DOCSLIB.ORG

Conspiracy and Attempts Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conspiracy and Attempts Consultation The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 183 CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTS A Consultation Paper 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 Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC Professor Martin Partington CBE is Special Consultant to the Law Commission responsible for housing law reform. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 17 September 2007, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 31 January 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we will include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response. We will disregard automatic confidentiality disclaimers generated by an IT system. This consultation paper is available free of charge on our website at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/conspiracy.htm THE LAW COMMISSION CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTS CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART 1: CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT: THE NEED FOR LAW 1.1 1 REFORM Introduction 1.1 1 Setting this paper in context 1.1 1 General considerations 1.2 1 Law Com No 300 1.8 3 Previous recommendations 1.8 3 Part 2 of the Serious Crime Bill 1.12 4 A key problem in the law of conspiracy 1.18 5 The definition of statutory conspiracy 1.18 5 The problem raised by the decision in Saik 1.20 6 The ambiguous requirement that criminality ‘necessarily’ 1.25 8 be involved Summary of our provisional proposals for the fault element in 1.31 9 conspiracy Two alternatives 1.34 10 Other problems with the law of conspiracy 1.38 10 What must be intended by conspirators 1.38 10 Defences to and exemptions from liability as a conspirator 1.41 11 Spousal immunity 1.42 11 Co-conspirator is a child under the age of criminal 1.45 12 responsibility Co-conspirator is a victim of an intended offence 1.49 13 Crime prevention and acting reasonably 1.51 13 Procedural and jurisdictional issues 1.63 16 Consent to prosecute conspiracy 1.63 16 Indictments alleging conspiracy 1.66 17 Extra-territorial application 1.69 17 A key problem in the law of attempt 1.70 17 Our provisional proposal: the offence of ‘attempt’ 1.77 19 Our provisional proposal: the offence of ‘criminal preparation’ 1.78 19 Other problems with the law of attempt 1.79 19 The fault element in attempt 1.79 19 The respective roles of judge and jury 1.83 20 Omissions 1.85 20 Summary offences 1.87 20 iii Paragraph Page An issue relevant to both conspiracy and attempt 1.90 21 “Double inchoate” liability 1.90 21 Attempting (or criminally preparing) to conspire 1.93 21 Structure of the paper 1.100 23 PART 2: THE RATIONALE OF THE CONSPIRACY OFFENCE 2.1 25 Is ‘pure’ conspiracy effectively redundant as an offence? 2.2 25 The arguments for conspiracy being an unnecessary offence 2.2 25 Counter-arguments 2.4 26 Conspirators, accomplices and the changing nature of 2.4 26 police intervention The special threat posed by two or more people deciding 2.11 28 to commit an offence Procedural and evidential considerations 2.20 31 The increasing prevalence of conspiracy-related offences 2.22 32 Conclusion 2.33 35 PART 3: THE COMMON LAW OF CONSPIRACY AND THE 3.1 36 ROLE OF THE LAW COMMISSION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATUTORY CONSPIRACY Introduction 3.1 36 Early development of the law of conspiracy 3.2 36 The fault element at common law 3.4 36 The common law requirement that the parties must intend 3.4 36 the agreement to be carried out The common law requirement of knowledge as to 3.9 37 circumstances Recommendations of the Law Commission leading to the Criminal 3.14 39 Law Act 1977 Recommendations as to fault 3.15 39 Fault as to circumstance and consequences 3.17 39 Law Com No 300 3.20 40 Other recommendations 3.22 40 The Criminal Law Act 1977 3.26 41 The Draft Criminal Code 1989 3.27 41 Fault as to the circumstance element of the substantive 3.31 43 offence Procedural 3.32 43 Exemptions from liability 3.33 43 Spousal immunity 3.34 43 Conspiracy with a child under the age of criminal 3.35 44 responsibility Conspiracy with intended victim 3.36 44 Assisting or encouraging conspiracy 3.37 44 iv Paragraph Page Conspiracy to incite 3.38 44 PART 4: THE FAULT ELEMENT FOR CONSPIRACY 4.1 45 A summary of our provisional proposals 4.1 45 A preliminary issue: the distinction between the conduct, 4.6 46 consequence and circumstance element Proposal 1: An agreement to engage in criminal conduct and to 4.16 48 bring about criminal consequences Proposal 2: The need for each conspirator to intend that the 4.22 49 conduct and consequence element (if any) occur The decision in Anderson 4.26 50 An alternative approach to the problem addressed in 4.31 52 Anderson The meaning of intention under section 1(1) of the 1977 Act 4.34 52 Proposal 3: The fault element in relation to circumstances 4.42 54 A brief summary of the existing law and its flaws 4.42 54 Illustrating proposal 3 in relation to particular crimes 4.50 56 Criminal damage 4.51 56 Handling stolen goods 4.53 57 Comparing the two examples above 4.54 57 The modern law of rape: a test case for our proposal 4.57 58 More detailed analysis of the problems with the existing law 4.64 60 Sakavickas 4.65 60 Saik 4.70 62 Lord Nicholls 4.77 63 Lord Hope (with whom Lord Brown agreed) 4.85 64 Problems with the current law as stated in Saik 4.91 66 ‘Wilful blindness’ and knowledge in American and 4.94 66 English courts American courts 4.94 66 English courts 4.100 68 Is section 1(2) too narrow? 4.107 69 Our proposal 4.113 71 Definition of recklessness 4.114 71 First requirement 4.116 72 Second requirement 4.119 73 Comparison with the approach in the Serious Crime Bill 4.124 74 Proposal 4: Fault as to the circumstance element higher than 4.133 77 recklessness Question 1: Should fault in relation to the circumstance element be 4.136 77 narrower than recklessness? Question 2: Should the circumstance fault element be the same for 4.145 79 conspiracy as for the substantive offence? v Paragraph Page The analogy with the fault element in attempts to commit 4.150 80 crimes PART 5: CONDITIONAL INTENT IN CONSPIRACIES 5.1 84 Introduction 5.1 84 Conditional intent in conspiracy 5.4 84 The basic principle: a conditional intent satisfies the fault 5.4 84 element Applying the basic principle to attempt cases 5.8 86 Conditions said to undermine the existence of a 5.13 87 conspiracy Must conspirators agree on a course of conduct that ‘necessarily’ amounts to or involves the commission of a 5.18 88 criminal offence? Agreements to engage in conduct ‘even if’ it involves 5.23 90 committing a crime PART 6: CHARGING CONSPIRACIES OF CONDITIONAL 6.1 92 INTENT OR CONSPIRACIES WHERE DIFFERENT SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCES ARE CONTEMPLATED Introduction 6.1 92 Summary of conclusions 6.3 92 The former indictment rules 6.4 93 The new indictment rules 6.7 93 Reasons for the rule against duplicity 6.12 95 The reason that we consider that a single count of conspiracy to 6.21 97 commit more than one offence did not breach the former rule against duplicity Roberts 6.25 99 The decision of the Court of Appeal 6.25 99 Comments on Roberts 6.32 100 The ‘either/or’ conspiracy 6.34 101 Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2003) 6.35 102 The facts 6.35 102 Suchedina 6.39 103 Circumstances In which the compendious count is justified 6.44 104 Conclusion 6.49 104 Our proposal 6.56 106 Further procedural issues 6.57 106 The requirement of consent from the Director of Public 6.58 106 Prosecutions for the prosecution of conspiracy to commit a summary offence vi Paragraph Page Background: a different approach to conspiracy to commit 6.58 106 summary offence Four options for conspiracy to commit a summary offence 6.61 107 Should conspiracy to commit a summary offence itself become a 6.68 108 summary offence? PART 7: CONSPIRACY AND DOUBLE INCHOATE LIABILITY 7.1 109 Introduction 7.1 109 Assisting and encouraging a conspiracy 7.22 112 Introduction 7.22 112 The current law 7.23 112 Our previous proposals and recommendations 7.24 112 Working Paper No 50 7.24 112 Law Com No 76 7.25 112 Law Com No 177 7.26 113 Law Com No 300 7.27 113 Policy concerns 7.29 114 Arguments against an offence of assisting and 7.29 114 encouraging a conspiracy Arguments in favour of an offence of assisting and 7.31 115 encouraging a conspiracy Attempting (or criminal preparing) conspiracy 7.36 116 The current law 7.37 116 Our previous proposals and recommendations 7.38 117 Working Paper No 50 7.38 117 Law Com No 76 7.39 117 Law Com No 177 7.40 117 Policy concerns 7.41 118 Arguments against an offence of attempting (or criminally 7.41 118 preparing) to conspire Arguments in favour of providing for an offence of 7.46 118 attempting (or criminally preparing) to conspire Our questions 7.57 122 PART 8: DEFENCES 8.1 123
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Criminal Procedure in England and the United States: Comparisons in Initiating Prosecutions
    Fordham Law Review Volume 49 Issue 1 Article 8 1980 Criminal Procedure in England and the United States: Comparisons in Initiating Prosecutions Irving R. Kaufman Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Digital Par t of the Law Commons Commons Network Recommended Citation Logo Irving R. Kaufman, Criminal Procedure in England and the United States: Comparisons in Initiating Prosecutions, 49 Fordham L. Rev. 26 (1980). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol49/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Criminal Procedure in England and the United States: Comparisons in Initiating Prosecutions Cover Page Footnote Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Chief Judge (1973-1980). District Court Judge (1949-1961) and Assistant United States Attorney (1935-1940) in the Southern District of New York. Chairman of the Executive Committee and former President of the Institute of Judicial Administration. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol49/iss1/8 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES: COMPARISONS IN INITIATING PROSECUTIONS IRVING R. KAUFMAN* THE legal institutions of Great Britain have long served as the well-spring of American law. In drafting the Federal Constitution, the framers embellished British conceptions of a government of sepa- rated powers,' and drew on the enactments of Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rationale of Criminal Negligence Roy Mitchell Moreland University of Kentucky
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 32 | Issue 2 Article 2 1944 A Rationale of Criminal Negligence Roy Mitchell Moreland University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Moreland, Roy Mitchell (1944) "A Rationale of Criminal Negligence," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 32 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol32/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A RATIONALE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (Continued from November issue) RoY MOREL A D* 2. METHODS Op DESCRIBING THE NEGLIGENCE REQUIRED 'FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY The proposed formula for criminal negligence describes the higher degree of negligence required for criminal liability as "conduct creating such an unreasonable risk to life, safety, property, or other interest for the unintentional invasion of which the law prescribes punishment, as to be recklessly disre- gardful of such interest." This formula, like all such machinery, is, of necessity, ab- stractly stated so as to apply to a multitude of cases. As in the case of all abstractions, it is difficult to understand without explanation and illumination. What devices can be used to make it intelligible to judges and juries in individual cases q 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]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Term for Cheating on Wife
    Legal Term For Cheating On Wife Is Vassili regular or crackpot after concupiscent Noe generate so awhile? Affordable Gordie untidies very round while Spike remains unbreeched and inspired. How peristomatic is Preston when hard-fisted and prepubescent Wit cackle some underbridge? The unsatisfied spouse cheated on discrimination is attorney for worry, wife on incurable insanity of up until they help When your spouse must be responsible for me at times, the terms favorable settlement. Cultural factors are legal questions are legal term. The intensity that in the outcome of the obligation. You from your letter, on legal term for cheating wife was the dependent spouse wins! We are legal action for legal cheating on wife. Child custody of legal term adultery is something to have terms you ask for you from voluntarily engages in this url into account. Focusing on your spouse cheats does not carry out. This is for spousal support. Imagine your reality, but a number of a petition seeking a person other. To legal term for my wife must show his. If you cheated with someone cheating wife cheats his legal term for adultery, is natural to you and think about outside in terms of. He finishes the similarities between a divorce case law may change their own home to a cheating on wife for legal term relationship to one of trust and pay in the original concept. If one does adultery laws that, it makes people cheat on your marital property. This cheating wife cheats his affection is termed in terms have. That one of. Our sleeves and harmony with your wife cheated with a relationship, emotional infidelity is.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • Victoria Police Force
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -----~~. -------~ ., .-., )\ '.;.. I t· (J ;f// '. ~\ i:.· .. Ii' ::1)" ,1-,';'" \. .ti} r.? ~, : .. j",C::::i r[. o "1 ~ . I o .~ '\ o 1I .-v,. \ 'i~.. , I\' " '; o l~ I ,zl ." I ·t• r? /I. :/ ,"; o ... 1: --- -~--~~----::-- --"... ··~,-,-.-·"~ ... ·l'~""-,.v.~ -. ::1{-~'~'"':~:':~""""----"" ~ .. < ~~, - - ~ 'l • ,~-'-'-"-----<+.-~-~~'~"' "I) VICTORIA t " POLICE ANNUAL I'· J( REPORT .~, 1981 ) '. (,I C .. U.S. Department 01 Justice 86657 National Institute of Justice This document has been exactly from the reproduc~d af~;eceived \ .\ person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or polic).es of the National Institute of i 11 i Justice. I Permissioh to reproduce this copyrighted material has been ! granted by (. ! <I I. Victoria Police Department i I I to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). f,p I Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner, I i " ~',) ~ a ,-- -- ~ __~F""-'-- - ~- ~-- -~- --­ VICTORIA r , I ,I . i Report and Financial Statement of the VICTORIA POLICE FORCE for the Year ended 31 Decenlber 1981 Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed ", ,.,.d ..' , .' : ' . , \ , \ ACQUISHTnONS '. MELBOURNE F D ATKINSON GOVERNMENT PRINTER 1982 No. 22 Preceding I a . page blank 10 f t f " ... The Hon. C.R. T. Mathews, M.P., Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Parliament House, MELBOURNE Dear Minister, I have pleasure in submitting to you, for the information of Parlia­ ment, the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud
    CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 228 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 228) CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Item 5 of the Fourth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law Laid before Parliament bj the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to sc :tion 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 December 1994 LONDON: 11 HMSO E10.85 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 A. Background to the report 1. Our work on conspiracy generally 1.2 1 2. Restrictions on charging conspiracy to defraud following the Criminal Law Act 1977 1.8 3 3. The Roskill Report 1.10 4 4. The statutory reversal of Ayres 1.11 4 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 104 1.12 5 6. Developments in the law after publication of Working Paper No 104 1.13 6 7. Our subsequent work on the project 1.14 6 B. A general review of dishonesty offences 1.16 7 C. Summary of our conclusions 1.20 9 D.
    [Show full text]
  • July 25, 2019 NACDL OPPOSES AFFIRMATVE CONSENT
    July 25, 2019 NACDL OPPOSES AFFIRMATVE CONSENT RESOLUTION ABA RESOLUTION 114 NACDL opposes ABA Resolution 114. Resolution 114 urges legislatures to adopt affirmative consent requirements that re-define consent as: the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact, to provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances . The word “assent” generally refers to an express agreement. In addition the resolution dictates that consent must be “expressed by words or actions.” The resolution calls for a new definition of consent in sexual assault cases that would require expressed affirmative consent to every sexual act during the course of a sexual encounter. 1. Burden-Shifting in Violation of Due Process and Presumption of Innocence: NACDL opposes ABA Resolution 114 because it shifts the burden of proof by requiring an accused person to prove affirmative consent to each sexual act rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent. The resolution assumes guilt in the absence of any evidence regarding consent. This radical change in the law would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Presumption of Innocence. It offends fundamental and well-established notions of justice. Specifically, Resolution 114 urges legislatures to re-define consent as “the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact, to provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances .
    [Show full text]
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law
    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
    [Show full text]