Codifying the Criminal Law
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Codifying the Criminal Law Expert Group on the Codification of the Criminal Law November 2004 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AN ROINN DLÍ AGUS CIRT, COMHIONANNAIS AGUS ATHCHÓIRITHE DLÍ Codifying the Criminal Law Expert Group on the Codification of the Criminal Law November 2004 Dublin Published by the Stationery Office. To be purchased directly from the Government Publications Sales Office, Sun Alliance House, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2, or by mail order from Government Publications, Postal Trade Section, 4-5 Harcourt Road, Dublin 2, (Tel: 01-6476834/35/36/37; Fax: 01-4752760). ISBN 0-7557-7000-5 €12 Baile Átha Cliath Arna Fhoilsiú ag Oifig an tSoláthair. Le ceannach díreach ón Oifig Dhíolta Foilseachán Rialtais, Teach Sun Alliance, Sráid Theach Laighean, Baile Átha Cliath 2, nó tríd an bpost ó Foilseacháin Rialtais, an Rannóg Post-Tráchta, 4-5 Bóthar Fhaearchair, Baile Átha Cliath 2, (Teil: 01-6476834/35/36/37; Fax 01-4752760). Designed by first impression Table of Contents page Foreword vii Introduction 1 Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1 The Issue of Principle 9 A. Introduction 9 B. Defining Codification 9 Evolution of the concept 9 Some early exemplars 9 From the Middle Ages to the French Revolution 11 The modern idea 11 The influence of the Enlightenment 11 The paramountcy of legislation 12 C. Codification and the Two Traditions 13 D. Varieties of Codification 14 Contents General considerations 14 The civilian model 15 General observations 15 Relevance of non-code sources 15 Judicial legislation 16 The role of the commentaries 16 The common law approach 17 Restatement 17 Crimes Acts 17 Codification and law reform 18 Stephen’s Digest and Criminal Code Bill 18 The Indian Penal Code 19 The American Model Penal Code 20 Quasi-codification: the Irish experience 21 Recent legislative policy 21 The Role of the Law Reform Commission 22 Restatement and the Statute Law Revision Unit 23 E. The Value of Codification 24 The constitutional dimension 24 The problem of the common law 24 Pre-independence legislation 25 Accessibility, comprehensibility, consistency and certainty 26 The aims of codification 26 Administrative efficiency 27 Moral infrastructure of criminal law 28 The other side of virtue 29 Separation of powers 29 Ossification of the criminal law 30 F. Summary and Conclusion 31 iii Chapter 2 The Question of Form 33 A. Introduction 33 B. The Fruits of Current Legislative Policy 34 The criminal calendar 34 The general principles of criminal liability 35 C. Current Policy and the Aims of Codification 35 D. The Case for a Comprehensive Code 37 The provisional character of quasi-codification 37 The importance of an integrated legislative scheme 38 The role of the general principles 38 The integrity of the grading system 39 The incompleteness of the mini-codes 39 Homogeneity of content 39 The persistence of piecemeal reform 40 Conclusion 40 E. The Scale of the Task 41 Harvesting the fruits of modernisation 41 Incorporating the mini-codes 42 The nature of the exercise 42 Contents The expanding role of interpretation sections 42 Harnessing the common law 44 General considerations 44 The principles of liability 45 Common law offences 46 F. Design of Codifying Instrument 47 Preliminary observations 47 Streamlining the criminal calendar 47 The structure of the general part 49 Introduction 49 Inculpation and exculpation 49 The problem of scatter 50 G. Scope of the Special Part 51 General considerations 51 The meaning of comprehensive codification 51 Core offences 51 Non-core offences 51 The decodification thesis 52 Offences against the State 53 Criminal procedure and sentencing 54 Criminal procedure 54 Sentencing 54 H. Choreography 55 General considerations 55 Phased codification 56 iv I. Problem of Offences Outside the Code 58 General considerations 58 Immediate application of the general part 58 Delayed application pending alignment 58 The Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code 59 The Australian Capital Territory Criminal Code 59 J. The Fate of the Common Law 59 Introduction 59 Codification and the role of interpretative jurisprudence 60 The demise of judicial legislation 60 The abolitionist strand in current legislative policy 60 The retentionist aspect of codification 61 Phased and comprehensive codification 61 Exculpation rules and principles 61 K. Summary and Conclusion 61 Chapter 3 Managing the Process 65 A. Introduction 65 Contents B. Overview of Management Strategy 66 General 66 The in-house option 67 The problem of resources 68 Searching for an alternative 68 The outsourcing option 68 Modifying the traditional incubation process 68 The Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 69 The Company Law Review Group precedent 69 The Advisory Committee model 70 Suggested terms of reference 71 C. Benefits of Advisory Committee Model 72 Multi-disciplinarity and enhanced communication 72 Assembling the general part 72 Aligning the general and special parts 73 Drafting technique 73 Balancing restatement and reform 74 Consultation, ease of user and interpretation 75 D. Enacting the Code 76 Time and resources 76 Accelerating the process 76 Consolidation on certification from Attorney General 77 A new hybrid procedure 77 The fallback position 78 E. The Problem of Maintenance 78 General 78 Code degradation 79 F. Summary and Conclusion 80 v Appendix 1: Common law criminal codes 83 Appendix 2: Existing criminal legislation 103 Appendix 3: Formal consultation process 117 Bibliography 128 Contents vi FOREWORD The genesis of this Report is to be found in the commitment in the Programme for Government to undertake a feasibility study of the desirability of codifying the criminal law in Ireland, and in the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, made pursuant to that commitment, to establish an Expert Group on Codification of the Criminal Law. On behalf of my colleagues on the Expert Group, I should like to thank Minister McDowell for giving us the opportunity of contributing to this historic project; and, on my own behalf, for doing me the honour of inviting me to chair the Group’s deliberations. We sincerely hope that we have repaid his trust in us; and we should like to record our appreciation of his support for our endeavours throughout the research and consultation process which preceded the drafting of this Report. The Expert Group owes a debt of gratitude to the many people, both in Ireland and throughout the common law world, who assisted us in the preparation of our Report. Mr Caoimhín Ó hUiginn, Assistant Secretary, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, kindly read the Report in draft and made valuable suggestions for its improvement. Several of his colleagues in the Criminal Law Reform Division of the Foreword Department responded generously to requests for advice and information. Mr Peter Charleton, S.C., a long-time advocate of the value of codifying the criminal law, provided us with a helpful memorandum setting out his views on the subject. Ms Leah O’Hegarty, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Houses of the Oireachtas, answered our many queries on Dáil and Seanad procedures with courtesy and good humour. Mr Geoff McDonald, Assistant Secretary, Federal Attorney-General’s Department, Australia, provided us with valuable information on the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code. Ms Janelle Brassington, Principal Legal Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland, and Ms Kelly Foster, Criminal Law and Justice Group, Australian Capital Territory Department of Justice and Community Safety, promptly responded to all our pleas for information about their respective criminal codes. Ms Giovina D’Allesandro, Articled Clerk, Solicitor for the Northern Territory, was similarly obliging in respect of the Northern Territory Criminal Code, and Mr Neville Trendel, Senior Consultant, Law Commission, Wellington, New Zealand, answered several questions on his country’s experience of codification. The Expert Group is especially indebted to the distinguished speakers who addressed our international conference on codification in November 2003: Professor Ian Dennis, University of London; Professor Pamela Ferguson, University of Dundee; Professor Chris Gane, University of Aberdeen; Mr Don Piragoff, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice, Canada; Professor Roger Clark, Rutgers University; Mr Matthew Goode, Managing Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General, South Australia; Professor Paul Robinson, University of Pennsylvania; and Professor Alberto Cadoppi, University of Parma. Our thanks are also due to Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, Mr Justice Barry White, Mr James Hamilton, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Professor Paul O’Connor, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University College, Dublin, who chaired the conference sessions, and to the many people, identified by name and professional affiliation in Appendix 3, who attended and contributed to the discussion at our national and international conferences. vii The members of the Expert Group themselves attended assiduously at our fortnightly meetings and at our individual half-day sessions, despite their heavy professional responsibilities. I should mention in particular the exceptional contribution of Ms Geraldine Larkin, Principal Officer, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Apart from being an active member of the Expert Group, she performed the multiple roles of facilitator, convenor and administrator with extraordinary skill, intelligence and dedication, and was a source of wise counsel to me during the drafting process. She was very