Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:52:27.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FIXING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CONCEPT OF CRIME: THE CHALLENGE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Audrey Guinchard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In England and Wales, as elsewhere, criminal law stands in sharp contrast to other systems of social control. Criminal offences and their related penalties are clearly distinguishable from civil wrongs and their associated (civil) sanctions. And because the term ‘civil law’ refers not only to the domain of torts, but also encompasses administrative law, criminal penalties are, in addition, distinguished from the administrative or regulatory sanctions. This ‘distinction between criminal and civil justice has been such a basic feature of the common law’1 that it shapes not only substantive law but also the organization of the courts into civil, criminal and sometimes administrative chambers or divisions. More importantly, the distinction between civil and criminal sanctions will lead to the application of different procedural rules: civil proceedings, used for the imposition of civil sanctions, are less stringent that their criminal counterpart applied when the offender faces a criminal sanction. This more gentle approach can be detected in both the burden and standard of proof.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments, and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 719 - 734
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘[F]or so long that it might be tempting to regard it as eternal’ Baker, JHAn Introduction to English Legal History (4th edn Butterworths London 2002) 570–1.Google Scholar

2 On the importance of methodology, to avoid projecting concepts foreign to the object of study, De Cruz, PComparative Law in a Changing World (Cavendish London 1999) 213.Google Scholar

3 The French version of Sunday Times v UK does not indeed translate ‘contempt of court’ otherwise than by ‘mépris à la cour’ which is not an offence in French Law. ECHR 26 Apr 1979, Series A, vol 30.Google Scholar

4 Fletcher, GBasic Concepts of Criminal Law (OUP Oxford 1998) 3Google Scholar. Cf in procedure, the failed attempt by the European Committee on Crime Problems to collect information on reconviction rates. European Committee on Crime Problems European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics (Council of Europe Strasbourg 1999) n 28 at 180Google Scholar. See Bottomley, A Keith ‘Monitoring and understanding criminal justice. Statistics, Research and Evaluation’ in McConville, M and Wilson, G (eds) The Handbook of The Criminal Justice Process (OUP Oxford 2002) 549, 564–6.Google Scholar

5 Cartuyels, YD'oú vient le code pénal? Une approche généalogique des premiers codes pénaux absolutistes au XVIIIe siècle (Where does the Penal Code come from? A genealogical survey of the first penal codes in XVIII c. in absolutist states) (Presse Montréal 1996).Google Scholar

6 See Pradel, JDroit pénal comparé, (2nd edn Dalloz Paris 2002) 179–85.Google Scholar

7 Smith, and Hogan, , Criminal Law (10th edn Butterworths London 2002) 15Google Scholar; G Fletcher, above p 25. Bouloc, BDroit pénal général (19th edn Dalloz Paris 2005) 22 para 28Google Scholar; Conte, P and du Chambon, P MaistreDroit pénal général, (6th edn Armand Colin Paris 2002) 49 n 76Google Scholar; Leroy, JDroit pénal général (LGDJ Paris 2003) 24 n 25Google Scholar; 70, 101.

8 Uglow, SCriminal justice (Sweet & Maxwell London 2002) 23–5.Google Scholar

9 See the courts' interpretation of the Criminal Act of 29 July 1881 on defamation, in respect to Art 1382 of the Civil Code, eg Civ. 2e 15 Apr 1999 Bull civ II n. 73; also Beignier, BL'honneur et le droit (LGDJ Paris 1998)Google Scholar; Mayaud, YLe mensonge en droit pénal (L'Hermes Lyon 1979) 299.Google Scholar

10 Smith, and Hogan, , Criminal Law 736, esp nn 6, 7, and 8.Google Scholar

11 Swedish Engine Drivers' Union v Sweden 6 Feb 976 Series A vol 20, para 37; Vermeire v Belgium, 29 11 1991, Series A, vol 214-C para 26.Google Scholar

12 Swedish Engine Drivers' Union, para 50; Observer and Guardian v UK, 26 Nov 1991, Series A, vol 216, para 59 (c); Harris, DJ, O'Boyle, M, and Warbrick, C.Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Butterworths London 1995) 24–5Google Scholar; Rouhette, G ‘Brèves remarques sur l'application de l'article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme’ (1997) Justices 63, 64.Google Scholar

13 LordQuester, QC ‘UK acceptance of the Strasbourg Jurisdiction: what really went on in Whitehall in 1965’ [1998] PL 237.Google Scholar

14 In order to resolve uncertainty or ambiguity in a statutory provision, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696. See also Hunt, M, Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Hart Publishing Oxford 1997) 127, 297.Google Scholar

15 See para 9.Google Scholar

16 In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4), CA 26 July 2001 [2002] 1 WLR 269, 276 para 17.Google Scholar

17 Ashworth, A ‘Article 6 and the Fairness of trials’ [1999] Crim L Rev 261.Google Scholar

18 For a comprehensive review, Professor Smith, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998: the Constitutional Context’ in The Human Rights Act and the criminal justice and regulatory process (Hart Publishing Oxford 1999) 4.Google Scholar; Ph Thomas, A ‘The Human Rights Acts 1998: ready, steady, go?’ (2001) 35 The Law Teacher n 3 360CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raine, J and Walker, C ‘Implementing the Human Rights Act into the Courts in England and Wales: Culture Shift or Damp Squib?’ in Halliday, S and Schmidt, P (ed) Human Rights Brought Home. Socio-Legal Perspectives on Human Rights in the National Context (Hart Publishing Oxford 2004) 111.Google Scholar

19 Porter v Magill, QBD, 19 12 1997, 30 HLR 997, Lexis-Nexis; Hogson v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, VATD, 16 Oct 1996, Lexis-Nexis.Google Scholar

20 Hogson v Commissioners of Customs & Excise.Google Scholar

21 Hamilton & Forest, HL, 18 June 1981 [1981] AC 1038.Google Scholar

22 Ex parte Tarrant (Divisional Court) 1983 [1985] 1 QB 251 at 296; Ex parte Hone & McCartan HL [1988] 1 AC 379; R v Corby Justices Ex p Mort QBD 9 Mar 1998 [1998] RVR 283, Lexis-Nexis.Google Scholar

23 For more details, see Clayton, R and Tomlinson, HThe Law of Human Rights (OUP Oxford 2000) ch 1, s C (in particular para 1.35) and s F (para 1.88–1.89) and for fair trial rights, see ch 11, sB.Google Scholar

24 See esp Hunt, MUsing Human Rights Law in English Courts (Hart Publishing Oxford 1997) 31–4, 196–205.Google Scholar

25 Ex parte Hone & McCartan at 394.Google Scholar

26 G Rouhette 64.Google Scholar

27 And English Law in general. On pre-implementation expectations, see, eg, J Raine and C Walker ‘Implementing the Human Rights Act into the Courts in England and Wales: Culture Shift or Damp Squib?’ above 117–20.Google Scholar

28 R v Kearns CA 22 Mar 2002 [2002] 1 WLR 2815, 2002 EWCA Crim 748; Attorney General's Reference (No 7 of 2000) CA 29 Mar 2001 [2001] 1 WLR 1879, [2001] EWCA Crim 888.Google Scholar

29 Brown v Stott (Procurator fiscal, Dunfermline) and another, Privy Council, 5 Dec 2000, [2001] 2 WLR 817; Millar v Dickson, Payne v Heywood, Stewart v Heywood, Tracey v Heywood, Privy Council 24 July 2001 [2002] 1 WLR 1615, [2001] HRLR 1401.Google Scholar

30 Regina v A(no 2) (HL) 17 May 2001, [2001] 2 WLR 1546; R v D (CA) 3 May 2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 990, [2002] 3 WLR 997.Google Scholar

31 R v D (CA) 3 May 2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 990, [2002] 3 WLR 997.Google Scholar

32 HM Advocate and another v R 28 Nov 2002 Privy Council, [2003] 2 WLR 317, [2002] UKPC D3.Google Scholar

33 R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R v.Durham Constabulary (QB) 29 Nov 2002 [2003] 1 WLR 897, [2002] EWHC 2486 (Admin).Google Scholar

34 Montgomery v HM Advocate and another, Coulter v HM Advocate and another, Privy Council, 19 Oct 2000 [2001] 2 WLR 779; R v Lambert, R v Ali, R v Jordan (CA) 31 July 2001 [2001] 2 WLR 211; R v Oates (CA) 25 Apr 2002 [2002] 1 WLR 2833, [2002] EWCA Crim 1071.Google Scholar

35 R v P (HL) 11 Dec 2001, [2001] 2 WLR 463; R v Lambert, R v Ali, R v Jordan (CA) 31 July 2001 [2001 ] 2 WLR 211; R v Cairns and others (CA) 22 Nov 2002 [2003 1 WLR 796, [2002] EWCA Crim 2838.Google Scholar

36 R v Carass, 19 Dec 2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 2845, [2002] 1 WLR 1714.Google Scholar

37 A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, X and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 25 Oct 2002 (CA) [2003] 2 WLR 564, [2002] EWCA Civ 1502.Google Scholar

38 L v Director of Public Prosecutions, QB, [2001] EWHC Admin 882, [2002] 3 WLR 863.Google Scholar

39 International Transport Roth GmbH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA), 22 Feb 2002 [2002] 3 WLR 344, EHRLR 2003, 1, 14–23.Google Scholar

40 Balbir Singh Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (CA) 11 Apr 2003, 2003 WL 18922922, (2003) SJLB 507; David Goldsmith v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (QBD Adm.) 25 Apr 2001, 2001 WL 415552, (2001) 165 JP 517.Google Scholar

41 Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading (Napp 4), 15 Jan 2002 [2002] ECC 13, 2002 WL 498841 (Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal).Google Scholar

42 Han & Yau v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (CA Civ) 3 July 2001 [2001] HRLR 54; N Ali and S Begum (T/A Shapla Tandoori Restaurant) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise 30 May 2002, 2002 WL 1310948 (VAT and Duties Tribunal London Tribunal Centre).Google Scholar

43 CA Brooks v Ministry of Defence, QBD, Mar 2002, 2002 WL 347008; existence of a criminal charge will later be assumed, R v Spear and others, R v Saunby and others, (HL) 18 July 2002 [2002] 3 WLR 437.Google Scholar

44 R v Benjafield, R v Rezvi, (HL) 24 Jan 2002 [2002] 2 WLR 235 and the previous cases before the Court of Appeal.Google Scholar

45 R (McCann and others) v Crown Court at Manchester and another, Clingham v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (HL) 17 Oct 2002 [2002] 3 WLR 1313.Google Scholar

46 B v Chief Constalble of Avon and Somerset Constabulary (QBD) 5 Apr 2000 [2001] 1 WLR 340.Google Scholar

47 Gough and another v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary, R (Miller) v Leeds Magistrates' Court, Lilley v Director of Public Prosecutions, (QBD Adm) 13 July 2001 [2001] 3 WLR 1392, [2001] EWHC Admin 554; Gough and another v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary(CA) 20 Mar 2002 [2002] 3 WLR 289, [2002] EWCA Civ 351.Google Scholar

48 [2002] 1 WLR 545, 558, para 34.Google Scholar

49 See in particular, International Transport Roth GmbH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA); Han & Yau; N Ali and S Begum; King v Walden (Ch D) 2001 WL 513115, [2001] STC 822.Google Scholar

50 See in particular, International Transport Roth GmbH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA); Han & Yau; N Ali and S Begum; King v Walden (Ch D) 2001 WL 513115, [2001] STC 822.Google Scholar

51 LJ, BrownInternational Transport Roth GmbH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA), [2002] WLR 344, 360.Google Scholar

52 No claim on Art 6: Russell v Home Office (QBD) 2 Mar 2001, 2001 WL 272933, Art 3 ECHR para 194; Watson v Chief Constable of Cleveland (CA) 12 Oct 2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1547, 2001 WL 1135173; Kiam v MGN Ltd (CA), 28 Jan 2002, para 21 (Art 10 ECHR), [2003] QB 281, [2002] 3 WLR 1036; Design Progression Ltd v Thurloe Properties Ltd (Ch D) 25 Feb 2004 [2004] EWHC 324 [2005] 1 WLR 1; Borders (UK) Ltd v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (CA) 3 March 2005 [2005] EWCA Civ 197, 2005 WL 460699.Google Scholar

53 Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd, 12 Oct 2001 [2002] 1 WLR 1192.Google Scholar

54 Han & Yau; N Ali and S Begum; King v Walden (Ch.D) 2001 WL 513115, [2001] STC 822.Google Scholar

55 Notably concerning the two domains of prisoners' rights and discipline in the army, see R (West) v Parole Board (CA), [2002] EWCA Civ 1641, [2002] 1 WLR 705; Spear and others, R v Saunby and others.Google Scholar

56 Ali & Begum case.Google Scholar

57 Fleurose v The Securities & Futures Authority Ltd (CA) 21 Dec 2001 [2001] EWCA Civ 2015. Interestingly enough, one party argues for a criminal charge by citing French case law (thereafter n 68).Google Scholar

58 See n 20.Google Scholar

59 Marie, CEJCP 1995 II 22426, note Lascombe, M and Bernard, F.Google Scholar

60 Discussion starts in the early 1990s: in favour of Art 6, Flauss, J-F, AJDA 1993, 488Google Scholar; Pralus-Dupuy, J ‘L'article 6 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et les contentieux de la répression disciplinaire’ RSC 1995, 723Google Scholar, and ‘Les tendances contemporaines de la représsion disciplinaire’ RSC 2000 545Google Scholar. In disfavour Dugrip, O ‘L'application de l'article 6 de la CEDH aux juridictions administratives’ RUDH 1991 336Google Scholar; Maugue, Ch and Chwartz, RAJDA 1992, 790.Google Scholar

61 See Couvrat, P ‘Le régime disciplinaire des détenus depuis le décret du 2 avril 1996’ RSC 1996 709.Google Scholar

62 Poncela, P, ‘Le chantier du droit de l'exécution des peines est ouvert’ RSC 2000, 887Google Scholar and ‘La procédure disciplinaire carcérale dans la tourmente’ RSC 2001 872, 873Google Scholar; Cartier, M-E ‘La judiciarisation de l'exécution des peines’ RSC 2001 87Google Scholar; Couvrat, P ‘Le difficile passage du gué. De la décision d'administration judiciaire à la décision juridictionnelle’ RSC 2001 425.Google Scholar

63 For a more general view on the subject, see M Madsen ‘France, the UK, and the “Boomerang” of the Internationalisation of Human Rights (1945–2000)’ in Human Rights Brought Home. Socio-Legal Perspectives on Human Rights in the National Context (Hart Publishing Oxford 2004) 57 esp 72–84.Google Scholar

64 CC 28 07 1989, DC 89–260.Google Scholar

65 CC 19 01 1989, DC 88–248.Google Scholar

66 CC 29 12 1989 DC 89–268; 28 Dec 1990 DC 90–285; 30 Dec 1997 DC 97–395.Google Scholar

67 Below n 87.Google Scholar

68 Com 9 04 1996, Haddad, Bull IV 115; Ass PI 5 Feb 1999, Oury, Bull Inf C cass 15 Apr 1999 3.Google Scholar

69 CE 1 03 1991 Le Cun, RFDA 1991, 612; 4 May 1998, Rec 192. Reversed in CE 3 Dec 1999, Didier, D 2000, 62, obs M BoizardGoogle Scholar

70 CE 19 Nov 1999, Rec 366; CE 3 Dec 1999, Caisse de credit mutuel de Bain-Tresboeuf JCP 2000 II 10 267; CE 27 Mar 2000, RFDA 2001–6, 1260. Comp. CE 3 Dec 1999 Didier JCP 2000 n 10 267 which was approved by the European Court, ECHR 27 Aug 2002 Didier v France.Google Scholar

71 CE Avis 8 July 1998, Fattel, Dr fisc 1998, 842; CE 28 July 1999, AJDA 1999, 783, obs Fombeur, P and Guyomar, M Les Petites Affiches 8 Dec 1999, 9, concl J-Cl Bonichot.Google Scholar

72 ECHR 24 Feb 1994, Bendenoun v France, Series A, vol 284, para 47Google Scholar

73 CE Avis 5 Apr 1996, Houdmond; CE 28 July 1999, Mumm, GIEJouet, Perrier, Petites, Les Affiches 1999, n 244, 9, concl Bonichot. But CE 22 Nov 2000, Sté Crédit Agricole Indosuez Cheuvreux, JCP 2001 n 10 531.Google Scholar

74 CE Avis 4 Apr 1997, Jammet, D. 1997 IR 125, Dr fisc 1997, 660.Google Scholar

75 Crim 20 June 1996 Bull 268, D. 1997 n 249; Crim 11 Dec 1997, Drpen 1998 comm 5.Google Scholar

76 Com 29 Apr 1997, Ferreira, JCP 1997 H 22 935, note Sudre.Google Scholar

77 Engel v The Netherlands 8 June 1976 Series A vol 22, para 82(4).Google Scholar

78 Neumeister v Austria 27 June 1968 Series A vol 8, p 41, para 18; Engel paras 80–2; reaffirmed notably in Öztürk v Germany 21 Feb 1984 Series A vol 73, para 48–50, and Campbell & Fell v the United Kingdom 28 June 1984 Series A vol 80, para 68, Escoubet v Belgium 28 Oct 1999 para 33 and 35.Google ScholarOvey, Cl ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Criminal Lawyer: an Introduction’ [ 1998] Crim LR 4, 7.Google ScholarFeldman, DCivil liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales (2nd ednOUP Oxford 2002) 52.Google Scholar

79 See Ovey, Cl 7–8.Google Scholar

80 Para 80Google Scholar

81 Engel para 82; Garyfallou para 32.Google Scholar

82 25 Apr 1978, Series A, vol 26 para 31.Google Scholar

83 R v Hull Prison Board of Visitors exp St Germain, 3 Oct 1978 [ 1979] 1 A11ER. 701Google Scholar

84 Campbell and Fell, paras 37 and 70.Google Scholar

85 Öztü;rk para 53.Google Scholar

86 Engel para 82; Campbell para 71.Google Scholar

87 Öztü;rk para 53.Google Scholar

88 ibid para 53; Bendenoun para 47; Lutz v Germany 25 Aug 1987 Series A vol 123 para 54.Google Scholar

89 Engel para 82(4).Google Scholar

90 Öztü;rk para 53.Google Scholar

91 Campbell and Fell para 68(b).Google Scholar

92 Deweer para 44.Google Scholar

93 ‘[ i] n any event, the indications so afforded by the national law have only a relative value’ Campbell & Fell, para 71 see para 68(a).Google Scholar

94 For France, Bendenoun (tax evasion), Malige (road traffic penalty) 23 Sept 1998 Reports 1998-VH; for the UK, Benham (non-payment of poll tax) 10 June 1996 Reports 1996-III; Campbell & Fell (disciplinary offences in prison); for disciplinary offences in the army, Findlay 25 Feb 1997 Reports 1997-I, Coyne, 24 Sept 1997 Reports 1997-V; Moor & Gordon, and Smith (two cases) 29 Sept 1999 (disciplinary offences in the army). For Art 7 ECHR: Welch v UK 9 Feb 1995 Series A vol 307-A; Jamil v France, 8 June 1995, Series A vol 317-B.Google Scholar

95 Campbell and Fell para 71.Google Scholar

96 Deweer, para 44.Google Scholar

97 Bendenoun para 45. For Germany, Öztürk paras 46 and 49; Greece, Garyfallou para 29.Google Scholar

98 Campbell and Fell para 72(3).Google Scholar

99 Engel para 84.Google Scholar

100 Campbell and Fell para 71.Google Scholar

101 The same pattern is found in the European Community. See Moreteau, O ‘L'anglais pourrait-il devenir la langue juridique commune en Europe?’ in Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme, Rodolfo Sacco et Luca Castellani (L'Harmattan Italia 1999) 143–62.Google Scholar

102 Deweer para 42.Google Scholar

103 Lutz para 52.Google Scholar