Under 12 commits a minor offence, parental responsibility?

BobberC

If a minor under 12 commits an minor offence they won't be charged, correct? But can a parent be charged with anything, like failure to control the child?

myshirt

It's called vicarious liability, and in short the answer is no.

Little CuChulainn

Neglect maybe

GerardKeating

myshirt wrote: »

It's called vicarious liability, and in short the answer is no.

If the parents engaged in a cover-up or knew in advance that the kid was "up to no good", could this be consider some form of conspiracy ???

Peregrinus

The parents have no criminal liability for the child's actions, as such, nor for any ancillary offence like attempt or conspiracy which depends on the child's actions.

The parents might be guilty of neglect or abuse. This wouldn't depend on the child having done something criminal. The child's offending behaviour might be what draws attention to the situation, though.

galah

So what happens then? Say a neighbour's 11 year old child smashes in my window by throwing a rock or scratches my car (not accidentally) - who pays for the damage?

In other countries parents are liable for their kids' actions (not sure until what age). Is there zero liability here?

hullaballoo

No, the age of criminal responsibility here is 12 except in cases of unlawful killing, rape and sexual assault, where 10- and 11-year-olds are deemed to be responsible.

EU law suggests that this is unreasonable and in fact, common sense would seem to suggest it is unreasonable as well. I don't know many children as young as 11 who I would deem to have enough about them to be able to have the capacity to reason out the commission of a serious criminal offence.

Peregrinus

galah wrote: »

So what happens then? Say a neighbour's 11 year old child smashes in my window by throwing a rock or scratches my car (not accidentally) - who pays for the damage?

In other countries parents are liable for their kids' actions (not sure until what age). Is there zero liability here?

You're talking civil liability, there, which is a different matter from criminal liablity.

At common law, parents are not automatically liable for the wrongful acts of their children. To be liable, they'd have to participate in the wrongful behaviour in some way - by encouraging or condoning misconduct; by directing the child to engage in misconduct; by turning a blind eye to obviously dangerous conduct; by contributing to the misconduct by leaving a dangerous thing (e.g. a loaded gun) where the child can get it.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're talking civil liability, there, which is a different matter from criminal liablity.

At common law, parents are not automatically liable for the wrongful acts of their children. To be liable, they'd have to participate in the wrongful behaviour in some way - by encouraging or condoning misconduct; by directing the child to engage in misconduct; by turning a blind eye to obviously dangerous conduct; by contributing to the misconduct by leaving a dangerous thing (e.g. a loaded gun) where the child can get it.

You could add to the above that a parents negligence to protect someone/something from their childs dangerous/violent propensity which they should reasonably be aware of or failing to have proper control over a child to stop any unreasonable danger can also see them vicariously liable in tort.

I wouldn't say the parent would have to participate in some way, for example when a child opens a car door and injures say a cyclist the parent could be liable for lack negligence due to lack of control, but they didn't actually take part in the act.

Going back to criminal liability there is a little used provision where when the court believes that a wilful failure of a parent to take care of or to control the child contributed to the child’s criminal behaviour and imposes a compensation order on the parent and may may be recovered in like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent of the offence of which the child was found guilty, so in effect the parent can be held liable for their childs criminal actions.

jenny smith

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're talking civil liability, there, which is a different matter from criminal liablity.

At common law, parents are not automatically liable for the wrongful acts of their children. To be liable, they'd have to participate in the wrongful behaviour in some way - by encouraging or condoning misconduct; by directing the child to engage in misconduct; by turning a blind eye to obviously dangerous conduct; by contributing to the misconduct by leaving a dangerous thing (e.g. a loaded gun) where the child can get it.

how is breaking a window civil liability and not criminal damage?

Peregrinus

jenny smith wrote: »

how is breaking a window civil liability and not criminal damage?

It can be both. Lots of acts can be both a crime and a civil wrong.

But if you're the victim and you want compensation, what you're mainly interested in is the civil wrong aspect of the matter. If someobody's convicted of a crime they might be imprisoned, or fined, or subjected to some other sentences. None of that compensates you for the damage you have suffered. In some circumstances the court may order the offender to pay some compensation to you, but this isn't always available and, in any case, as the victim you're not a party to the criminal proceedings (it's the State -v- the offender) so it's not easy for you to apply for compensation, or make submissions as to what that compensation should be. If you want compensation, you may have to take civil proceedings.

On the other hand, the act might be a civil wrong but not criminal damage. If someone breaks your window through carelessness, that's not a crime, but it's likely to be a civil wrong and you can sue them.

When we talk in this thread about parents being responsible for the acts of their children, we're definitely talking about civil liability. You can be civilly liable - i.e. bound to pay compensation - for the acts of someone else (employers find themselves in this position all the time) but there's no question of parents being, e.g., convicted and sent to prison for assaults committed by their children.

Kevin3

GM228 wrote: »

Going back to criminal liability there is a little used provision where when the court believes that a wilful failure of a parent to take care of or to control the child contributed to the child s criminal behaviour and imposes a compensation order on the parent and may may be recovered in like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent of the offence of which the child was found guilty, so in effect the parent can be held liable for their childs criminal actions.

Is there? Would you have a link to it?

GM228

Kevin3 wrote: »

Is there? Would you have a link to it?

Section 113 of the Childrens Act 2001.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/113/enacted/en/html#sec113

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

Section 113 of the Childrens Act 2001.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/113/enacted/en/html#sec113

Seems to require a guilty verdict which would mean it can't be applied to a child under 12.