DOCSLIB.ORG

Annex 4: Reforming the Advocates' Graduated Fee Scheme Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Annex 4: Reforming the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme consultation Band Range (where Current Offence Band (where category depends on Offence Act Class Proposed New Category band is certain) other factors) Murder of persons aged 1 yr or over Common Law A 1 1,2 or 3 Murder of persons under 1yr of age Common Law A 1 1,2 or 3 Manslaughter Common Law A 1 1, 2 or 4 Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec 5 Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Sec 1(1) H* 1 1 Conspiracy to commit murder Criminal Law Act 1977 Sec 1 A 1 2 Child Destruction Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Sec 1 A 1 2 Infanticide Infanticide Act 1938 Sec 1(1) A 1 2 Soliciting to commit murder Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec 4 A 1 3 Criminal Law Act 1977 Sec1 Encouraging or assisting in the commission of an Serious Crime Act 2007 S.45(pt) H* As per encouraged offence either way offence beleiving it will be committed Encouraging or assisting in the commission of an Serious Crime Act 2007 S.45(pt) H* As per encouraged offence indictable offence beleiving it will be committed [NOT MURDER] Encouraging or assisting in the commission of Serious Crime Act 2007 S.45(pt) H* As per encouraged offence MURDER beleiving it will be committed Encouraging or assisting in the commission of Serious Crime Act 2007 S.46(pt) H* As per encouraged offence one or more either way, or indictable offences (other than murder) beleiving it/they will be committed Encouraging or assisting in the commission of Serious Crime Act 2007 S.46(pt) H* As per encouraged offence one or more offences of MURDER beleiving one or more will be committed TEW Offences Al-Qaida and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) H* 2 2 Regulations 2010 Knowingly & intentionally participate in activities Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 to circumvent an Article 7 or 8 prohibition. S.10. Fail to comply with a condition attached to an Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 Article 7 or 9 exemption licence S.11. Contravene prohibition on disclosure on Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 information. S.6. Contravene prohibition on dealing with Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 funds/economic resources. S.7. Contravene prohibition on making available Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 funds/economic resources. S.8. Knowingly/recklessly give any Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 information/produce any document which is false Sch.1 para4(b). in a material particular to Treasury. With intent to evade provisions of Schedule 1, Al-Qaida and Taliban (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 destroy/mutilate/deface/conceal /remove any Sch.1 para4(d). document. Failure to comply with prohibition imposed by Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 Sch 3 H* 2 2 order; engages in an activity knowing or intending paras 2, 3, 7 that it will enable or facilitate the commission by another person of an offence under para 2 sch 3 Person discloses any information in Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 2 contravention of direction made under Section 18 18(6) Occupier fails to comply with any duty or Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 Sec 67 H* 2 2 direction imposed on him by or under Part 7; person knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading TEW - Regulations made under Part 8 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 H* 2 2 S.77(2)(d)(3)(a) Use of noxious substances or things to cause Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 2 harm and intimidate 113 Use etc. of nuclear weapons Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 1 47 Weapons related acts overseas Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 2 50 Prohibition of disclosures – national security Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 2 79(3) Prohibition of disclosures – uranium enrichment Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec H* 2 2 technology 80(3) Hoaxes involving noxious substances or things Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 H* 2 2 Sec114 Hijacking Aviation Security Act 1982 Sec 1, 6 H* 2 1 Hijacking, destroying or damaging Channel Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 Articles 4, H* 2 1 Tunnel train or system 5, 7, 8 Channel Tunnel Act 1987 Sec 1(7)) Offences relating to chemical weapons Chemical Weapons Act 1996 (except Secs 2 & H* 2 1 11) Premises or equipment for producing chemical Chemical Weapons Act 1996 Sec 11 H* 2 1 weapons Use of chemical weapons Chemical Weapons Act 1996 Sec 2 H* 2 1 Knowingly or recklessly providing false Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 Sch.7 para.31 H* 2 2 information or a document to obtain grant of an exemption license Manufacturing a scheduled substance Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act B 2 2 1990 Sec 12 Supplying a scheduled substance to another Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act B 2 2 person 1990 Sec 12 Conspiring in the UK to commit offences Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act I 2 1 overseas 1998 Sec 5 Torture Criminal Justice Act 1988 Sec 134 H* 2 1 Possession of explosives with intent to endanger Explosive Substances Act 1883 Sec 3(1)(b) A 2 1 life Making/having explosive substance under Explosive Substances Act 1883 Sec 4 (1) B 2 1 suspicious circumstances Prevention and punishment of the crime of Genocide Act, 1969 Sec 1(1) H* 2 1 genocide making funds available in contravention of a Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000 [SI H* 2 2 treasury license issued under Article 5 2000/3241] Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of N Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 Sec H* 2 2 offences 54A Placing explosives in or near buildings with intent Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec 30 B 2 1 to do bodily harm Making or possessing explosives etc. with intent Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec 64 C or A 2 1 Explosive Substances Act 1883 Secs 3 Spying, wrongful communication etc. Official Secrets Act 1911 H* 2 1 Piracy with violence Piracy Act 1837 Sec 2 H* 2 2 Piracy Piracy Acts 1698 - 1721 & Piracy Act 1837 Sec 3 H* 2 2 Obstructing rights of entry and inspection Radioactive Substances Act 1960 Sec 12(1) H* 2 2 Detaining and threatening to kill or injure a Taking of Hostages Act 1982 Sec 1 B 2 1 hostage Participate in activity object/effect to circumvent Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 S.10 & H* 2 2 Art 7(1)/8(1) prohibition enable/facilitate Art 7/8 13(1). offence. Make a statement/furnish a Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 document/information which is false in a material S.11(5)&13(2). particular to obtain a Treasury licence. Gives false information or documents or Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 S.13(2) H* 2 2 destroys, mutilates, etc, documents. Sch.1 p4(b)(d). Disclose without lawful authority confidential Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 information provided by the Treasury. S.6(5)&13(2). Not under authority of a licence dealt with Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 S.7(3) & H* 2 2 funds/economic resources belonging 13(1). to/owned/held by an Art 7(2) person. Make funds/economic resources/financial Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 H* 2 2 services available directly to/indirectly to/for the S.8(3)&13(1). benefit of Art 7(2) person. Tipping off - regulated sector - disclosure of Terrorism Act 2000 S.21D(1), (3) & (4) H* 2 2 S.21D(2) matters or that investigations into allegation of offence committed is being considered Eliciting publishing or communicating information Terrorism Act 2000 S58A(1)(a) & (b) B 2 2 about members of armed forces etc Failure to disclose knowledge gained in the Terrorism Act 2000 Sec 21A as added by H* 2 2 course of business Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sc2 Failure to disclose information about acts of Terrorism Act 2000 Sec 38BA as added by H* 2 2 terrorism Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Sec 117 Public order offences in relation to terrorism Terrorism Act 2000 Secs 11, 15-19, 22, 39, 54 B 2 2 and 56-59 Receive instruction/training for terrorism. Terrorism Act 2006 6(2)(5). H* 2 1 Publish/cause another to publish a statement Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 1. H* 2 1 intending to/recklessly encouraging terrorism. In course of/in connection with commission / Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 10 H* 2 1 purposes of terrorism use/damage nuclear facility to cause release / ask of release of radioactive material Use radioactive device/material in the course of / Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 10 H* 2 1 in connection with commission /purposes of terrorism Terrorist make demand relating to Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 11 H* 2 1 devices/materials/facilities Terrorist make threat to use radioactive Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 11 H* 2 1 device/material Give/sell/lend/offer for sale/offer for loan a Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 2(2)(b)(c) & 11. H* 2 2 terrorist publication. Provide service re reading/listening to a terrorist Terrorism Act 2006 Sec 2(2)(d) & 11. H* 2 1 publication. Transmit contents of a terrorist publication.
Recommended publications
  • Bill Digest: Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution

    Bill Digest: Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution

    Bill Digest | Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution-Blasphemy Bill 2018 1 Bill Digest Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 Bill No. 87 of 2018 Roni Buckley, Parliamentary Researcher (Law) Monday, 23 July 2018 Abstract The Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of the offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 proposes the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution by way of referendum. Under the current framework the Constitution provides that the offence of blasphemy is punishable according to law. The Defamation Act 2009 defines the offence and provides that a person shall be liable upon conviction on indictment for a maximum fine of €25,000. This Digest sets out recent events and controversies relating to blasphemy; assesses its historical and legislative development as well as relevant case-law. Finally, the Digest provides a comparative analysis with European and international countries. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest 2 Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Proposed Amendment ................................................................................................................. 4 Definition of Blasphemy ............................................................................................................... 4 Reviews of the offence
  • After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy

    After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy

    Law Text Culture Volume 5 Issue 1 Law & The Sacred Article 3 January 2000 After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy M. Casey Catholic Diocese, Melbourne A. Fischer H. Ramsay Catholic Diocese, Melbourne Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc Recommended Citation Casey, M.; Fischer, A.; and Ramsay, H., After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy, Law Text Culture, 5, 2000. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol5/iss1/3 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy Abstract In the latest academic apologia for the antics of bad boy photographer Andres Serrano, Damien Casey attempts to portray him as not only a great liberal artist, but as a great Christian theologian too. One suspects Serrano is laughing up his sleeve at the ease with which such 'postmodern' thinking can be grafted on to the support of his iconoclasm. Casey rehearses some of the standard liberal excuses -- though with no fresh argument -- and then settles down to some more novel points concerning theology, Scripture and society. We will give some treatment of his standard liberal case first, then turn ot Casey's more original contributions, and finally comment on the current state of the law regarding this issue. This journal article is available in Law Text Culture: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol5/iss1/3 Law & The Sacred: After Serrano Ethics, Theology and the Law of Blasphemy Michael Casey, Anthony Fisher OP & Hayden Ramsay In the latest academic apologia for the antics of bad boy photographer Andres Serrano, Damien Casey attempts to portray him as not only a great liberal artist, but as a great Christian theologian too.
  • 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]
  • Canadian Blasphemy Law in Context: Press, Legislative, and Public Reactions Jeremy Patrick

    Canadian Blasphemy Law in Context: Press, Legislative, and Public Reactions Jeremy Patrick

    Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 9 2010 Canadian Blasphemy Law in Context: Press, Legislative, and Public Reactions Jeremy Patrick Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Patrick, Jeremy (2010) "Canadian Blasphemy Law in Context: Press, Legislative, and Public Reactions," Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol16/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Patrick: Canadian Blasphemy Law CANADIAN BLASPHEMY LAW IN CONTEXT: PRESS, LEGISLATIVE, AND PUBLIC REACTIONS JEREMY PATRICK† I. INTRODUCTION Canada has always outlawed blasphemy. From the earliest days of the New France period, through the era of “Upper” and “Lower” Canada, past Confederation and the eventual enactment of the original Criminal Code, and still today, blasphemy has been considered a criminal offence in the Canadian legal system.1 However, this prohibition, whether expressed through common law or statute, has rarely been enforced through actual prosecution.2 In the 117 years since the Criminal Code was enacted, its prohibition on blasphemous libel has been enforced only five times in reported cases.3 A study of the Criminal Code provision and these five prosecutions provides valuable information on the legal treatment of blasphemy throughout Canadian history.
  • Violence Against the Person

    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.
  • Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws

    Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws

    RESPECTING RIGHTS? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM A gavel is seen in a hearing room in Panama City April 7, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESPECTING RIGHTS? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws By Joelle Fiss and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum JULY 2017 WWW.USCIRF.GOV COMMISSIONERS Daniel Mark, Chairman Sandra Jolley, Vice Chair Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Vice Chair Tenzin Dorjee Clifford D. May Thomas J. Reese, S.J. John Ruskay Jackie Wolcott Erin D. Singshinsuk Executive Director PROFESSIONAL STAFF Dwight Bashir, Director of Research and Policy Elizabeth K. Cassidy, Director of International Law and Policy Judith E. Golub, Director of Congressional Affairs & Policy and Planning John D. Lawrence, Director of Communications Sahar Chaudhry, Senior Policy Analyst Elise Goss-Alexander, Researcher Andrew Kornbluth, Policy Analyst Tiffany Lynch, Senior Policy Analyst Tina L. Mufford, Senior Policy Analyst Jomana Qaddour, Policy Analyst Karen Banno, Office Manager Roy Haskins, Manager of Finance and Administration Travis Horne, Communications Specialist This report, containing data collected, coded, and analyzed as of June 2016, was overseen by Elizabeth K. Cassidy, J.D., LL.M, Director of International Law and Policy at the U.S. Commis- sion on International Religious Freedom. At USCIRF, Elizabeth is a subject matter expert on international and comparative law issues related to religious freedom as well as U.S. refugee and asylum policy.
  • Suspicious Perinatal Death and the Law: Criminalising Mothers Who Do Not Conform

    Suspicious Perinatal Death and the Law: Criminalising Mothers Who Do Not Conform

    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Milne, Emma (2017) Suspicious perinatal death and the law: criminalising mothers who do not conform. PhD thesis, University of Essex. [Thesis] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/22816/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
  • Suspicious Perinatal Death and the Law: Criminalising Mothers Who Do Not Conform

    Suspicious Perinatal Death and the Law: Criminalising Mothers Who Do Not Conform

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Middlesex University Research Repository Suspicious perinatal death and the law: criminalising mothers who do not conform Emma Milne A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Essex 2017 Acknowledgements ii Acknowledgements There are a number of people who have made this PhD possible due to their impact on my life over the course of the period of doctoral study. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks. First and foremost, my parents, Lesley and Nick Milne, for their constant love, friendship, care, commitment to my happiness, and determination that I will achieve my goals and fulfil my dreams. Secondly, Professor Jackie Turton for the decade of encouragement, support (emotional and academic) and friendship, and for persuading me to start the PhD process in the first place. To Professor Pete Fussey and Dr Karen Brennan, for their intellectual and academic support. A number of people have facilitated this PhD through their professional activity. I would like to offer my thanks to all the court clerks in England and Wales who assisted me with access to case files and transcripts – especially the two clerks who trawled through court listings and schedules in order to identify two confidentialised cases for me. Professor Sally Sheldon, and Dr Imogen Jones who provided advice in relation to theory. Ben Rosenbaum and Jason Attermann who helped me decipher the politics of abortion in the US. Michele Hall who has been a constant source of support, information and assistance.
  • Legislation Title

    Legislation Title

    FALKLAND ISLANDS _____________ Crimes Ordinance 2014 (No: 13 of 2014) ARRANGEMENT OF PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1 – PRELIMINARY PART 1 – PRELIMINARY AND INTERPRETATION Section 1. Title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART 2 – GENERAL PRINCIPLES Criminal liability 3. Age of criminal responsibility 4. Inferences as to intent 5. Automatism Offences committed outside the Falkland Islands 6. Offences committed partly outside the Falkland Islands 7. Offences to which sections 8 to 13 apply 8. Jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences 9. Questions immaterial to jurisdiction in the case of certain offences 10. Rules relating to the location of events 11. Conspiracy and encouraging 12. Extended jurisdiction in relation to certain attempts 13. Relevance of external law Alternative verdicts 14. Conviction of offence other than that charged 1 15. Person tried for offence may be convicted of ancillary offence Miscellaneous 16. Proceedings by and against spouses 17. Application of Ordinance to corporations 18. No requirement for corroboration PART 3 – ANCILLARY OFFENCES Attempts 19. Attempts generally 20. Application of procedural and other provisions to offences of attempt 21. Procedural rules 22. Effect of sections 19 to 21 on common law Conspiracy 23. Conspiracy 24. Conspiracy to commit offences outside the Falkland Islands 25. Exemptions from liability 26. Penalties 27. Restrictions on the commencement of proceedings 28. Conspiracy under other enactments 29. Effect of acquittal of other defendant 30. Abolitions, savings, transitional provisions Encouragement of offences 31. Offence of encouragement 32. Proving an offence under section 31 33. Supplemental provisions 34. Defences 35. Jurisdiction 36. Extended jurisdiction in certain cases 37. Commencement of proceedings, etc. for an offence 38.
  • Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems with the U.N

    Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems with the U.N

    Emory International Law Review Volume 35 Issue 2 2021 Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems with the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech Meghan Fischer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Meghan Fischer, Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems with the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, 35 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 177 (2021). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol35/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FISCHER_3.22.21 3/23/2021 4:02 PM HATE SPEECH LAWS AND BLASPHEMY LAWS: PARALLELS SHOW PROBLEMS WITH THE U.N. STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH Meghan Fischer* ABSTRACT In May 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General introduced the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, an influential campaign that poses serious risks to religious and political minorities because its definition of hate speech parallels elements common to blasphemy laws. U.N. human rights entities have denounced blasphemy laws because they are vague, broad, and prone to arbitrary enforcement, enabling the authorities to use them to attack religious minorities, political opponents, and people who have minority viewpoints. Likewise, the Strategy and Plan of Action’s definition of hate speech is ambiguous and relies entirely on subjective interpretation, opening the door to arbitrary and malicious accusations and prosecutions.
  • Domestic Abuse Bill

    Domestic Abuse Bill

    Domestic Abuse Bill AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON REPORT __________________ After Clause 68 BARONESS KENNEDY OF THE SHAWS Insert the following new Clause— “Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases (1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”. (3) In subsection (6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”. (4) After subsection (8F) insert— “(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where— (a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self- defence, (b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse, and (c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to in paragraph (b). (8H) Subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, a history of conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).” (5) In subsection (9) after “householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.” Member’s explanatory statement This Clause seeks to clarify the degree of force which is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse alleged to have used force against their abuser.
  • Under What Circumstances, If Any, Should Lies Be Made Criminal? Bryan H

    Under What Circumstances, If Any, Should Lies Be Made Criminal? Bryan H

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 101 | Issue 2 Article 5 Spring 2011 The rC iminalization of Lying: Under What Circumstances, If Any, Should Lies Be Made Criminal? Bryan H. Druzin Jessica Li Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Bryan H. Druzin and Jessica Li, The Criminalization of Lying: Under What Circumstances, If Any, Should Lies Be Made Criminal?, 101 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 529 (2013). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol101/iss2/5 This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/11/10102-0529 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 101, No. 2 Copyright © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. THE CRIMINALIZATION OF LYING: UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, SHOULD LIES BE MADE CRIMINAL? BRYAN H. DRUZIN∗ & JESSICA LI** This Article argues that lying should be a crime. In doing so, we propose the creation of a wholly new category of crime, which we term “egregious lying causing serious harm.” The Article has two broad objectives: the first is to make the case why such a crime should even exist, and the second is to flesh out how this crime might be constructed. The main contribution of the Article lies in the radical nature of its stated aim: the outright criminalization of certain kinds of lies.