DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 195 CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN REGULATORY CONTEXTS A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission 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 Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor Jeremy Horder and Miss Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is: Mr Mark Ormerod CB. Address for correspondence: Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ. Topic of this consultation This consultation paper deals with the use of the criminal law in regulatory contexts, and with some aspects of corporate criminal liability. A summary of the main points can be found in Part 1. Scope of this consultation The purpose of this consultation is to generate responses to our provisional proposals. Geographical scope The contents of this consultation paper refer to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment An impact assessment is included. Previous engagement N/A. Duration of the consultation We invite responses to our provisional proposals and questions from 25 August 2010 to 25 November 2010. How to respond Send your responses either – By email to: [email protected] OR By post to: address above. Tel: 020-3334-0271 / Fax: 020-3334-0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format). After the consultation In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to Parliament. We hope to publish our report by Spring 2012. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve any changes to the law. Code of Practice We are a signatory to the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation and carry out our consultations in accordance with the Code criteria (set out on the next page). Freedom of information We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we may attribute comments and include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. If you wish to submit a confidential response, you should contact us before sending the response. PLEASE NOTE – We will disregard automatic confidentiality statements generated by an IT system. Availability of this consultation paper You can view/download it free of charge on our website at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp195.pdf. iii CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION THE SEVEN CONSULTATION CRITERIA Criterion 1: When to consult Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. Criterion 2: Duration of consultation exercise Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible Criterion 3: Clarity and scope of impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Criterion 4: Accessibility of consultation exercises Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach. Criterion 5: The burden of consultation Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained. Criterion 6: Responsiveness of consultation exercises Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation. Criterion 7: Capacity to consult Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. CONSULTATION CO-ORDINATOR The Law Commission’s Consultation Co-ordinator is Phil Hodgson. You are invited to send comments to the Consultation Co-ordinator about the extent to which the criteria have been observed and any ways of improving the consultation process. Contact: Phil Hodgson, Consultation Co-ordinator, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ – Email: [email protected] Full details of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation are available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/better-regulation/consultation-guidance. iv THE LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN REGULATORY CONTEXTS CONTENTS Paragraph Page 1.1 1 PART 1: REGULATION, BUSINESSES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY 1.1 1 Our terms of reference 1.3 2 What our terms of reference mean for this project The origins of the project 1.3 2 Regulation and criminal liability 1.9 3 The background to the main part of the project 1.17 5 Increasing numbers of criminal offences 1.17 5 Bureaucratic bodies and criminal law-making 1.19 5 Criminal laws created, but then little used 1.25 7 Our provisional proposals and questions 1.28 8 General principles: the limits of criminalisation 1.28 8 General principles: avoiding pointless overlaps between 1.38 10 offences General principles: structure and process 1.44 11 General principles: fault in offences supporting a 1.52 13 regulatory structure Doctrines of criminal liability applicable to businesses 1.60 14 The doctrine of identification 1.62 14 A general defence of due diligence 1.68 15 The consent and connivance doctrine 1.81 17 The delegation doctrine 1.88 18 2.1 20 PART 2: REGULATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST OFFENCES Criminal law and regulation 2.1 20 The role of public interest offences 2.3 20 Regulation and public interest offences 2.3 20 Comparing driving and car ownership, and 2.10 22 cycling and bicycle ownership The example of knife crime 2.21 25 Conclusion on public interest offences 2.24 26 v Paragraph Page 3.1 27 PART 3: CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND REGULATION Introduction: is there simply too much criminal law? 3.1 27 Our approach in brief 3.2 27 Two quick fixes assessed 3.16 29 Is it simply a question of numbers? 3.16 29 A general category of administrative offence? 3.21 31 Against a general administrative offence 3.28 32 regime Criminal proceedings and regulatory law 3.38 35 A procedural understanding of criminal offences 3.38 35 Should criminal offences and regulatory offences be 3.43 36 distinguished? The use of the criminal law in regulatory contexts 3.52 39 Context 1: truancy and the Education Act 1996 3.53 39 The regulatory element 3.54 39 The statutory offences 3.56 40 The relationship of the regulatory element to the 3.67 42 statutory offences Our analysis 3.70 43 Context 2: illegal use of migrant workers 3.72 44 The traditional single offence approach 3.73 44 The modified approach 3.77 45 Our analysis 3.82 46 Context 3: promoting product safety 3.83 46 Offences and defences in the Consumer 3.84 47 Protection Act 1987 Regulatory intervention under the Consumer 3.89 48 Protection Act 1987 Two approaches to relating regulation to criminal 3.97 50 law The compliance argument, in relation to 3.103 52 European law Our analysis 3.109 53 Overlapping, duplication and placement of offences 3.113 54 Attempts to commit crimes 3.115 54 Assisting and encouraging crime 3.121 55 Fraud and fraud-like offences 3.123 56 Inappropriate placement of offences 3.129 58 Lessons from the examples 3.136 59 General principles: the limits of criminalisation 3.137 59 General principles: avoiding pointless overlaps between 3.140 60 offences General principles: structure and process 3.142 60 The limits of criminalisation: when, and by whom, should criminal 3.144 60 offences be created? Appearance and reality 3.146 61 vi Paragraph Page Conclusion 3.155 62 Appealing against regulatory measures 3.159 63 4.1 67 PART 4: CONSISTENCY AND PRINCIPLE IN USING FAULT ELEMENTS Fault and the role of the criminal law in regulation 4.1 67 Moral wrongdoing and harm 4.6 68 Criminal wrongdoing and moral wrongdoing 4.6 68 Criminal wrongdoing and harm 4.19 70 General considerations 4.19 70 Is it crucial how much harm, or risk of harm, was 4.26 71 involved? Risk-based offences 4.33 73 How useful really is the harm principle? 4.39 74 The element of moral wrongdoing in criminal wrongdoing 4.41 74 Fault requirements that reflect moral wrongdoing 4.41 74 Proportionate fault elements and criminalisation 4.57 78 Proportionality illustrated: (not) providing information 4.62 79 The significance of the issue 4.62 79 A principled approach 4.67 80 The Pensions Act 2004 4.69 80 The Local Transport Act 2008 4.70 81 The Medicines Act 1968 4.72 81 The Eggs and Chicks Regulations 2008 4.74 82 The Education and Skills Act 2008 4.78 83 Conclusion 4.81 84 Securing consistency in all regulatory contexts 4.82 84 5.1 86 PART 5: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE STATUS OF THE IDENTIFICATION DOCTRINE Introduction 5.1 86 The identification doctrine 5.8 88 The emergence of the identification doctrine in common law 5.13 89 Liability for mens rea offences: before the identification 5.14 89 doctrine Origins of the identification doctrine 5.14 89 The 1944 cases: personal criminal liability for companies 5.16 89 Director of Public Prosecutions v Kent & Sussex 5.17 90 Contractors Ltd R v ICR Haulage Ltd 5.21 90 Moore v I Bresler Ltd 5.25 91 Development of the doctrine 5.30 92 Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass 5.34 93 The facts 5.35 94 vii Paragraph Page The decision 5.38 94 Commentary 5.45 96 After Nattrass 5.48 96 R v Andrews Weatherfoil
Load more

Recommended publications
  • the Defence of All Reasonable Care I. Canadian
    294 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW [VOL. XVIII, NO. 2 . THE DEFENCE OF ALL REASONABLE CARE . even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.1 I. CANADIAN AUTHORITY Prior to May 1978, there was no clear Canadian authority recognizing the existence of a defence of all reasonable care. For some offences it was necessary that the Crown prove affirmatively beyond a reasonable doubt a mens rea, that is, an intent to commit the offence. For other offences, sometimes called offences of strict or absolute liability, the Crown did not have to prove mens rea, but merely the actus reus. There was no sure and certain method of determining whether an offence was in the first category or the second.2 For example, in R. v. Pierce Fi,sheries3 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that mens rea or proof of knowledge was not required to convict on a charge of having possession of undersized lobsters contrary to regulations made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 119. But the same court decided that possession of a drug without knowing what it was is no offence.4 In May 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada, with Dickson J. writing for a unanimous court, clearly defined a new category of strict liability offences. This new category does not require the Crown to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. It allows the defendant to exculpate himself by showing on a balance of probabilities that he took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.5 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Dictionary T
    Leach’s Tax Dictionary. Version 9 as at 5 June 2016. Page 1 T T Tax code Suffix for a tax code. This suffix does not indicate the allowances to which a person is entitled, as do other suffixes. A T code may only be changed by direct instruction from HMRC. National insurance National insurance contribution letter for ocean-going mariners who pay the reduced rate. Other meanings (1) Old Roman numeral for 160. (2) In relation to tapered reduction in annual allowance for pension contributions, the individual’s adjusted income for a tax year (Finance Act 2004 s228ZA(1) as amended by Finance (No 2) Act 2015 Sch 4 para 10). (3) Tesla, the unit of measure. (4) Sum of transferred amounts, used to calculate cluster area allowance in Corporation Tax Act 2010 s356JHB. (5) For the taxation of trading income provided through third parties, a person carrying on a trade (Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 s23A(2) as inserted by Finance (No 2) Act 2017 s25(2)). (6) For apprenticeship levy, the total amount of levy allowance for a company unit (Finance Act 2016 s101(7)). T+ Abbreviation sometimes used to indicate the number of days taken to settle a transaction. T$ (1) Abbreviation: pa’anga, currency of Tonga. (2) Abbreviation: Trinidad and Tobago dollar. T1 status HMRC term for goods not in free circulation. TA (1) Territorial Army. (2) Training Agency. (3) Temporary admission, of goods for Customs purposes. (4) Telegraphic Address. (5) In relation to residence nil rate band for inheritance tax, means the amount on which tax is chargeable under Inheritance Tax Act 1984 s32 or s32A.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Industry Act 1991
    Page 1 Water Industry Act 1991 1 of 6 DOCUMENTS: UK Parliament Acts/W/WA-WG/Water Industry Act 1991 (1991 c 56)/Part III Water Supply (ss 37-93)/39 Procedure for regulations under section 38 39 Procedure for regulations under section 38 [(A1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under section 38 above-- (a) on an application by the Authority, in accordance with subsections (1) to (3) below; or (b) otherwise than on such an application, in accordance with subsections (4) to (8) below.] (1) [Where the Authority has made to the Secretary of State a written application complying with sub- section (2) below, the Secretary of State may make regulations under section 38 above if--] [(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that a copy of the application has been served by [the Au- thority]-- (i) on every water undertaker specified in the application; . (ii) on persons or bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons likely to be affected by the regulations; [(iii) on the Council; and (iv) on such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate;]] (c) such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate has been allowed for the making-- (i) by [the Authority]; and (ii) by any affected water undertaker [or person or body on whom a copy of the application has been served under paragraph [(b)] above], of representations or objections with respect to [the Authority's] proposals and any modifications pro- posed by the Secretary of State; and (d) the Secretary of State has considered [the summary mentioned in subsection (2)(bb) below,] [the Authority's] reasons for [its] proposals and every representation or objection which has been duly made with respect to those proposals, or any proposed modifications of those proposals, and has not been withdrawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing Act 2003 (C
    Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) 1 SCHEDULE 1 – Provision of regulated entertainment Document Generated: 2021-09-13 Changes to legislation: Licensing Act 2003 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 13 September 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 1 Section 1 PROVISION OF REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT PART 1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS The provision of regulated entertainment 1 [F1(1) For the purposes of this Act, the “provision of regulated entertainment” means the provision of entertainment of a description falling within paragraph 2 where the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) are satisfied.] (2) The first condition is that the entertainment is F2... provided— (a) to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public, (b) exclusively for members of a club which is a qualifying club in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment, or for members of such a club and their guests, or (c) in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit. [F3(3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned to take place.] [F4(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c), entertainment is to be regarded as provided for consideration only if any charge— (a) is made by or on behalf of any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment, and (b) is paid by or on behalf of some or all of the persons for whom that entertainment is provided.] (5) In sub-paragraph (4), “charge” includes any charge for the provision of goods or services.
    [Show full text]
  • UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION Law No. 25/2008 of 5 June Establishing The
    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION Law No. 25/2008 of 5 June Establishing the preventive and repressive measures for the combat against the laundering of benefits of illicit origin and terrorism financing, transposing into the domestic legal system Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council, of 26 October 2005, and Directive 2006/70/EC, of the Commission, of 01 August 2006, relating to the prevention of the use of the financial system and of the specially designated activities and professions for purposes of money laundering and terrorism financing, first amendment to Law No. 52/2003 of 22 August, and revoking Law No. 11/2004, of 27 March The Assembly of the Republic decrees, pursuant to Article 161 c) of the Constitution, the following: CHAPTER I General provisions SECTION I Subject matter and definitions Article 1 Subject matter 1- This Law establishes preventive and repressive measures to combat the laundering of unlawful proceeds and terrorism financing and transposes into Portuguese law Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26th October 2005 and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1st August 2006 on the prevention of the use of the financial system and designated non-financial businesses and professions for the purpose of money laundering and terrorism financing. 2- Money laundering and terrorism financing are prohibited and punishable in accordance with the procedures established by the applicable criminal law. Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Law the following shall mean: 1) «Entities
    [Show full text]
  • Groups, Governance and the Development of UK Alcohol Policy: an Adversarial Policy Communities Approach
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Repository of Birkbeck Institutional Theses Groups, governance and the development of UK alcohol policy: An Adversarial Policy Communities Approach Gareth Paul Barrett A thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Birkbeck, University of London January 2020 1 Declaration of Work I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the University of London is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. 2 Abstract The governance of UK alcohol policy looks like a textbook case of decision-making by a closed community of policymakers and industry insiders, but this thesis challenges this view. Drawing on Jordan and Richardson’s policy communities approach and Dudley and Richardson’s later work on adversarial policy communities, it examines the complex development of UK alcohol policy using archival sources, government and pressure group reports, news releases and historic media coverage going back over a century. The primary focus of this research is Westminster, but the importance of subnational policy communities is also considered through an examination of Scottish alcohol policy development. Through case studies of four key areas of UK alcohol policy – licensing, drink- driving, pricing and wider alcohol strategies – this thesis finds that the governance of UK alcohol policy is formed within policy communities, but ones that are much less closed and much more adversarial than traditionally thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation of Crypto Assets
    Taxation of Crypto Assets Edited by Niklas Schmidt Jack Bernstein Stefan Richter Lisa Zarlenga Published by: Kluwer Law International B.V. PO Box 316 2400 AH Alphen aan den Rijn The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Website: lrus.wolterskluwer.com Sold and distributed by: Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S. 7201 McKinney Circle Frederick, MD 21704 United States of America Email: [email protected] Printed on acid-free paper. ISBN 978-94-035-2350-7 e-Book: ISBN 978-94-035-2351-4 web-PDF: ISBN 978-94-035-2352-1 © 2021 Niklas Schmidt, Jack Bernstein, Stefan Richter & Lisa Zarlenga All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Permission to use this content must be obtained from the copyright owner. More information can be found at: lrus.wolterskluwer.com/policies/permissions-reprints-and-licensing Printed in the United Kingdom. Editors Jack Bernstein is the Senior Tax Partner at Aird & Berlis LLP in Toronto and Chair of the firm’s International Tax practice. Jack is well known in international tax planning, mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructuring, reorganizations and financing. He is experienced in dealing with public and private corporations and has advised hedge funds, venture capital funds and real estate funds. He also has extensive experience in advising high-net-worth private clients on international, cross-border and domestic estate and tax planning. An authority on multijurisdictional matters and a prolific writer and speaker, Jack regularly contributes to leading tax publications globally, including Tax Notes International.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Common Charge Options for State Offences
    TABLE OF COMMON CHARGE OPTIONS FOR STATE OFFENCES A PRACTITIONERS’ GUIDE FOR THE EAGP SCHEME The Public Defenders Last updated 8 March 2019 Users’ guide, notes and acknowledgements The purpose of this document and a disclaimer • This document has been prepared as a resource designed to assist lawyers, whether defence or prosecution, involved in negotiations under the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea legislation. • You should always undertake your own research into the particular offences and provisions which may be relevant to any case you are working on. This document is a guide only and should be treated as a starting point for your consideration of appropriate offences. • Further and importantly, this document refers to the current versions of offences, maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods. You should always refer to the version of the legislation applicable at the time of any alleged offence. Because changes to sexual assault offences are so recent, we have included the most recently repealed offences for your convenience. • Please ensure you are working from the latest version of this document available from the Public Defenders’ website. The date of the most recent update is on the title page. • Please bear in mind that this document does not include any Commonwealth offences. Commonwealth offences might be alternatives to, for example, child pornography, grooming and procuring, money laundering, terrorism and drug offences. • Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the correctness of information in this Table, please be reminded of the Disclaimer pertaining to all information on the website of Public Defenders, Department of Justice NSW at: https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/copyright-disclaimer.aspx Acknowledgments This Table has been prepared by the Public Defenders with assistance and input from Legal Aid NSW and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW, initially as part of the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea Working Party 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Consequences at Sentencing
    Update on Criminal Inadmissibility Peter Edelmann1 Division 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) sets out the various grounds of inadmissibility along with a number of evidentiary and procedural matters. This paper will focus on the grounds of criminal inadmissibility set out in section 36. It will not address the related grounds of inadmissibility such as those under sections 34(security), 35 (international crimes) and 37 (organized criminality), each of which would provide ample material for a lengthy paper on their own. Section 36 sets out the grounds that render individuals inadmissible for criminality. The most fundamental distinction in s.36 is between criminality and serious criminality. Criminality, as described in s.36(2), only affects foreign nationals: A36 (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament; (c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or (d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Finance Bill Resolutions 3Rd March 2021 1
    Notes on Finance Bill resolutions 3rd March 2021 1. Income tax (charge) Provides for income tax to be charged for the 2021-22 tax year. 2. Income tax (main rates) Provides for the main rates of income tax for the 2021-22 tax year. 3. Income tax (default and savings rates) Provides for the default and savings rates of income tax for the 2021-22 tax year. 4. Income tax (starting rate limit for savings) Provides for the starting rate limit for savings for the 2021-22 tax year to remain at £5,000. 5. Basic rate limit and personal allowance (future years) Authorises the Finance Bill to make provision (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters that may be included in Finance Bills) taking effect in a future year for each of the following amounts to remain at the amount specified for the tax year 2021-22 — (a) the amount specified in section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (basic rate limit), and (b) the amount specified in section 35(1) of that Act (personal allowance). 6. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial years 2022 and 2023) Authorises the Finance Bill to contain provision (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) for the charging of corporation tax, and for setting the main rate of corporation tax, for the financial years 2022 and 2023. 7. Corporation tax (small companies rate) Authorises the Finance Bill to make provision (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) taking effect in a future year — (a) charging corporation tax at a rate lower than the main rate on profits not exceeding a specified amount, (b) reducing the amount of corporation tax chargeable in cases where profits exceed that amount but do not exceed a higher specified amount, and (c) amending Chapter 3A of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (corporation tax rates on ring fence profits).
    [Show full text]