DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 76) CRIMINAL LAW REPORT ON CONSPIRACY AND CRMNAL LAW aEFORM Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3 (2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17th March 1976 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE 176 €2.45 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Cooke, Chairman. Mr. Aubrey L. Diamond. Ivlr. Stephen Edell. Mr. Derek Hodgson, Q.C. Mr. Norman S. Marsh, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. M. Cartwright Sharp and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. 11 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL . 1 1 B. SCOPE OF REPORT 7 2 PART I: CONSPIRACY A. THENEED FOR AN OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY . 1.1 3 B. THEOBJECTIVE OF CONSPIRACY . 1.7 5 1. The present law . 1.7 5 2. Working Party’s consideration and proposals . 1.8 6 3. Difficulty of implementation . 1.10 -8 (a) Conspiracy to defraud . 1.14 10 (b) Offences against the administration ofjustice 1.17 11 C. THEELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY . 1.20 11 1. Introduction 1.20 11 2. The agreement . 1.21 12 3. Corporations . 1.24 12 4. The mental element . 1.25 13 (a) Introduction . 1.25 13 (b) The mental element in relation to the agreement itself . 1.26 13 (c) The mental element in respect of the objective . 1.27 13 (i) General . 1.27 13 (ii) The present law . 1.31 14 (iii) Recommendations . 1.39 17 (iv) Consequences . 1.42 18 (v) Circumstances . 1.43 18 5. Conspiracy to commit other inchoate offences . 1.44 19 6. Exclusion of certain agreements . 1.45 20 (a) Agreements between husband and wife . 1.46 20 (6) Agreements with persons exempted from criminal liability . 1 SO 21 (i) General . 1.50 21 (ii) Agreements with children . 1.51 22 (iii) Agreements with people who are not liable for prosecution for the sub- stantive offence . 1.52 22 (iv) Agreements with victims . 1.55 23 (v) Conclusion as to exempted persons . 1.56 23 D. PROCEDURE 1.59 24 1. Conviction of one only of two or more con- spirators . 1.59 24 2. Consummated conspiracies . 1.64 27 ... 111 Paragraph Page (a) The present position . 1.64 27 (b) Criticism of the present position . 1.65 27 (c) Consideration by the Working Party . 1.66 28 (d) Consultation on Working Paper . 1.68 29 (e) Conclusion: a new rule of practice . 1.69 29 3. Restrictions on prosecution . 1.72 30 (a) The present law . 1.72 30 (i) Time limits . 1.73 30 (ii) Consent to prosecution . 1.74 31 (b) Conclusion . 1.75 31 4. Withdrawal . 1.76 32 E. CONSPIRACYTO COMMIT A SUMMARYOFFENCE . 1.80 33 !. 1. The present law . 1.80 33 2. Should conspiracy to commit a summary offence be a crime? . 1.82 33 3. Conclusion . 1.85 34 F. PENALTIESFOR CONSPIRACY. 1.88 35 1. The present law . 1.88 35 2. Consideration of the present law . 1.96 38 3. Conclusion as to indictable offences . 1.99 39 4. Conclusion as to summary offences 1.104 40 5. Summary of conclusions as to penalties . 1.106 41 G. CONSPIRACYAND PROTECTIONOF PROPERTY ACT 1875 1.107 41 H. SUMMARYOF CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATION. 1.112 42 PART Iz: CONSPIRACY TO TRESPASS: OFFENCES OF ENTERING AND REMAINING ON PROPERTY A. INTRODUCTION. 2.1 45 B. PRESENTLAW . 2.5 46 1. Introduction 2.5 46 2. Forcible entry and detainer . 2.7 47 (a) Common law . 2.7 47 (b) Forcible Entry Acts 1381-1623 . 2.8 47 (c) Analysis of present law of forcible entry and detainer 2.12 48 3. Conspiracy to trespass . 2.17 50 4. Failure to comply with an order for possession . 2.22 52 c. THEPROBLEM OF REFORM . 2.25 52 1. Present day conditions . 2.25 52 2. Criticisms of the present law . 2.27 53 (a) The Statutes of Forcible Entry . 2.27 53 (b) Conspiracy to trespass . 2.30 54 iv Paragraph Page 1 1 (c) Failure to comply with an order for I possession . 2.35 55 D. PROPOSALSIN WORKINGPAPER No. 54 . 2.38 56 E. OUTLINEOF RECOMMENDEDOFFENCES . 2.49 59 F. THENEW ENTRY OFFENCE . 2.53 60 1. Introduction 2.53 60 2. Violence . 2.59 62 3. Entering . 2.63 63 4. Premises . 2.64 64 5. Against the will of the person on the premises . 2.65 64 6. Without lawful authority . 2.66 64 7. Penalty . 2.67 64 G. OCCUPATIONOF RESIDENTIALPREMISES . 2.69 65 H. TRESPASSINGWITH AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON . 2.81 67 I. TRESPASSING ON FOREIGNMISSIONS . 2.84 68 J. RESISTINGA SHERIFF OR BAILIFF . 2.89 69 1. General . 2.89 69 2. Detail of offence . 2.92 70 K. SUMMARYOF RECOMMENDATIONS. 2.94 71 PART III: CONSPIRACIES RELATING TO PUBLIC MORALS AND DECENCY A. INTRODUCTION. 3.1 72 B. PRESENTLAW . 3.8 74 1. Conspiracy . 3.8 74 (a) Conspiracy to corrupt public morals . 3.8 74 (b) Conspiracy to outrage public decency . 3.15 76 (c) Criticisms of the conspiracy charges . 3.16 77 (d) Possible generic common law offences independent of conspiracy . 3.21 79 (e) Relationship between conspiracy and in- dividual common law offences . 3.24 80 2. Individual offences at common law . 3.25 80 I (a) Indecent exposure . 3.25 80 (b) Public exhibition of indecent acts and things 3.27 81 (c) Keeping a disorderly house . 3.29 82 (a> Obscene libel . 3.31 83 (e) Conspiracy to debauch an individual . 3.32 83 V Paragraph Page C. CONSPIRACY AND COMMON LAW OFFENCES: THEIR PRESENT FUNCTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR REPLACEMENT 3.33 83 1. Cinematograph exhibitions . 3.34 84 (a) The conspiracy cases . 3.34 84 (b) The Obscene Publications Act 1959 . 3.37 85 (e) Proposals in Working Paper No. 57 and subsequent developments . 3.41 86 (i) Proposals in Working Paper No. 57 . 3.41 86 (ii) Possible changes in licensing arrange- ments by local authorities . 3.43 87 (iii) Application of the common law to cinematograph exhibitions on licensed premises . 3.46 88 (iv) Distribution of films . 3.49 89 (d) The range of problems for consideration . 3.52 90 (i) Criminal liability in respect of the exhibition of films . 3.53 90 (ii) Defences to criminal liability . 3.69 96 (iii) Exceptions to the application of crim- inal sanctions . 3.77 99 (iv) Restrictions on institution of proceed- I ings 3.80 100 (e) Recommendations as to films . 3.86 103 2. Live performances not subject to the provisions of the Theatres Act . 3.87 104 (a) The conspiracy cases . 3.87 104 (b) The Theatres Act 1968 . 3.88 104 , (c) Proposals in Working Paper No. 57 . 3.89 104 (d) Revised recommendations . 3.91 105 3. Performances of plays in private dwellings . 3.97 107 4. Indecent exposure . 3.100 108 (a) The review of the Vagrancy Act 1824 . 3.100 108 (b) Proposals in Working Paper No. 57 . 3.102 109 (e) Further consideration of indecent behaviour I and revised recommendations . 3.103 109 I (i) Exposure by males . 3.103 109 (ii) Exposure by females . 3.106 110 (iii) Other indecent behaviour in public view 3.107 111 5. Conduct for which new criminal sanctions are not required . 3.112 112 (a) Indecent exhibitions at common law , 3.114 112 (b) Indecency with children . 3.117 113 (c) Advertisements by prostitutes . 3.120 114 (i) The present law . 3.120 114 (ii) Response to Working Paper No. 57 . 3.125 116 (iii) Conclusion . 3.127 117 (d) Sale of accoutrements for use in deviant sexual practices . 3.128 117 vi Paragraph Page (e) Soliciting custom for films and live per- formances . 3.131 118 (f) Other conduct subject to conspiracy charges 3.133 119 D. ABOLITIONS,REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS. 3.135 119 1. Abolitions . 3.135 119 (a) Conspiracy to corrupt public morals . 3.136 119 (b) Conspiracy to outrage public decency . 3.137 120 (c) Public exhibition of indecent acts and things 3.138 120 (4 Keeping a disorderly house . 3.139 120 (e) Indecent exposure at common law . 3.140 120 (f) Obscene libel . 3.141 120 (g) Conspiracy to debauch an individual . 3.142 121 (h) Conclusion . 3.143 121 2. Repeals and amendments . 3.144 121 E. SUMMARYOF RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.149 123 PART N: CONSPIRACIES TO EFFECT A PUBLIC MISCHIEF A. INTRODUCTION. 4.1 125 B. THECONSEQUENCES OF Withers v. D.P.P. 4.4 126 C. POSSIBLEDEFECTS IN THE PRESENT LAW . 4.8 127 1. Obtaining information by deception. 4.9 127 2. Causing alarm and false reports . 4.13 129 3. Other cases . 4.20 132 D. CONCLUSION . 4.21 132 PART V: CONSPIRACIES TO COhXiWT A CIVIL WRONG A. INTRODUCTION. 5.1 132 B. CONSPIRACYTO COMMIT A TORT . 5.2 133 1. Conspiracies to commit trespass to land, goods or person . 5.5 133 2. Conspiracies involving commission of a private nuisance . 5.8 134 3. Conspiracies to commit torts involving fraud . 5.9 134 4. Conspiracies involving defamation of character . 5.10 135 5. Conspiracies effected by other tortious means . 5.15 136 6. Conclusion . 5.17 137 C. CONSPIRACYTO INJURE 5.18 137 1. The extent of crimiilal liability . 5.18 137 2. Conclusion . 5.23 140 vii I Paragraph Page PART VI: CONTEMPT OF STATUTE A.
Recommended publications
  • Crimes Act 2016

    Crimes Act 2016

    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
  • Legal Term for Cheating on Wife

    Legal Term for Cheating on Wife

    Legal Term For Cheating On Wife Is Vassili regular or crackpot after concupiscent Noe generate so awhile? Affordable Gordie untidies very round while Spike remains unbreeched and inspired. How peristomatic is Preston when hard-fisted and prepubescent Wit cackle some underbridge? The unsatisfied spouse cheated on discrimination is attorney for worry, wife on incurable insanity of up until they help When your spouse must be responsible for me at times, the terms favorable settlement. Cultural factors are legal questions are legal term. The intensity that in the outcome of the obligation. You from your letter, on legal term for cheating wife was the dependent spouse wins! We are legal action for legal cheating on wife. Child custody of legal term adultery is something to have terms you ask for you from voluntarily engages in this url into account. Focusing on your spouse cheats does not carry out. This is for spousal support. Imagine your reality, but a number of a petition seeking a person other. To legal term for my wife must show his. If you cheated with someone cheating wife cheats his legal term for adultery, is natural to you and think about outside in terms of. He finishes the similarities between a divorce case law may change their own home to a cheating on wife for legal term relationship to one of trust and pay in the original concept. If one does adultery laws that, it makes people cheat on your marital property. This cheating wife cheats his affection is termed in terms have. That one of. Our sleeves and harmony with your wife cheated with a relationship, emotional infidelity is.
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy

    The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy

    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines

    The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
  • Squatting – the Real Story

    Squatting – the Real Story

    Squatters are usually portrayed as worthless scroungers hell-bent on disrupting society. Here at last is the inside story of the 250,000 people from all walks of life who have squatted in Britain over the past 12 years. The country is riddled with empty houses and there are thousands of homeless people. When squatters logically put the two together the result can be electrifying, amazing and occasionally disastrous. SQUATTING the real story is a unique and diverse account the real story of squatting. Written and produced by squatters, it covers all aspects of the subject: • The history of squatting • Famous squats • The politics of squatting • Squatting as a cultural challenge • The facts behind the myths • Squatting around the world and much, much more. Contains over 500 photographs plus illustrations, cartoons, poems, songs and 4 pages of posters and murals in colour. Squatting: a revolutionary force or just a bunch of hooligans doing their own thing? Read this book for the real story. Paperback £4.90 ISBN 0 9507259 1 9 Hardback £11.50 ISBN 0 9507259 0 0 i Electronic version (not revised or updated) of original 1980 edition in portable document format (pdf), 2005 Produced and distributed by Nick Wates Associates Community planning specialists 7 Tackleway Hastings TN34 3DE United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1424 447888 Fax: +44 (0)1424 441514 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nickwates.co.uk Digital layout by Mae Wates and Graphic Ideas the real story First published in December 1980 written by Nick Anning by Bay Leaf Books, PO Box 107, London E14 7HW Celia Brown Set in Century by Pat Sampson Piers Corbyn Andrew Friend Cover photo by Union Place Collective Mark Gimson Printed by Blackrose Press, 30 Clerkenwell Close, London EC1R 0AT (tel: 01 251 3043) Andrew Ingham Pat Moan Cover & colour printing by Morning Litho Printers Ltd.
  • July 25, 2019 NACDL OPPOSES AFFIRMATVE CONSENT

    July 25, 2019 NACDL OPPOSES AFFIRMATVE CONSENT

    July 25, 2019 NACDL OPPOSES AFFIRMATVE CONSENT RESOLUTION ABA RESOLUTION 114 NACDL opposes ABA Resolution 114. Resolution 114 urges legislatures to adopt affirmative consent requirements that re-define consent as: the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact, to provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances . The word “assent” generally refers to an express agreement. In addition the resolution dictates that consent must be “expressed by words or actions.” The resolution calls for a new definition of consent in sexual assault cases that would require expressed affirmative consent to every sexual act during the course of a sexual encounter. 1. Burden-Shifting in Violation of Due Process and Presumption of Innocence: NACDL opposes ABA Resolution 114 because it shifts the burden of proof by requiring an accused person to prove affirmative consent to each sexual act rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent. The resolution assumes guilt in the absence of any evidence regarding consent. This radical change in the law would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Presumption of Innocence. It offends fundamental and well-established notions of justice. Specifically, Resolution 114 urges legislatures to re-define consent as “the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact, to provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances .
  • Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence an Educational Module

    Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence an Educational Module

    Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence An Educational Module Prepared by Simon A. Cole Professor, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society Director, Newkirk Center for Science and Society University of California, Irvine Alyse Berthental PhD Candidate, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society University of California, Irvine Jaclyn Seelagy Scholar, PULSE (Program on Understanding Law, Science, and Evidence) University of California, Los Angeles School of Law For Committee on Preparing the Next Generation of Policy Makers for Science-Based Decisions Committee on Science, Technology, and Law June 2016 The copyright in this module is owned by the authors of the module, and may be used subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License. By using or further adapting the educational module, you agree to comply with the terms of the license. The educational module is solely the product of the authors and others that have added modifications and is not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the sponsors of this activity. Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 1 Audience .....................................................................................................................................
  • Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial

    Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 37 (1995-1996) Issue 1 Article 10 October 1995 Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial Alan L. Adlestein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Alan L. Adlestein, Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial, 37 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 199 (1995), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss1/10 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CONFLICT OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITH LESSER OFFENSES AT TRIAL ALAN L. ADLESTEIN I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 200 II. THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LESSER OFFENSES-DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFLICT ........ 206 A. Prelude: The Problem of JurisdictionalLabels ..... 206 B. The JurisdictionalLabel and the CriminalStatute of Limitations ................ 207 C. The JurisdictionalLabel and the Lesser Offense .... 209 D. Challenges to the Jurisdictional Label-In re Winship, Keeble v. United States, and United States v. Wild ..................... 211 E. Lesser Offenses and the Supreme Court's Capital Cases- Beck v. Alabama, Spaziano v. Florida, and Schad v. Arizona ........................... 217 1. Beck v. Alabama-LegislativePreclusion of Lesser Offenses ................................ 217 2. Spaziano v. Florida-Does the Due Process Clause Require Waivability? ....................... 222 3. Schad v. Arizona-The Single Non-Capital Option ....................... 228 F. The Conflict Illustrated in the Federal Circuits and the States ....................... 230 1. The Conflict in the Federal Circuits ........... 232 2. The Conflict in the States .................. 234 III.
  • Table of Common Charge Options for State Offences

    Table of Common Charge Options for State Offences

    TABLE OF COMMON CHARGE OPTIONS FOR STATE OFFENCES A PRACTITIONERS’ GUIDE FOR THE EAGP SCHEME The Public Defenders Last updated 8 March 2019 Users’ guide, notes and acknowledgements The purpose of this document and a disclaimer • This document has been prepared as a resource designed to assist lawyers, whether defence or prosecution, involved in negotiations under the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea legislation. • You should always undertake your own research into the particular offences and provisions which may be relevant to any case you are working on. This document is a guide only and should be treated as a starting point for your consideration of appropriate offences. • Further and importantly, this document refers to the current versions of offences, maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods. You should always refer to the version of the legislation applicable at the time of any alleged offence. Because changes to sexual assault offences are so recent, we have included the most recently repealed offences for your convenience. • Please ensure you are working from the latest version of this document available from the Public Defenders’ website. The date of the most recent update is on the title page. • Please bear in mind that this document does not include any Commonwealth offences. Commonwealth offences might be alternatives to, for example, child pornography, grooming and procuring, money laundering, terrorism and drug offences. • Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the correctness of information in this Table, please be reminded of the Disclaimer pertaining to all information on the website of Public Defenders, Department of Justice NSW at: https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/copyright-disclaimer.aspx Acknowledgments This Table has been prepared by the Public Defenders with assistance and input from Legal Aid NSW and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW, initially as part of the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea Working Party 2018.
  • Immigration Consequences at Sentencing

    Immigration Consequences at Sentencing

    Update on Criminal Inadmissibility Peter Edelmann1 Division 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) sets out the various grounds of inadmissibility along with a number of evidentiary and procedural matters. This paper will focus on the grounds of criminal inadmissibility set out in section 36. It will not address the related grounds of inadmissibility such as those under sections 34(security), 35 (international crimes) and 37 (organized criminality), each of which would provide ample material for a lengthy paper on their own. Section 36 sets out the grounds that render individuals inadmissible for criminality. The most fundamental distinction in s.36 is between criminality and serious criminality. Criminality, as described in s.36(2), only affects foreign nationals: A36 (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament; (c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or (d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
  • Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell

    Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell

    Copyrights sought (Albert) Basil (Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell) Filson Young (Alexander) Forbes Hendry (Alexander) Frederick Whyte (Alfred Hubert) Roy Fedden (Alfred) Alistair Cooke (Alfred) Guy Garrod (Alfred) James Hawkey (Archibald) Berkeley Milne (Archibald) David Stirling (Archibald) Havergal Downes-Shaw (Arthur) Berriedale Keith (Arthur) Beverley Baxter (Arthur) Cecil Tyrrell Beck (Arthur) Clive Morrison-Bell (Arthur) Hugh (Elsdale) Molson (Arthur) Mervyn Stockwood (Arthur) Paul Boissier, Harrow Heraldry Committee & Harrow School (Arthur) Trevor Dawson (Arwyn) Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Basil Arthur) John Peto (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin & New Statesman (Borlasse Elward) Wyndham Childs (Cecil Frederick) Nevil Macready (Cecil George) Graham Hayman (Charles Edward) Howard Vincent (Charles Henry) Collins Baker (Charles) Alexander Harris (Charles) Cyril Clarke (Charles) Edgar Wood (Charles) Edward Troup (Charles) Frederick (Howard) Gough (Charles) Michael Duff (Charles) Philip Fothergill (Charles) Philip Fothergill, Liberal National Organisation, N-E Warwickshire Liberal Association & Rt Hon Charles Albert McCurdy (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett & World Review of Reviews (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Colin) Mark Patrick (Crwfurd) Wilfrid Griffin Eady (Cyril) Berkeley Ormerod (Cyril) Desmond Keeling (Cyril) George Toogood (Cyril) Kenneth Bird (David) Euan Wallace (Davies) Evan Bedford (Denis Duncan)