For example, the doli incapax rule conclusively presumes that a child less than ten years old cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, and so cannot be convicted for committing a criminal offence. The age was seven at common law, and raised by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to eight and by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 to ten. A similar rebuttable presumption, that a child between the ages of ten and fourteen was not capable of committing a criminal offence, was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Now the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10.
Many conclusive presumptions have been abolished in recent years. For example:
The new addition to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - CHAPTER 37 states
Section 34: Abolition of rebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax. The rebuttable presumption of criminal law that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence is hereby abolished.
See also the case of R v T  EWCA Crim 815 Despite obiter comments in the earlier case of Crown Prosecution Service v P  EWHC 946 (Admin) (27 April 2007) doli incapax was abolished, not just as a presumption, by section 34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
"Final, Conclusive And Binding" Insufficient To Exclude Appeal Of Arbitral Award.(Shell Oil Co. v. Centurion)
Feb 18, 2010; Article by Christina Lawrence and Emma Martin In the recent case of Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH, Shell Egypt West Qantara GmbH...
McKinnon V Secretary, Department of Treasury: The Sir Humphrey Clause - Review of Conclusive Certificates in Freedom of Information Applications
Dec 01, 2006; [In the recent McKinnon decision the High Court considered access to Treasury documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982...