DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 102) CRIMINAL LAW ATTEMPT, AND IMPOSSIBILITY IN RELATION TO ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY AND INCITEMENT Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1%.5 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 25th June 1980 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE f3.75 net 646 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 Kerr, Chairman. Mr. Stephen M. Cretney. Mr. Stephen Edell. Mr. W. A. B. Forbes, Q.C. Dr. Peter M. North. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. C. R. Fieldsend and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 ATTEMPT. AND IMPOSSIBILITY IN RELATION TO ATTEMPT. INCITEMENT AND CONSPIRACY CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I INTRODUCTION ......... 1.1-1.9 1 PART I1 ATTEMPT ............2.1-2.143 3 A . INTRODUCTION ........... 2.1-2.2 3 B . PRELIMINARY ISSUES RELATING TO ATTEMPT .............. 2.3-2.9 4 1. Retention of separate inchoate offences ... 2.4-2.5 4 2 . The need for a general law of attempt .... 2.6 5 3 . Retention of the concept of attempt .... 2.7-2.9 6 C . THE MENTAL ELEMENT IN ATTEMPT ...2.10-2.18 8 1. The Working Party’s formulation and the present law ..........0 ... 2.11-2.13 8 2. Conclusions and recommendations ..... 2.14-2.18 10 D . THE ACTUS REUS IN ATTEMPT .....2.19-2.52 13 1. The attempt theories .......... 2.22-2.37 14 (a) The “first stage” theory .......2.22-2.23 14 (b) The “final stage” theory .......2.24-2.25 15 (c) The “unequivocal act” theory ..... 2.26 16 (d) The “proximity” test ........2.27-2.29 17 (e) The “substantial step” test ......2.30-2.37 18 (i) The Working Party’s proposals ....2.30-2.31 18 (ii) Consideration of the “substantial step” test .............2.32-2.37 19 2 . The present law reconsidered ........ 2.38-2.44 22 3. Recommendations as to the actus reus ....2.45-2.52 25 (a) Content of the actus reus .......2.462.49 26 (b) Issues of law and fact ........2.50-2.52 27 E . ATTEMPTING THE IMPOSSIBLE .....2.53-2.100 29 1. The present law ........... 2.53-2.65 29 (a) Haughton v . Smith .........2.53-2.60 29 (6) Subsequent cases .......... 2.61-2.65 33 ... 111 Paragraph Page 2 . Impossibility in other systems of law ....2.66-2.84 36 (a) Scotland ............. 2.67 37 (b) The draft Criminal Code of 1879 .... 2.68 37 (c) Canada ............. 2.69 38 (6)Australia ............ 2.70-2.75 38 (e) New Zealand ...........2.76-2.77 40 (f) South Africa ........... 2.78 42 (9) United- States of America .......2.79-2.81 42 (h) France ............. 2.82 44 (i) Germany ............ 2.83 45 Q Conclusion ............ 2.84 45 3 . Consideration of the present law ......2.85-2.98 45 4 . Conclusions and recommendations .....2.99-2.100 53 F . PROCEDURAL ISSUE§ RELATING TO ATTEMPT ..............2.101-2.119 54 1. Attempts and summary offences ......2.102-2.105 54 2 . Mode of trial and penalties .......2.106-2.1 10 56 (a) Mode of trial ........... 2.106 56 (b) Penalties .............2.107-2.1 10 57 3. Conviction of alternative offences .....2.111-2.115 59 1 (a) The doctrine of merger ........2.11 1-2.11 3 59 (b) Conviction of alternative offence of attempt ' on summary trial ..........2.1 14-2.11 5 60 ~ 4 . Restrictions on prosecution ....... 2.1 16 61 5. Powers of arrest, search and forfeiture .... 2.117 61 6 . Offences by bodies corporate ....... 2.11 8 62 , 7 . Corroboration ............ 2.119 62 I G . ATTEMPT AND OTHER OFFENCE§ ...2.120-2.130 63 1. Attempt and other inchoate offences ....2.121-2.122 63 (a) Attempt to incite .......... 2.121 63 (b) Attempt to conspire ......... 2.122 63 2. Attempts to aid and abet ........ 2.123 64 3 . Attempts to commit offences under sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 ...2.124-2.126 64 4 . Offences of attempt in existing legislation ...2.127-2.130 66 H . POSSIBLE DEFENCE OF WITHDRAWAL . 2.131-2.133 68 I . THE EXTRATERRITORIAL OPERATION OF ATTEMPT ..............2.1342.141 69 1. Statement of the problems ........2.1342.139 69 2 . Conclusions and recommendations .....2.140-2.141 72 J . ABOLITION AND REPEALS .......2.142-2.143 73 1. Abolition ............. 2.142 73 2 . Repeals .............. 2.143 74 iv Paragraph Page PART I11 CONSPIRACY AND IMPOSSIBILITY. 3.1-3.8 74 A. INTRODUCTION ........... 3.1 74 B. THE EXISTING LAW .......... 3.2-3.5 75 C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 3.63.8 77 PARTIV INCITINGTHE IMPOSSIBLE .... 4.1-4.4 79 PART V SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . 5.1-5.2 81 APPENDIXA Draft Criminal Attempts Bill and Explanatory Notes 85 APPENDIXB Membership of the Law Commission’s Working Party upon the General Principles of the Criminal Law 102 APPENDIXC Organisations and individuals who commented on the Law Commission’s Working Paper No. 50, “Inchoate Offences” 103 APPENDIXD Participants in a seminar held at All Souls’ College, Ocford on 5-6 April 1974, to discuss the Law Commission’s Working Paper No. 50, “Inchoate Offences” 104 APPENDIXE “Conditional Intent” and R. v. Husseyn. 105 V I THE LAW COMMISSION Item XVIII of the Second Programme CRIMINAL LAW ATTEMPT, AND IMPOSSIBILITY IN RELATION TO ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY AND INCITEMENT To the Right Honourable the Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, C.H., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In our Second Programme of Law Reform1 we recommended a comprehensive examination of the criminal law with a view to its codification. We recommended that we should examine the general principles of the criminal law with the assistance of a Working Party. The constitution of this Working Party is given in Appendix B. 1.2 As part of the examination of the general principles the Working Party made provisional proposals in regard to the three common law offences of attempt, incitement and conspiracy which we published as a Working Paper on Inchoate Offences.2 These are known as inchoate offences since they may be committed notwithstanding that the substantive offence to which they relate is not committed. 1.3 During our consultations on this Working Paper the application of the law of conspiracy in certain areas3 made it necessary for us to give first priority to consideration of particular aspects of criminal conspiracy. This we did in three separate Working paper^.^ Ultimately at the request of your predecessor we prepared as a matter of urgency our recommendations on the inchoate offence of conspiracy and on the matters considered in the three Working Papers. This was published as our Report on Conspiracy and Criminal Law Ref~rm,~and many of our recommendations, including those relating l(1968) Law Corn. No. 14, Item XVIII. 2 (1973) Working Paper No. 50, Inchoate Olfences: Conspiracy, Attempt and Incitement. E.g. corrupting public morals, Knuller v. D.P.P. (19731 A.C. 435; conspiracy to trespass, Kamara v. D.P.P. [I9741 A.C. 104; conspiracy to effect a public mischief, Withers v. D.P.P. [1975] A.C.842; conspiracy in regard to flying pickets, R. v. Jones (1974) 59 Cr. App. R. 120. (1974) Working Paper No. 54, Offences of Entering and Remaining on Properly; (1974) Work- ing Paper No. 57, Conspiracies relating to Morals and Decency; (1975) Working Paper No. 63, Conspiracies to Ejfect a Public Mischief and to Commit a Civil Wrong. We also issued in 1974 Working Paper No. 56, Conspiracy to Defraud and in 1975 Working Paper No. 62, Offences relating to the Administration qf Justice (which examined conspiracy to pervert the course of justice). (1976) Law Com. No. 76; the recommendations in relation to the subject matter of Working Paper No. 57 (see n. 4, above) were not implemented by the Criminal Law Act 1977. The Govern- ment instead decided that a more wide-ranging review of the laws relating to obscenity and indecency was needed than our terms of reference permitted. This led to the setting up of the Williams Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship, whose Report was published in November 1979 (Cmnd. 7772). 1 to the inchoate offence of conspiracy, were implemented by the Criminal Law Act 1977. 1.4 Following the Report on Conspiracy it was our intention to deal with the remaining inchoate offences of attempt and incitement in a single further report. Examination of aspects of incitement, however, led us to conclude that there were problems which could not be resolved satisfactorily without a parallel examination of related problems in the law of complicity in crime, a topic upon which we have published a Working Paper prepared by the Working Party.6 1.5 If in regard to complicity in crime we were to recommend that there should be an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring crime which is not dependent on proof that a substantive offence had been committed, there would be no need for a separate inchoate offence of incitement. There has been strong and cogently argued academic support for this approach.’ But even if it were decided that incitement should continue to be a separate inchoate offence there remain many issues which it would be difficult to discuss without reference to the law of aiding and abetting.
Recommended publications
  • Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No

    Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No

    273 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. SAINT LUCIA ______ No. 9 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Application of Code 4. General construction of Code 5. Common law procedure to apply where necessary 6. Interpretation PART II JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES 7. Claim of right 8. Consent by deceit or duress void 9. Consent void by incapacity 10. Consent by mistake of fact 11. Consent by exercise of undue authority 12. Consent by person in authority not given in good faith 13. Exercise of authority 14. Explanation of authority 15. Invalid consent not prejudicial 16. Extent of justification 17. Consent to fight cannot justify harm 18. Consent to killing unjustifiable 19. Consent to harm or wound 20. Medical or surgical treatment must be proper 21. Medical or surgical or other force to minors or others in custody 22. Use of force, where person unable to consent 23. Revocation annuls consent 24. Ignorance or mistake of fact criminal code 2003.pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 25. Ignorance of law no excuse 26. Age of criminal responsibility 27. Presumption of mental disorder 28. Intoxication, when an excuse 29. Aider may justify same force as person aided 30. Arrest with or without process for crime 31. Arrest, etc., other than for indictable offence 32. Bona fide assistant and correctional officer 33. Bona fide execution of defective warrant or process 34. Reasonable use of force in self-defence 35. Defence of property, possession of right 36.
  • CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R

    [Vol. 102 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW Edwin R. Keedy t GENERAL PRINCIPLES Much has been written on the law of attempts to commit crimes 1 and much more will be written for this is one of the most interesting and difficult problems of the criminal law.2 In many discussions of criminal attempts decisions dealing with common law attempts, stat- utory attempts and aggravated assaults, such as assaults with intent to murder or to rob, are grouped indiscriminately. Since the defini- tions of statutory attempts frequently differ from the common law concepts,8 and since the meanings of assault differ widely,4 it is be- "Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania. 1. See Beale, Criminal Attempts, 16 HARv. L. REv. 491 (1903); Hoyles, The Essentials of Crime, 46 CAN. L.J. 393, 404 (1910) ; Cook, Act, Intention and Motive in the Criminal Law, 26 YALE L.J. 645 (1917) ; Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 HARv. L. REv. 821 (1928) ; Tulin, The Role of Penalties in the Criminal Law, 37 YALE L.J. 1048 (1928) ; Arnold, Criminal Attempts-The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction, 40 YALE L.J. 53 (1930); Curran, Criminal and Non-Criminal Attempts, 19 GEo. L.J. 185, 316 (1931); Strahorn, The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 78 U. OF PA. L. Rtv. 962 (1930); Derby, Criminal Attempt-A Discussion of Some New York Cases, 9 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 464 (1932); Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 CA=. L.J. 230 (1934) ; Skilton, The Mental Element in a Criminal Attempt, 3 U.
  • Peter Rowlands

    Peter Rowlands

    Peter Rowlands YEAR OF CALL: 1990 Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering. Peter is ranked for crime in Chambers UK 2019 and the Legal 500 2019. "A decent and fair opponent who is fazed by nothing." "A wonderful advocate who you can listen to all day, he is great with juries and clients. He's the archetypical jury advocate." CHAMBERS UK, 2021 (CRIME) "His thorough case preparation, unrivalled knowledge of the law and relaxed character enables clients to firstly understand and then thoroughly trust his advice and guidance." LEGAL 500, 2021 (CRIME) "His deft and intelligent cross-examination is a joy to observe." LEGAL 500, 2020 "He defends in gang and organised crime-related cases." LEGAL 500, 2019 Extremely thorough and committed, a skilled tactician and incredibly eloquent." LEGAL 500, 2017 If you would like to get in touch with Peter please contact the clerking team: [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7993 7600 CRIMINAL DEFENCE Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering, including contested confiscation proceedings. He has been mentioned in the Legal 500 as having developed a particular expertise in murder and armed kidnapping cases and has maintained a ranking in Chambers UK Bar Guide for many years.
  • Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15

    Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15

    2021 UNIT SPECIFICATION Title: (Unit 3) Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15 Learning outcomes Assessment criteria Knowledge, understanding and skills The learner will: The learner can: 1. Understand the 1.1 Analyse the general nature of the actus 1.1 Features to include: conduct (including fundamental reus voluntariness, i.e, R v Larsonneur (1933), requirements of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983); criminal liability • relevant circumstances; • prohibited consequences; • requirement to coincide with mens rea. 1.2 Analyse the rules of causation 1.2 Factual causation; • legal causation: situations (for example, in the context of the non-fatal offences or homicide) where the consequence is rendered more serious by the victim’s own behaviour or by the act of a third party; • approaches to establishing rules of causation: mens rea approach; This specification is for 2021 examinations • policy approach; • relevant case law to include: R v White (1910), R v Jordan (1956) R v Cheshire (1991), R v Blaue (1975), R v Roberts (1971), R v Pagett (1983), R v Kennedy (no 2) (2007), R v Wallace (Berlinah) (2018) and developing caselaw. 1.3 Analyse the status of omissions 1.3 Circumstances in which an omission gives rise to liability; • validity of the act/omission distinction; • rationale for restricting liability for omissions; • relevant case law to include: R v Pittwood (1902), R v Instan (1977), R v Miller (1983), Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) Stone & Dobinson (1977), R v Evans (2009) and developing caselaw. 1.4 Analyse the meaning of intention 1.4 S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967; • direct intention; • oblique intention: definitional interpretation; • evidential interpretation; • implications of each interpretation; • concept of transferred malice; • relevant case law to include: R v Steane (1947), Chandler v DPP (1964), R v Nedrick (1986), R v Woollin (1999), Re A (conjoined twins) (2000), R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003), R v Latimer (1886), R v Pembliton (1874), R v Gnango (2011) and developing caselaw.
  • 1661-1700 (Pdf)

    1661-1700 (Pdf)

    1 Scottish Books 1661-1700 (Aldis updated) 1661 1682 Academiæ Edinburgenæ gratulatio, ob serenissimi, augustissimiq; monarchæ Caroli II . Britanniarum, Galliæ & Hiberniæ regis, fidei defensoris, in solium paternum restitutionem, oblate illustrissimo dynastæ, D. Johanni Middiltonio, Middiltonii comiti, clarimontis… 4to. Edinburgh: G. Lithgow, 1661. Wing E165; ESTC R11311 [Voyager 3150808] NLS holdings: Gray.1033(1); UMI 315:01; UMI 428:14 (identified as Wing M1972) Other locations: E U Leighton(fragment) *1682.3 [Act of Committee of Estates, 13 Aug. 1650] West-kirk the 13. day of August, 1650. The Commission of the Generall Assembly considering that there may be just ground of stumbling from the Kings Majesties refusing to subscribe & emit the Declaration offered unto him by the Committee of Estates, and Commissioners of the Generall Assembly concerning his former carriage and resolutions for the future, in reference to the cause of God … . s.sh. Edinburgh: E. Tyler, 1661. Reprint of 1650 edition, Aldis 1395.6 and 1395.7; not recorded by ESTC [Voyager 3771044] NLS holdings: MS.14493, fol.1 Other locations: 1682.5 Act for raising ... 480,000 pound. fol. Edinburgh: E. Tyler, 1661. NLS holdings: Other locations: Private Owner 1683 [Act of Parliament, 1 Feb. 1661] Act of Parliament, against saying of mess [sic], Jesuits, Seminary and Mess [sic] priests, and trafficking papists. At Edinburgh, the first day of February, 1661. s.sh. Edinburgh: E. Tyler, 1661. Wing S1119; Steele 2200; ESTC R183918 [Voyager 2231141] NLS holdings: Ry.1.1.33(13); Mf.SP.133(21); UMI 2710:22 Other locations: Signet Library 1684 [Act of Parliament, 20 Feb.
  • Crimes Act 1961

    Crimes Act 1961

    Reprint as at 1 October 2012 Crimes Act 1961 Public Act 1961 No 43 Date of assent 1 November 1961 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 23 1 Short Title, commencement, etc 23 2 Interpretation 24 3 Meaning of convicted on indictment 31 4 Meaning of ordinarily resident in New Zealand 31 Part 1 Jurisdiction 5 Application of Act 31 6 Persons not to be tried in respect of things done outside 32 New Zealand 7 Place of commission of offence 32 7A Extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of certain offences 32 with transnational aspects 7B Attorney-General’s consent required where jurisdiction 34 claimed under section 7A 8 Jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft 35 beyond New Zealand Note Changes authorised by section 17C of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 have been made in this reprint. A general outline of these changes is set out in the notes at the end of this reprint, together with other explanatory material about this reprint. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Reprinted as at Crimes Act 1961 1 October 2012 8A Jurisdiction in respect of certain persons with diplomatic 37 or consular immunity 9 Offences not to be punishable except under New Zealand 39 Acts 10 Offence under more than 1 enactment 39 10A Criminal enactments not to have retrospective effect 40 10B Period of limitation 40 11 Construction of other Acts 41 12 Summary jurisdiction 41 Part 2 Punishments 13 Powers of courts under other Acts not affected 41 Death [Repealed] 14 Form of sentence in capital cases [Repealed]
  • Criminal Law Robbery & Burglary

    Criminal Law Robbery & Burglary

    Criminal Law Robbery & Burglary Begin by identifying the defendant and the behaviour in question. Then consider which offence applies: Robbery – Life imprisonment (S8(2) Theft Act 1968) Burglary – 14 years imprisonment (S9(1)(a) or S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968) Robbery (S8(1) Theft Act 1968) Actus Reus: •! Stole (Satisfies the AR of Theft) •! Used or threatened force on any person →! R v Dawson – ‘Force’ is a word in ordinary use and it is a matter for the jury in each case to determine whether force had been used (or threatened) – but it need not be significant →! R v Clouden – Force may be applied to someone’s property →! S8(1) Theft Act 1968 – May be in relation to any person, but in regards to 3rd parties, they must be aware of the threat •! Force or threat of force was immediately before or at the time of the theft; and →! R v Hale – If appropriation was continuing and force was used at the time of the theft, the defendants could be guilty of robbery (jury’s decision) •! Force or threat of force was used in order to steal →! R v Vinall – Convictions for robbery were quashed because defendants were not proven to have had an intention to permanently deprive the victim of his property at the point when force was used on the victim Criminal Law Mens Rea: •! MR for Theft i.e. dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive •! Intention as to the use or threat of force Burglary Criminals who are ‘armed’ when they commit an offence of burglary can also face liability for an aggravated offence of burglary under S10 Theft Act 1968.
  • Digest of Terrorist Cases

    Digest of Terrorist Cases

    back to navigation page Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org Digest of Terrorist Cases United Nations publication Printed in Austria *0986635*V.09-86635—March 2010—500 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Digest of Terrorist Cases UNITED NATIONS New York, 2010 This publication is dedicated to victims of terrorist acts worldwide © United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, January 2010. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: UNOV/DM/CMS/EPLS/Electronic Publishing Unit. “Terrorists may exploit vulnerabilities and grievances to breed extremism at the local level, but they can quickly connect with others at the international level. Similarly, the struggle against terrorism requires us to share experiences and best practices at the global level.” “The UN system has a vital contribution to make in all the relevant areas— from promoting the rule of law and effective criminal justice systems to ensuring countries have the means to counter the financing of terrorism; from strengthening capacity to prevent nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological materials from falling into the
  • Criminal Law Act 1967

    Criminal Law Act 1967

    Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1967. (See end of Document for details) Criminal Law Act 1967 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Annotations: Extent Information E1 Subject to s. 11(2)-(4) this Part shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland see s. 11(1) 1 Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. (1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are hereby abolished. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on all matters on which a distinction has previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, including mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences cognisable under the law of England and Wales (including piracy) shall be the law and practice applicable at the commencement of this Act in relation to misdemeanour. [F12 Arrest without warrant. (1) The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person (not previously convicted) may under or by virtue of any enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years [F2(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by 2 Criminal Law Act 1967 (c.
  • “Intoxication in Criminal Law – an Analysis of the Practical Implications of the Ivey V Genting Casinos Case on the Majewski Rule”

    “Intoxication in Criminal Law – an Analysis of the Practical Implications of the Ivey V Genting Casinos Case on the Majewski Rule”

    “Intoxication in Criminal Law – An Analysis of the Practical Implications of the Ivey v Genting Casinos case on the Majewski Rule” Lucy Dougall Introduction The aim of this article is to consider the way intoxication works within criminal law, and how the application can differ depending on the category of the crime. In particular, it considers how the doctrine of intoxication applies to property offences, and how that application may be affected by the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos. Due to the proportion of crimes committed containing an element of intoxication,1 it is important that the law in this area works effectively and consistently, in order for all members of the public to understand their legal position. Specifically, the law should be fair on defendants but also should be interpreted in a way that protects public safety. There have been numerous debates 2 amongst academics about the intoxication doctrine, and whether it works in the way that protects the people it should. Within England and Wales, many offenders commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol, making the law surrounding intoxication something of considerable importance. According to the March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales3; victims of violent incidents believed that the offenders were under the influence of alcohol in 47% of cases 4. Despite the vast amount of alcohol related violent incidents, there seems to have been a decreasing number over the last ten years. Violent incidents in general have also decreased suggesting the
  • CHAPTER 155 THEFT Amended By: Law Revision Orders the Following

    CHAPTER 155 THEFT Amended By: Law Revision Orders the Following

    CHAPTER 155 THEFT 1992-29 This Act came into operation on 1st September, 1994 by Proclamation (S.I. 1994 No. 75). Amended by: This Act has not been amended Law Revision Orders The following Law Revision Order or Orders authorized the insertion and removal of pages as the case may be under the Law Revision Act Cap.2 now repealed: 1993 2002 LAWS OF BARBADOS CUMULATIVE EDITION 2008 Printed by the Government Printer, Bay Street, St. Michael, by authority of the Government of Barbados Supplement to Official Gazette No. dated , CHAPTER 155 THEFT 1992-29 Arrangement of Sections CITATION 1. Short title INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions PART I DISHONEST ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 3. Theft 4. “Dishonestly” 5. “Appropriates” 6. “Belonging to another” 7. “With the intention of permanently depriving the other of that property” Stealing with force or with the threat of force etc. 8. Robbery and assault with intent to rob THE LAWS OF BARBADOS Printed by the Government Printer, Bay Street, St. Michael by the authority of the Government of Barbados 4 THEFT Blackmail, fraud and other offences 9. Blackmail 10. Criminal deception 11. Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception 12. Obtaining services by deception 13. Evading liability by deception 14. Making off without payment 15. Falsifying accounts and documents 16. Liability of directors, officers and members of a body corporate 17. False statements by directors, etc. of a body corporate or unincorporated association 18. Destruction or concealment etc. of documents Offences relating to stolen property 19. Handling stolen property 20. Advertising reward for return of property stolen or lost 21.
  • Court Teasers

    Court Teasers

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. I } i ~ \ 1 COURT TEASERS Practical Situations Arising in Magistrates· Courts BY MILES McCOLL, Solicitor Clerk to the Leigh Justices ~....m_;q_r------ SB~ 0-85992-155-7 1978 C.M. McColl Published by Barry Rose (Publishers) Ltd. Little London, Chichester West Sussex Printed by The Southern Post Ltd. London Road, Bognor Regis, Sussex Criminal Law Act 1977 All provisions, except s.47, of this Act which are referred to in the text were brought into force on or before July 17 1978. ,Any reference in the text to 'an indictable offence dealt with summarily' should be construed as the summary trial of an offence triable either-way. Any reference to 'indictable offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or triable either-way. Any reference to a 'summary offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable only summarily. 'Offence triable either-way' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable either on indictment or summarily. (C.L. A. , 1977, s.64). iii ~~~---------.---------~----- --------------~--~-- t f; t t PREFACE t·" ~! I Although most magistrates are, by virtue of their office, lay persons, they must at all times be aware of the kind of problems which occur in their courts, in order to do justice to their important judicial appointment. In this booklet I have tried to set out in question-and-answer form, examples of the types of situation which often give cause for concern in magistrates' courts solely because the words of the relevant statutes or the decisions of the appeal courts are not closely followed.