that the parents must be acquitted on the grounds that 'since their son could not steal, the tricycle was not stolen'.

Why did the court say the child could not steal when the facts appeared to show that he did? The answer, according to Hong Kong law, says even if a child under seven years old behaves in a way which would constitute a crime if done by an adult, the child cannot be made criminally responsible for it.

In many countries the 'age of criminal responsibility' is the age at which a person becomes liable to the 'ordinary' or 'full' penalties of the law. In Hong Kong jurisdiction, Section 3 of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance (Cap 226) says: 'No child under the age of seven years can be guilty of any offence.' In common law, a child is incapable of committing a crime until the day before his seventh birthday. Even though there may be clear evidence that the child was 'guilty' for example, stealing a bike knowing that it did not belong to him and that it was wrong for him to take it, he cannot be convicted.

There is a different rule for children who are at least seven but under 14. For them, judges start with the presumption that the child did not have the capacity to commit a crime. However, that presumption can be rebutted by the prosecution (on proof beyond reasonable doubt) that the child committed an offence, well aware that his act was seriously wrong, not merely naughty or mischievous.

If the prosecution is successful, criminal responsibility will be imposed on the child who can then be prosecuted and convicted for the offence committed. But the child may not eventually be punished as an adult.

Jenny is a year one student at the Department of Law, University of Hong Kong Graphic: YPKNOWGLO