DOCSLIB.ORG

Brooke Report Ucc.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brooke Report Ucc.Pdf Should the Civil Courts be Unified? A Report by Sir Henry Brooke Judicial Office August 2008 From: The Rt Hon Sir Henry Brooke Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL To the Lord Chief Justice Dear Lord Chief Justice As you will remember, nine months ago the judiciary was seriously divided over the proposals for civil and family court unification. Put simply, many senior judges (including the Chancellor) opposed the proposals, whereas the Council of Circuit Judges and the Association of District Judges expressed themselves to be virtually unanimous in their support. You first approached me about this matter before Christmas, and over the Christmas holiday I took the opportunity of reading the very large volume of correspondence and submissions from the judiciary which this controversial issue had generated. In early February you invited me to conduct an inquiry into the arguments for and against civil court unification. You asked me to devote one day a week to the task, and to submit a report to you before the end of July. I thought it best to conduct a large number of one-to-one interviews, and to visit all the major centres where civil business is conducted outside London, as well as the Central London Trial Centre and the Royal Court of Justice. I received wonderful help from everyone I saw. I was lucky enough to meet (or remeet) many dedicated judges and court managers during the course of my inquiry. I have included at Annex K a list of the people I interviewed, to all of whom I am very grateful. This is a long report because I did not have the time to write a short report. It is also a long report because I believed that we have been sleep-walking into a crisis, so far as civil justice is concerned, and I thought that the people who will be charged with the job of putting our civil justice system on its feet again should have a chance of seeing the whole picture in the round, so that they can understand why we have arrived at the position we are now in. If anyone doubts whether there is a crisis, I invite them to read Annex A of this report. As you will see, I have concluded that plans for civil court unification should not be proceeded with. On the other hand, I make a large number of suggestions about ways in which the arrangements for civil justice could be improved. Although I set them out fully in Part VI, I am also setting them out for convenience as a postscript to this letter. There are four matters I need to stress. The first is that I believe that no real progress can be made unless your successor and the Lord Chancellor and the Board of HM Courts Service are willing and able to agree on a five-year strategy for taking our civil justice arrangements out of the doldrums and making them something we can all feel proud of again. The second is that the introduction of modern IT systems (including electronic filing and document management systems) will be essential if any such strategy is to have any prospect of success. The third is that the arrangements for handling contentious civil business in London fall woefully short of what this country, and Londoners in particular, should be entitled to expect. The fourth is that I am very hesitant about including any statistics at all in this report because I have found so many mistakes. If anyone wonders why, I would invite them to read Annex J. - 1 - I am particularly grateful to John Sorabji, the Legal Secretary to the Master of the Rolls, for his monograph on the constitutional status of the judiciary which I have included as an Appendix to my report. Finally I would like to express my thanks to Andy Caton and Jackie Sears in the Master of the Rolls’s office, and to Kate Griffiths in your office, for providing me cheerfully with administrative support whenever I asked for it. The direct net cost of this inquiry, in fees and disbursements, will have been less than £14,000. 31 July 2008 This is a summary of my conclusions and recommendations: I conclude in my report that worthwhile changes can be made to the civil justice system without embarking on the unification of the High Court and the County Courts for the reasons I set out towards the end of Part V. I was invited to recommend future durable structures for the judiciary in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction. These recommendations are to be found in Part VI. I see nothing in them which conflicts in any way with the parallel arrangements now in place (or those planned) for the use of the judiciary within the criminal and family jurisdictions. My central recommendations are these: (1) The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice and HM Courts Service Board should agree upon a five-year strategy for reviving the civil justice system, to be implemented collaboratively by the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts Service. (2) The strategy should include procedural reform, changes needed within the judiciary, adequate financing of the system on a long-term sustainable basis, the development and installation of the SUPS and EFDM systems and an adequate heavy-duty listing system, and the relocation of the Central London Trial Centre. (3) A critical path should be agreed for the delivery of this strategy, with agreed annual reports to report progress. I would hope that agreement could be reached on the necessary ingredients of this strategy within six months. I now summarise my more detailed recommendations: 1. Remove the jurisdictional limit of the County Court in Chancery and contentious probate matters (or raise the present limit of £30,000 by a large amount) following consultation and ensure that proper ticketing and supervisory arrangements exist for circuit judges and district judges exercising Chancery jurisdiction in the County Court. 2. Re-fix the financial value above which claims may be filed at the High Court following consultation, whether at £25,000 or £50,000. 3. Require all personal injury actions to commence in the County Court (except for clinical negligence and mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases). - 2 - 4. Retain defamation, public law matters and certain human rights cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, and review other instances of the High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. 5. Make it possible to exercise a remedy similar to fi fa in the County Court, as an alternative to using the bailiff 6. Revise the criteria for retention of cases within the High Court or for transferring them up to the High Court, using the revised version of Mr Justice Jackson’s Committee’s criteria suggested in Section 5.2.2. 7. Create a new top tier of the County Courts in which heavy cases which do not have to be heard by a High Court Judge may be directed for trial by High Court Judges, retired High Court Judges, Senior Circuit Judges, Circuit Judges and Recorders without the need for deputy High Court Judges. Consider whether the County Courts should become a single national court, and whether it should be renamed the Civil Court 8. Retain the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Courts where it exists, but abolish the need for the Lord Chancellor’s concurrence to a High Court Judge sitting in the County Court. 9. Give Designated Civil Judges authority to make an emergency decision on an appeal from Circuit Judge in the absence of a High Court Judge (unless the appeal comes from a decision of the Designated Civil Judge himself). Review the provisions for appeals in insolvency matters. 10. Reduce the number of Queen’s Bench District Registries and Designated Civil Judges and broaden the authority of the Designated Civil Judges who should be based at the large centres. 11. Enable Senior Circuit Judges (with civil jurisdiction) and suitably ticketed Circuit Judges to grant pre-judgment freezing orders in the County Court. 12. Enlarge the powers of Registrars and District Judges so that they may make low level injunctions and similar orders in insolvency cases. 13. Bestow insolvency jurisdiction on the Central London County Court. 14. Make legislative provision whereby a decision of a judge who turns out not to have had jurisdiction to hear a case is prevented from being a nullity if the mistake was made in good faith. 15. Bring the contempt jurisdiction of the County Courts into line with that of the High Court. 16. If a case outside London should be heard by a High Court Judge, for which arrangements cannot be made on one of the High Court Judges’ routine visits (if any), place it in the relevant list in London so that a High Court Judge can go out and hear the case if it does not settle. 17. Phase out s.9 (4) Deputy High Court Judges (unless required in an emergency), and replace them by Recorders (civil only if necessary). In any event ensure that they are ticketed to hear County Court cases. Fee-paid judges hearing cases in the top tier of the County Court should all be paid at the same daily rate. 18. Gradually reduce the number of Designated Civil Judges, give all those who remain Senior Circuit Judge status and give Circuit Judges who exercise civil jurisdiction in smaller centres pastoral responsibility for the Circuit Judges and District Judges in their area, with a suitable financial allowance (but no special status) - 3 - 19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Administration in Great Britain
    Public Administration in Great Britain OMAR GUERRERO-OROZCO Whoever shall read the admirable treatise of Tacitus on the manners of the Germans, will find that it is from them the English have bor- rowed the idea of their political government. This beautiful system was invented first in the woods. Montesquieu, De l’espirit des lois, 1741 Translated by Margaret Schroeder Revised by the author Layout by Leticia Pérez Solís Table of Contents Prologue .................................... 11 Introduction ................................. 15 Part One THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Chapter 1 THE BRITISH CULTURE ...................... 27 Cultural Diversity in Administration ............. 28 Neo-Latins and Anglo-Saxons .................. 30 Causes of the “decline” of the neo-latin peoples ............. 31 Looking to the future ................................ 35 Germanic Peoples in Britannia .................. 36 Roman Britannia .................................. 37 Germanic migration ................................ 43 Destruction of the Roman Civilization ................. 45 Halting National Unity ............................. 48 Chapter 2 THE CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE ... 51 Insularity and Territoriality ..................... 51 7 Omar Guerrero-Orozco The British ................................. 56 Politics ..................................... 63 The Language ............................... 67 Chapter 3 THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: INTERNAL FACTORS .................. 73 Causes of the Uniqueness of the British
    [Show full text]
  • Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity Kristin M.S
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Bookshelf 2015 Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity Kristin M.S. Bezio University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf Part of the Leadership Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bezio, Kristin M.S. Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignty. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015. NOTE: This PDF preview of Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays: History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignity includes only the preface and/or introduction. To purchase the full text, please click here. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bookshelf by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Staging Power in Tudor and Stuart English History Plays History, Political Thought, and the Redefinition of Sovereignty KRISTIN M.S. BEZIO University ofRichmond, USA LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23173 ASHGATE Introduction Of Parliaments and Kings: The Origins of Monarchy and the Sovereign-Subject Compact in the English Middle Ages (to 1400) The purpose of this study is to examine the intersection between early modem political thought, the history that produced the late Tudor and early Stuart monarchies, and the critical interrogation of both taking place on the public theatrical stage. The plays I examine here are those which rely on chronicle histories for their source materials; are set in England, Scotland, or Wales; focus primarily on governance and sovereignty; and whose interest in history is didactic and actively political.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1991 No. 724 (L.5) COUNTY COURTS SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 Made - - - - 19th March 1991 Coming into force - - 1st July 1991 The Lord Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sections 1 and 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990(1), having consulted as required by section 1(9) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order a draft of which has, in accordance with section 120(4) of that Act, been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament:— Title and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 and shall come into force on 1st July 1991. Jurisdiction 2.—(1) A county court shall have jurisdiction under— (a) sections 30, 146 and 147 of the Law of Property Act 1925(2), (b) section 58C of the Trade Marks Act 1938(3), (c) section 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950(4), (d) section 63(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954(5), (e) section 28(3) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969(6), (1) 1990 c. 41. (2) 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c.20; relevant amendments were made by the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28), section 148(1) andPart II of Schedule 2. (3) 1 & 2 Geo. 6 c.22; section 58C was inserted by section 300 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for a Gastric Band
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the English Court System - Time for a Gastric Band Graham S McBain1 1 Solicitor. MA (Cantab), LLB (Cantab), LLM (Harv). Open Scholar, Peterhouse, Cambridge. Fulbright Scholar, Harvard Law School. UK Correspondence: Graham S McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 11, 2013 Accepted: April 23, 2013 Online Published: August 30, 2013 doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 Abstract There is a lot in the newspapers these days about human obesity and its detrimental effect on human health - as well as on the health budget. Indeed, statistics suggest that one in five adults in the United Kingdom is now clinically obese. What applies to human beings can also apply to human institutions and it is asserted that our legal system is clinically obese. It needs a gastric band. Why is our legal system clinically obese ? First, the volume of English primary - and subordinate - legislation is growing exponentially 1 and, at this rate, it will start to become like that of the United States. Thus, it needs to be curtailed since the direct - and indirect - cost of all this is huge.2 Second, the present court system dates from the Victorian era and it creaks. Distinctly. In what way? There are too many obsolete courts; There are too many courts which - while not obsolete – should be merged with others; The court system is replete with anomalies and there are too many jurisdictional and procedural issues; The domestic court structure is a four tier system - when it should only be three tier; The complexity of the court system is such that it is not understood by lawyers -far less by the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Consent Memorandum
    LEGISLATIVE CONSENT MEMORANDUM Coronavirus Bill 1. This Legislative Consent Memorandum is laid under Standing Order (“SO”) 29.2. SO29 prescribes that a Legislative Consent Memorandum must be laid, and a Legislative Consent Motion may be tabled, before the National Assembly for Wales if a UK Parliamentary Bill makes provision in relation to Wales for any purpose within, or which modifies the legislative competence of the National Assembly. 2. The Coronavirus Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced in the House of Commons on 19 March. The Bill can be found at: https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/coronavirus.html Policy Objective(s) 3. The objective of the Coronavirus Bill is to enable the Governments of the UK to respond to an emergency situation and manage the effects of a Coronavirus pandemic. The Bill contains temporary measures designed to either amend existing legislative provisions or introduce new statutory powers which are designed to mitigate these impacts. Summary of the Bill 4. The Bill is sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care. 5. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Governments of the UK to respond to an emergency situation and manage the effects of a COVID-19 pandemic. A severe pandemic could infect up to 80% of the population leading to a reduced workforce, increased pressure on health services and death management processes. The Bill contains temporary measures designed to either amend existing legislative provisions or introduce new statutory powers which are designed to mitigate these impacts. The Bill aims to support the UK Government in the following: • Increasing the available health and social care workforce • Easing the burden on frontline staff • Containing and slowing the virus • Managing the deceased with respect and dignity • Supporting people 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Law Reform a Draft Bill
    Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill December 2009 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty December 2009 Cm 7773 £9.50 © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please contact the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected]. ISBN: 9780101777322 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002338531 12/09 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Contents Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Civil Law Reform Bill 7 Explanatory Notes 23 1 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill 2 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Foreword The civil law affects us all in many different ways every day of our lives and continues to affect our property even after we are dead. It is important that it is kept up to date and that it is as simple and fair as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on Judicial
    Chapter 3 : The British Experience 3.01 In the Mason Report, the case of Britain is presented as one of the jurisdictions where there is an absolute prohibition against reduction of judicial remuneration. 1 The existing British system of determination of judicial remuneration and the latest review on judicial salaries have also been discussed in the Mason Report. On the issue of reduction of remuneration in the United Kingdom, the following passages are relevant. 3.12 In 1760 the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act2 made explicit what may have been implicit in the Act of Settlement. It secured the payment of the judges’ salaries without reduction so long as the judge’s commission continued and remained in force. The Act did not apply to colonial judges. 3.14 More recently, the Courts Act 1971 and the Supreme Court Act 1981, ss 12(1) and (3), have expressly provided that the salaries of Circuit Judges and Supreme Court Judges respectively “may be increased but not reduced”. 3.02 The 1760 Act is also referred to in the context of the discussion of the Australian position in the Mason Report – 3.28 Section 40 of the Constitution Act 1855 (NSW) provided for judicial remuneration but reverted to the earlier wording of the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act 1760 (Imp). It provided that salaries fixed by Act of Parliament shall be paid and payable to every judge for the time being so long as their commissions should continue and remain in force. No express reference was made to the prohibition of the diminution of a judge’s salary.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (C.15) Which Received Royal Assent on 19Th July 2007 TRIBUNALS, COURTS and ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
    These notes refer to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c.15) which received Royal Assent on 19th July 2007 TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which received Royal Assent on 19th July 2007. They have been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader of the Act. The explanatory notes have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The notes need to be read in conjunction with the Act. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Act. So where a section or part of a section does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. Where a section makes a change to the system currently in place, an overview is given of that system followed by an explanation of the change that the Act makes. OVERVIEW 3. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act implements the main recommendations contained in the following reports and papers: x the White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals,1 published in July 2004 (“Transforming Public Services”); x the consultation paper Increasing Diversity in the Judiciary, published in October 2004; x the Law Commission Report, Landlord and Tenant – Distress for Rent,2 published in February 1991 (“the Law Commission’s Report”); x a Report to the Lord Chancellor, Independent Review of Bailiff Law, by Professor J. Beatson QC published in July 2000; x a White Paper, Effective Enforcement, published in March 2003 (“Effective Enforcement”); x a consultation paper, A Choice of Paths: better options to manage over- indebtedness and multiple debt, published on 20 July 2004 (“the Choice of Paths Consultation”); x a consultation paper, Relief for the Indebted, an alternative to bankruptcy, published in March 2005; and x a consultation on providing immunity from seizure for international works of art on loan in the UK (March 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision 17Th Report (SLC 193; LC 285)
    [Coat of Arms] The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 285) (SCOT LAW COM No 193) STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers December 2003 Cm 6070 SE/2003/313 £xx.xx The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 17 November 2003. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX 1: DRAFT
    [Show full text]
  • British Political System Part
    EXECUTIVE ▪Monarch ▪Government X cabinet ▪ Cabinet ministers and their deputies ▪ Ministers outside cabinet and their deputies ▪ Secretaries of the ministries ▪ Whips ▪ Other important persons (i.e. academia) ▪ Growing complexity of state administration ▪ → council (curia regis) ▪ Major minister (Lord Chancellor) ▪ 1200s – the top royal officer and chief of the royal court ▪ Executive, judicial and advisory role ▪ 1500s – 1600s – Privy Council ▪ Specialization, about 50 members James I, Charles I and favorites in the Privy Council consultations with a small group of the council Charles II (1625-85) secret character of meetings →Cabinet Council or Cabinet ▪ Originally – King selected ministers ▪ Government ≠ collective body ▪ Glorious Revolution ▪ First PM Robert Walpole (1721–42) ▪ the First Lord of the Treasury ▪ Chancellor of the Exchequer ▪ George I (1714-27) ▪ Little knowledge of England, law and constitution ▪ → King‘s deputy necessary ▪ → CC: King no access to cabinet meetings ▪ 1784 George III – attempt at revival of monarch‘s power 1. Cabinet – from MPs → end of incompatibility of minister and MP 2. Cabinet rests on HC‘s support ▪ If it fails to get it, cabinet resigns 3. „Modern“ departure from politics 4. Downing street 10 ▪ Residence since 1730 ▪ George II ▪Cabinet members selected by the King ▪Cabinet responsible to the King ▪Tories and Whigs – loose groups ▪Ministers – responsible only for their resorts ▪PM‘s resignation ≠ resignation of ministers ▪ Industrial revolution (rise of capitalism) ▪ Rise of new classes, calling
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against the Person
    Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Violence against the Person Homicide Death or Serious Injury – Unlawful Driving Violence with injury Violence without injury Stalking and Harassment All Counting Rules enquiries should be directed to the Force Crime Registrar Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Homicide Classification Rules and Guidance 1 Murder 4/1 Manslaughter 4/10 Corporate Manslaughter 4/2 Infanticide All Counting Rules enquiries should be directed to the Force Crime Registrar Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime With effect from April 2021 Homicide – Classification Rules and Guidance (1 of 1) Classification: Diminished Responsibility Manslaughter Homicide Act 1957 Sec 2 These crimes should not be counted separately as they will already have been counted as murder (class 1). Coverage Murder Only the Common Law definition applies to recorded crime. Sections 9 and 10 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 give English courts jurisdiction where murders are committed abroad, but these crimes should not be included in recorded crime. Manslaughter Only the Common Law and Offences against the Person Act 1861 definitions apply to recorded crime. Sections 9 and 10 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 gives courts jurisdiction where manslaughters are committed abroad, but these crimes should not be included in recorded crime. Legal Definitions Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 Sec 1(1) “1 The offence (1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised - (a) causes a person’s death, and (b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.” Capable of Being Born Alive - Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Capable of being born alive means capable of being born alive at the time the act was done.
    [Show full text]