（圖片來源於網路）
作者 | 胡薦軒 杜倫大學博士生
一審｜郝林樺 西南政法大學
二審｜Luo Peipei 布里斯托大學
編輯 | 林 薇 西南政法大學本科
Loca 中國社會科學院大學
責編 | 馮雨萱 北京大學
CASE
刑事責任年齡之辯：
詹姆斯·巴傑爾謀殺案後續
——T訴英國政府
壹/ 案情背景介紹
1993年2月12日，兩名年僅十歲的少年羅伯特·湯普遜（Robert Thompson，下稱“T”）和喬恩·維納布林斯（Jon Venables，下稱“V”）在逃學時於購物中心誘拐了一名兩歲的男童詹姆斯·巴爾（James Patrick Bulger），並將他帶走了兩英里多的路程，隨即將他毆打致死，拋屍於鐵軌上，任其被火車碾壓。這就是在英國轟動全國的謀殺案件——詹姆斯·巴傑爾謀殺案。T和V成為了英國現代歷史上年紀最小的殺人兇手。該案在英國造成了極大的社會影響力。在審判當天，有近500名示威者集結在法庭外要求重判兇手。押送罪犯的車輛被憤慨的群眾簇擁和攻擊；法庭的旁聽席座無虛席；證人到庭時伴隨著公眾譁然和視線，被一眾記者和攝影師跟隨。
在他們被定罪後，T和V被判處無限期羈押，“聽候女王陛下發落”（“During Her Majesty’s pleasure”）。根據英國法律和慣例，被判處羈押，聽候女王陛下發落的兒童和年輕人必須先服刑一段時間（Tariff），這是由內政大臣設定的，以滿足報復和威懾的要求。在Tariff刑期滿後，除非假釋委員會認為他們對公眾構成危險，否則必須釋放被羈押者。內政大臣為T和V各定了十五年的服刑期。
申請人T於1994年5月20日向歐洲人權委員會提出訴訟請求。他聲稱，鑑於他的年幼，在皇家成人法院公開審判以及其判決的懲罰性質構成了對他的權利的侵犯，即《歐洲人權公約》（下稱“公約”）第3條規定的不受非人道或有損人格的待遇或懲罰的權利 。他進一步聲稱，他被剝奪了公正審判的權利，這違反了《公約》第6條；他遭受了歧視，這違反了第14條：在涉嫌犯罪時年齡不滿十歲的兒童不應被追究刑事責任；他被判處羈押，聽候女王陛下發落，這侵犯他根據《公約》第5條的人身自由權；由一個政府大臣而不是法官負責制定服刑期，這侵犯了他根據《公約》第6條享有的權利。最後，他根據《公約》第5條第4款，他沒有機會透過司法機構（如假釋委員會）審查他被羈押的持續合法性。
由於本案涉及的法律爭點較多，本篇文章聚焦於刑事責任年齡的相關法律問題，並從判決中提取了相關內容。在本案中，申請人T主張，根據《公約》第3條，英國將刑事責任年齡定得過低，迫使年幼的未成年人承擔刑事責任，構成了“非人道的或者是有損人格的待遇或者是懲罰”。歐洲人權法院針對這一論點主要圍繞《公約》第3條進行了審理。為了呈現多元的觀點，本文還分別引用了支援和反對該判決的法官的意見。
（圖片來源於網路）
貳/ 相關法律條文
1
英國相關國內法和慣例
Pursuant to section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by section 16(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (“the 1933 Act”), the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten years, below which no child can be found guilty of a criminal offence. The age of ten was endorsed by the Home Affairs Select Committee (composed of Members of Parliament) in October 1993 (Juvenile Offenders, Sixth Report of the Session 1992-93, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office). At the time of the applicant’s trial, a child between the ages of ten and fourteen was subject to a presumption that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong (doli incapax). This presumption had to be rebutted by the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of the offence, the child knew that the act was wrong as distinct from merely naughty or childish mischief (C. (a minor) v. the Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] Appeal Cases 1).
根據1933年《兒童與青少年法》第50節的規定（經1963年《兒童與青少年法》第16(1)節修訂）（“1933年法案”），英格蘭和威爾士將刑事責任年齡定為十歲，低於此年齡的兒童不得被認定犯有刑事罪行。十歲的這一年齡界限在1993年10月由內政事務特別委員會（由議會成員組成）確認（青少年罪犯，1992-93會議第六報告，女王陛下文書辦公室）。在申請人受審時，年齡在十歲至十四歲之間的兒童被推定不知道其行為是錯誤的（無罪能力推定）。控方反駁這一推定必須證明兒童在犯罪時知道其行為是錯誤的，與單純的頑皮或幼稚的惡作劇不同，且達到排除合理懷疑的標準(C. (a minor) v. the Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] Appeal Cases 1)。
The doli incapax presumption has since been abolished with effect from 30 September 1998 (section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998).
自1998年9月30日起，無罪能力推定已被《1998年犯罪與秩序法》第34節廢除。
2
相關歐盟/國際法
1. European Convention on Human Rights
歐洲人權公約
“Article 3: Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“第三條：禁止酷刑
不得對任何人施以酷刑或者是使其受到非人道的或者是有損人格的待遇或者是懲罰。”
2. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules)
聯合國少年司法最低限度標準規則（北京規則）
“4. Age of criminal responsibility
4.1 In those legal systems recognising the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.”
“4. 刑事責任年齡
4.1 在承認少年負刑事責任的年齡這一概念的法律制度中，該年齡的起點不應規定得太低，應考慮到少年情緒和心智成熟的實際情況。”
3. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
聯合國兒童權利公約（1989）
Article 40 provides as relevant: “3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions, specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular: (a) the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal laws; (b) whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for the dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights are fully respected.”
第四十條相關規定：“3．締約國應致力於促進規定或建立專門適用於被指稱、指控或確認為觸犯刑法的兒童的法律、程式、當局和機構，尤應：（a）規定最低年齡，在此年齡以下的兒童應視為無觸犯刑法之行為能力；（b）在適當和必要時，制訂不對此類兒童訴諸司法程式的措施，但須充分尊重人權和法律保障。”
叄/ 法院判決
1
申請人主張
He submitted that, at ten years old, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales was low compared with almost all European countries, in the vast majority of which the minimum age of responsibility was thirteen or higher. He contended, moreover, that there was a clear developing trend in international and comparative law towards a higher age of criminal responsibility, and referred in this connection to Rule 4 of the Beijing Rules and to the recommendation by the Committee on the Rights of the Child that the United Kingdom should raise the age of criminal responsibility. He accepted that it was in principle possible for a State to attribute criminal responsibility to a child as young as ten without violating that child’s rights under Article 3. However, it was then incumbent on such a State to ensure that the procedures adopted for the trial and sentencing of such young children were modified to reflect their age and vulnerability.
他（申請人）指出，英格蘭和威爾士的刑事責任年齡定為十歲，與幾乎所有歐洲國家相比都相對較低，其中大多數國家的最低責任年齡為十三歲或更高。他還提出，國際法和比較法中有一種明顯的提高刑事責任年齡的趨勢，並在此方面提到了《北京規則》的第4條以及兒童權利委員會建議英國應提高刑事責任年齡。他接受了原則上一個國家可以將刑事責任歸於年僅十歲的兒童而不侵犯該兒童根據《公約》第3條的權利。然而，這樣的國家隨之有責任修改年幼兒童的審判和量刑程式，以適應他們的年齡和脆弱性。
2
法院判決
The Court has considered first whether the attribution to the applicant of criminal responsibility in respect of acts committed when he was ten years old could, in itself, give rise to a violation of Article 3. In doing so, it has regard to the principle, well established in its case-law that, since the Convention is a living instrument, it is legitimate when deciding whether a certain measure is acceptable under one of its provisions to take account of the standards prevailing amongst the member States of the Council of Europe (see the Soering judgment cited above, p. 40, § 102; and also the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, and the X, Y and Z. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 April 1997, Reports 1997-II).
法院首先考慮的是，就他十歲時所犯罪行將刑事責任歸咎於申請人，是否本身就可能構成對《公約》第3條的違反。在這方面，法院參考了其判例法中確立的原則；由於《公約》是一份活生生的文獻，在決定某項措施是否符合其某一條款時，參考歐洲委員會成員國之間的現行標準是合理的（參見上述Soering判決，第40頁，第102段；以及1981年10月22日的Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom判決，系列A第45號，和1997年4月22日的X, Y and Z. v. the United Kingdom判決，1997-II報告）。
In this connection, the Court observes that, at the present time there is not yet a commonly accepted minimum age for the imposition of criminal responsibility in Europe. While most of the Contracting States have adopted an age-limit which is higher than that in force in England and Wales, other States, such as Cyprus, Ireland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, attribute criminal responsibility from a younger age. Moreover, no clear tendency can be ascertained from examination of the relevant international texts and instruments. Rule 4 of the Beijing Rules which, although not legally binding, might provide some indication of the existence of an international consensus, does not specify the age at which criminal responsibility should be fixed but merely invites States not to fix it too low, and Article 40(3)(a) of the UN Convention requires States Parties to establish a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the criminal law, but contains no provision as to what that age should be.
在這方面，法院觀察到，目前在歐洲尚未有公認的刑事責任最低年齡。雖然大多數締約國採用的年齡限制高於英格蘭和威爾士現行的年齡，但其他國家如塞普勒斯、愛爾蘭、列支敦斯登和瑞士則規定了更低的刑事責任年齡。此外，透過考究相關國際檔案和措施，無法確定明顯的（提高刑事責任年齡的）趨勢。《北京規則》的第4條雖然沒有法律約束力，可能提供了一些國際共識的跡象，但它並未點明應當確定的刑事責任年齡，僅邀請各國不要設定得過低，而聯合國（兒童權利）公約第40條(3)(a)款要求締約國確定一個最低年齡，低於此年齡的兒童應被推定沒有違反刑法的能力，但沒有規定這個年齡應為多少。
The Court does not consider that there is at this stage any clear common standard amongst the member States of the Council of Europe as to the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Even if England and Wales is among the few European jurisdictions to retain a low age of criminal responsibility, the age of ten cannot be said to be so young as to differ disproportionately from the age-limit followed by other European States. The Court concludes that the attribution of criminal responsibility to the applicant does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
法院認為，在目前階段，歐洲理事會成員國之間尚未形成關於刑事責任最低年齡的明確共同標準。儘管英格蘭和威爾士是少數幾個保留較低刑事責任年齡的歐洲司法管轄區之一，但十歲的年齡並不能說與其他歐洲國家所遵循的年齡限制相比有不成比例的差異。因此，法院得出結論，將刑事責任歸咎於申請人本身並不構成對《公約》第3條的違反。
（圖片來源於網路）
肆/ 法官觀點節選
1
CONCURRING OPINION OF LORD REED
裡德勳爵的同意意見
[T]he purpose of attributing criminal responsibility to a child of a given age is not to cause that child suffering or humiliation, but to reflect a consensus in the society in question as to the appropriate age at which a child is sufficiently mature to be held criminally responsible for his or her conduct. Since perceptions of childhood reflect social, cultural and historical circumstances, and are subject to change over time, it is unsurprising that different States should have different ages of responsibility. So far as England and Wales are concerned, the present age of criminal responsibility was fixed by Parliament in 1963 and was endorsed by the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its Report on Juvenile Offending, in 1993.
將刑事責任歸咎於某個年齡的兒童並非是為了使該兒童遭受痛苦或羞辱，而是為了反映出社會對於兒童在何種年齡成熟到可以為其行為承擔刑事責任的共識。由於對兒童的看法反映了社會、文化和歷史環境，並且隨時間而變化，不同國家設定不同的責任年齡也就不足為奇。就英格蘭和威爾士而言，現行的刑事責任年齡是1963年由議會確定，並於1993年得到了下議院內政事務特別委員會在其青少年犯罪的報告中的認可。
It accordingly enjoys democratic legitimacy. In addition, although the attribution of criminal responsibility to a child of ten will have consequences which may cause distress to the child concerned, it is necessary to bear in mind that the treatment of a child who has behaved in the same way in a State with a higher age of criminal responsibility may also cause distress. Whether a child who has intentionally killed another child is regarded as criminally responsible or not, any society is likely to require some form of inquiry to establish whether the child has in fact behaved in the manner alleged and, if so, some form of measures for the protection of the public and the care and treatment of the child in question. For all these reasons, I conclude that the attribution of criminal responsibility to the applicant did not in itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
因此，它具有民主合法性。此外，雖然將刑事責任歸咎於十歲兒童可能給其帶來痛苦，但需要記住的是，在責任年齡較高的國家裡，懲處犯下了同樣罪行的兒童也可能引起他的痛苦。無論一個故意殺害另一個兒童的兒童是否被視為具有刑事責任，任何一個社會都可能需要開展某種形式的調查來確定該兒童是否真的做出了被指控的行為，如果是的話，則需要採取一些措施來保護公眾以及對涉事兒童進行照顧和處置。基於所有的這些原因，我得出結論，將刑事責任歸咎於申請人本身並不構成《公約》第3條意義上的非人道的或是有損人格的待遇。
2
JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES PASTOR RIDRUEJO, RESS, MAKARCZYK, TULKENS AND BUTKEVYCH
裡德魯霍、雷斯、馬卡爾奇克、圖爾肯斯和布特凱維奇法官的反對意見
However, contrary to the Court’s assessment, we are of the view that the suffering or humiliation of the person is wholly independent of whether or not the State authorities acted with the intention of humiliating the person, or causing suffering. It seems to us that the authorities’ principal reason for bringing these proceedings against children of eleven years of age was retribution, rather than humiliation. However, vengeance is not a form of justice and in particular vengeance against children in a civilised society should be completely excluded. We would emphasise that for Article 3 what counts is not the subjective element (motive or purpose) on the part of the State, but the objective effect on the persons involved.
然而，與法院的評估相反，我們認為，個人所受的痛苦或羞辱完全獨立於國家當局是否有意羞辱該人或使其痛苦。我們認為，當局對這些年齡為十一歲的兒童提起訴訟的主要原因是報復，而非羞辱。然而，復仇不是正義的一種形式，特別是在文明社會中對兒童的復仇應當被完全排除在外。我們要強調的是，對於《公約》第3條而言，重要的不是國家方面的主觀元素（動機或目的），而是對涉事人員的客觀影響。
By splitting up the “treatment” into separate phases, i.e. the trial itself and the sentencing, the majority loses sight of the effect which the treatment in this case must have had on the children’s physical well-being and psychological balance. We do not see how the trial as such and the sentencing consequent on the outcome can properly be separated. Furthermore, considering the age of criminal responsibility in isolation from the trial process in an adult court is a further factor which is likely to lead to a distortion of the role of Article 3 of the Convention taken together with Article 1, that is, to secure effective protection against suffering and degrading treatment. The very low age of criminal responsibility has always to be linked with the possibility of adult trial proceedings. That is why the vast majority of Contracting States have eschewed such a very low age of criminal responsibility.
透過將“待遇”分為單獨的階段，即審判本身和量刑，多數派忽視了這種待遇對兒童身體健康和心理平衡必然產生的影響。我們看不出如何能將審判及其結果導致的量刑恰當地分開考慮。此外，孤立地考慮刑事責任年齡，而不考慮成人法庭的審判過程，是可能導致扭曲《公約》第3條與第1條共同作用的另一個因素，即確保有效保護免受痛苦和有損人格的待遇。非常低的刑事責任年齡總是與可能的成人審判程式聯絡在一起。這就是為什麼絕大多數締約國避免設定如此低的刑事責任年齡的原因。
As far as the age of criminal responsibility is concerned, we do not accept the conclusion of the Court that no clear tendency can be ascertained from the development amongst European States and from international instruments. Only four Contracting States out of forty-one are prepared to find criminal responsibility at an age as low as, or lower than, that applicable in England and Wales.
就刑事責任年齡而言，我們不接受法院的結論，即無法從歐洲國家的發展和國際文書中確定明確的趨勢。在四十一個締約國中，只有四個國家願意制定與英格蘭和威爾士相同或更低年齡的刑事責任。
We have no doubt that there is a general standard amongst the member States of the Council of Europe under which there is a system of relative criminal responsibility beginning at the age of thirteen or fourteen – with special court procedures for juveniles – and providing for full criminal responsibility at the age of eighteen or above. Where children aged from ten to about thirteen or fourteen have committed crimes, educational measures are imposed to try to integrate the young offender into society. Even if Rule 4 of the Beijing Rules does not specify a minimum age of criminal responsibility, the very warning that the age should not be fixed too low indicates that criminal responsibility and maturity are related concepts. It is clearly the view of the vast majority of the Contracting States that this kind of maturity is not present in children below the age of thirteen or fourteen.
我們毫不懷疑，在歐洲的成員國中存在一種普遍標準，即從十三或十四歲開始承擔相對刑事責任的制度——設有針對青少年的特殊法庭程式——並規定十八歲或以上承擔完全刑事責任。在十歲到十三或十四歲的兒童犯下罪行時，應施加教育措施，試圖使這些青少年罪犯迴歸社會。即使《北京規則》的第4條沒有指定刑事責任的最低年齡，但警告不應將年齡定得太低的建議表明，刑事責任和成熟度是相關聯的概念。絕大多數締約國明顯認為，十三或十四歲以下的兒童尚未具備這種成熟度。
In the present case, we are struck by the paradox that, whereas the applicants were deemed to have sufficient discrimination to engage their criminal responsibility, a play area was made available for them to use during adjournments.
在當前案件中，我們對一個悖論感到震驚：儘管申請人被認為具有足夠的辨別能力以承擔刑事責任，但在休庭期間卻為他們提供了一個遊樂區供使用。
伍/ 案例評析
在T訴英國政府一案中，歐洲人權法院及其法官就刑事責任年齡的問題提出了深刻的見解，對於是否將刑事責任年齡設定在十三歲或十四歲以下的問題，法官們形成了兩種截然不同的觀點：
首先是“社會共識”派，代表人物如裡德勳爵。他們主張，設定最低刑事責任年齡反映了社會對兒童成熟程度的共識，這種共識不是隨意形成的，而是建立在每個國家特定的歷史和文化背景之上。透過立法程式，這種共識被合法化和法典化，不僅體現了法律的民主性，也是社會意志的體現。在這種框架下，法律的形成和實施被視為社會契約的一部分，旨在平衡不同群體的需要和權利，同時維護社會秩序和福祉。透過 “社會共識”派的觀點我們可以得出一個結論：刑事責任年齡的設定不僅僅是一個法律問題，更是一個社會問題，需要反映社會的整體價值觀和對未來一代的期望。
另一方面，“實際影響”派，代表人物如裡德魯霍和雷斯等提出反對意見的法官，強調了刑事裁判對兒童和青少年的具體影響。儘管刑事責任年齡體現了社會和國家的共同意志，但刑事裁判對兒童和青少年犯罪行為的實際影響是客觀存在的，並且可能產生深遠的後果。設定適當的刑事責任年齡門檻的重要目的之一是保護兒童和青少年不受成人刑事審判程式的影響；如果刑事責任年齡過低，兒童可能更頻繁地面臨成人法庭審判，從而使得為青少年特別設立的司法程式和保護措施存在被邊緣化的風險。將兒童過早地納入成人的刑事司法系統可能導致嚴重的心理和情感創傷，影響他們的未來發展和社會融入。
透過這個案例，我們可以看出不同的法律觀點如何反映不同的法律原則和社會價值。在制定涉及兒童和青少年的法律政策時，需要平衡多種因素，尤其是如何在保障社會安全和促進兒童福祉之間找到恰當的平衡點。
判決連結：
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2224724/94%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58593%22]}