Lesson sequence & timings (3–4 lessons)
| Time | Phase | Teacher does / says | Slides |
|---|
| L1: 0–10' | Starter / hook | Bell-work: "Should a 10-year-old be able to be charged with a crime? What about a 13-year-old?" Surface intuitions before teaching the law. | 1–2 |
| L1: 10–35' | Age & doli incapax | Teach 5.1 — minimum age 10; the three bands; correct the notes (10–13 is rebuttable). Teach RP v The Queen. Run Activity 1. | 3–6 |
| L1: 35–50' | Activity 2 | Apply RP v The Queen; debrief what evidence can rebut the presumption (not the act alone). | — |
| L2: 0–20' | Models & reform | Teach 5.2 — welfare vs justice; CROC; the "raise the age" debate (ACT to 14; NSW at 10). Set up Activity 5 (debate). | 7–9 |
| L2: 20–50' | Rights on arrest | Teach 5.3 — support person (admissions inadmissible without one), caution, searches, forensic procedures. Run Activity 3 (spot the breach). | 10–12 |
| L3: 0–20' | Children's Court | Teach 5.4 — closed court, no jury, s 6 principles, the Clinic; contrast with adult courts. | 13–14 |
| L3: 20–50' | Young Offenders Act & penalties | Teach 5.5–5.6 — the diversion hierarchy (warnings/cautions/conferences) and penalties (detention last resort, youth justice centre). Run Activity 4. | 15–19 |
| L4 (opt.): 0–35' | Debate + consolidate | Run the "raise the age" debate (Activity 5). Recap slide; Self-Test. | 20 |
| L4: 35–50' | Check | Exit ticket + set the extended-response homework. | — |
If squeezed to 3 lessons, set the "raise the age" debate (Activity 5) as a written paragraph for homework and keep Activities 1, 3 and 4 in class.
Activities & model answers
Activity 1 — Doli incapax bands
Key
Ava (8) →
A, conclusively not responsible; rebut?
N. Ben (12) →
B, rebuttable; rebut?
Y. Cleo (13) →
B, rebuttable; rebut?
Y. Dan (15) →
C, full capacity; rebut? not applicable (
N — no presumption to rebut). Evie (9) →
A, conclusively not responsible; rebut?
N. To rebut for a 12-year-old the prosecution must prove the child
knew the act was seriously wrong (not merely naughty) — and per
RP, not merely from the fact of doing it.
Activity 2 — RP v The Queen
Model answers
1. RP (~11½) was in the
10 to under 14 band →
rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. 2. The conviction failed because the prosecution did
not prove RP understood his conduct was seriously wrong. 3. Rebutting evidence can include:
attempts to conceal or escape, and the child's
background, education, maturity and prior conduct — but not an inference from the act alone. 4. Themes:
moral & ethical standards;
balancing rights (the child's rights vs community accountability).
Activity 3 — Rights on arrest: spot the breach
Key
Questioning a 14-year-old with no support person and using the admission →
BREACH (right to a support person; the admission is generally inadmissible). Told of arrest + reason, reasonable force →
OK. Strip search of a 9-year-old →
BREACH (a child under 10 cannot be strip searched). Caution that they need not speak →
OK (right to silence). DNA taken with no court order or support person →
BREACH (forensic-procedure protections).
Activity 4 — Which diversion option?
Key
13-year-old, first minor graffiti →
Warning (no admission needed). 15-year-old admits a second minor theft, consents →
Caution. 16-year-old admits a more serious property offence, victim wants to take part →
Youth justice conference (restorative, outcome plan). 17-year-old, serious assault causing real harm →
Children's Court (too serious for diversion). Reinforce: cautions/conferences need
admission + consent.
Activity 5 — "Raise the age" debate
Model arguments
To raise the age: medical evidence on child brain development; criminalising young children entrenches disadvantage and Aboriginal over-representation; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the ACT (to 14) and Victoria (to 12) have moved.
To keep it at 10: community safety and victims; doli incapax already protects 10–13-year-olds; the need to intervene early with harmful behaviour. Themes:
law reform,
moral & ethical standards,
balancing rights. Reward students who cite a current source (AIHW, Justice and Equity Centre).
Useful resources & recent articles
For teacher background, class discussion, and to keep examples current:
- Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW): legislation.nsw.gov.au — the diversion scheme.
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW): legislation.nsw.gov.au — minimum age & s 6 principles.
- NSW Children's Court: childrenscourt.nsw.gov.au; Judicial Commission Children's Court Bench Book on doli incapax.
- AIHW — youth justice: aihw.gov.au — current detention and diversion statistics.
- Justice and Equity Centre — Raise the Age: jec.org.au — the reform debate (present both sides).
- ABC News / SMH: search a recent "raise the age" or youth-justice story. Do not rely on a fixed article URL — search the stable sources above.
Tip: the "raise the age" position changes by jurisdiction and year — check the current NSW status before teaching so the law-reform discussion is accurate.