Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:50:50.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who is to Accomplish Criminal Law Reform: The Interrelationship between Parliament and the Judiciary*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Yuval Levy
Get access

Extract

Who ought to bring about the essential reform in criminal law? At first glance, the answer appears obvious and unequivocal. In all modern Western democracies, the norm is for the function of lawmaking to be in the hands of the legislative branch of government, to the exclusion of the judiciary or any other organ inside or outside government.

The question posed above, however, is meant to explore a different issue, namely, the interrelationship between parliament and the judiciary in the province of criminal law reform, and their respective functions in effecting new policies. Assuming the task of legislation to be reserved to parliament, is there no room for judges to read into parliamentary enactments trend-making reformative content which would allow the implementation of what judges conceive to be the policies of the legislature in the field of penal law reform? Or is it, rather, incumbent upon the legislature itself to shape the character of the necessary reform with the statutory tools available to it?

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , Summer–Autumn 1988 , pp. 424 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1988

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 The Interpretation Law, 1981, 35 L.S.I. 370Google Scholar.

2 Noss Farm Products v. Lilico (1945) 2 All E.R. 609.

3 Ibid., at 610.

4 Hakstetter v. The State of Israel (1972) 26(i) P.D. 241.

5 Ibid., at 245.

6 Connolly v. General Construction Co. 162 U.S. 385 (1926).

7 Ibid., at 391.

8 Zachser v. The State of Israel (1978) 32 (ii) P.D. 828.

9 Ibid., at 832.

10 Penal Law, 1977 (Special volume L.S.I.).

11 P.G. Extraordinary, Supplement No.1, 14 Dec. 1936, No. 652, pp. 285–408.

12 The King v. Elizabeth Manley (1933) 1 K.B. 529.

13 Denning, , Freedom Under the Law (London, 1949) 42Google Scholar.

14 See R. v. young (1944) 30 Cr. App. Rep. 57: R. v. Newland (1954) 1 Q.B. 158: Joshua v. The Queen (1955) A.C. 121.

15 D.P.P. v. Withers (1974) 3 All E.R. 984.

16 Criminal Law Act. 1967, sec. 5(2).

17 Eshed Temporary Transport Centre v. A.G. (1954) 8 P.D. 785.

18 Ibid., at 818.

19 Ibid., at 790–791.

20 Sec. 12 of the Penal Law, 1977.

21 Sec. 22 of the Interpretation Law, 1981 (supra n. 1) and sec. 10 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948 (1 L.S.I. 7).

22 Shaw v. D.P.P. (1961) All E.R. 446.

23 D.P.P. v. Bhagwan (1970) 3 All E.R. 97.

24 Knuller (Publishing. Printing and Promotions) Ltd. and others v. D.P.P. (1972) 2 All E.R. 898.

25 In R. v. Delaval (1763). 3 Burr at p. 1438.

26 Supra n. 22, at 452.

27 Ibid., at 452.

28 Ibid., at 452.

29 Ibid., at 452.

30 Ibid., at 457.

31 See Friedman, , Law in a Changing Society (London, 2nd ed., 1972)Google Scholar; Hart, , Law, Liberty and Morality (London, 1967) 6–12Google Scholar; Williams, J.H., “The Ladies Directory and Criminal Conspiracy – the Judge as Custos Morurri” (1961) 24 Mod. L.R. 626Google Scholar; Comment, , “Courts have Power as Custodes Morum to Punish Conspiracy to do Acts Newly Defined as Corruptive of Public Morals” (1962) 75 Harv. L.R. 1652Google Scholar; Comment, “Shaw v. D.P.P.” (1961) Crim. L.R. 468; Turpin, , “Criminal Law Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals” (1961) Camb. L.J. 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Shaw v. D.P.P.” (1962) 15 Current Legal Problems 118; Devlin, Lord, “Law, Democracy and Morality” (1962) 110 U. Pa. L.R. 635, at 649Google Scholar; Brownlie, and Williams, D., Judical Legislation in Criminal Law 603–604Google Scholar; Goodhart, , “The Shaw Case, the Law and Public Morals” (1961) 77 L.Q.R. 569Google Scholar.

32 See supra n. 23.

33 Ibid., at 106.

34 See supra n. 24.

35 Lord Reid, ibid., at 904; Lord Morris of Bortn-Y-Gest, ibid., at 907–909; Lord Simon of Glaisdale, ibid., at 926–927; Lord Kilbrandon, ibid., at 936–938.

36 Ibid., at 903.

37 Ibid., at 923.

38 Ibid., at 918–919.

39 Ibid., at 923.

40 Lord Reid. ibid., at 905–906; Lord Diplock. ibid., at 915–923.

41 Lord Simon, ibid., at 935–936; Lord Kilbrandon, ibid., at 937.

42 Lord Diplock, ibid., at 919; Lord Simon, ibid., at 932; Lord Kilbrandon, ibid., at 937; Lord Reid, ibid., at 905; Lord Morris, ibid., at 911.

43 See supra n. 15.

44 See Barak, A., “Interpretation and Adjudication: Elements of an Israeli Theory of Statutory Interpretation” (1984) 10 Iyunei Mishpat 467Google Scholar; Barak, A., “Judicial Law Making” (1983) 13 Mishpatim 25Google Scholar; Agranat, S., “The Contribution of the Judiciary to the Legislative Endeavour” (1984) 10 Iyunei Mishpat 233Google Scholar; Barak, A., Judicial Discretion (Tel-Aviv. 1987. in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Lederman, , “The Legislative Intent, the ‘Normative Umbrella’ and the Interpretation of Penal Statutes” (1986) 37 HaPraklit 159Google Scholar.

45 Mizrachi v. The State of Israel (1981) 35(iv) P.D. 421.

46 2 L.S.I. [N.V.] 237.

47 Mizrachi, supra n. 45, at 427.

48 Feller, S.Z., “Escape from Lawful Custody by Omission?” (1982) 8 Iyunei Mishpat 630Google Scholar; Kremnitzer, M., “Escape from Lawful Custody by Omission? – A Further Note” (1984) 10 Iyunei Mishpat 195Google Scholar.

49 Azulai v. The State of Israel (1983) 37(ii) P.D. 565. See criticism of case in Kremnitzer, , “On Freedom of the Press and the Offence of Sub Judice Publication” in Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Orion, G., ed. (Tel-Aviv, 1986, in Hebrew) vol. 1, p. 166Google Scholar; Feller, , “Statutory Negligence an Alien Concept in the Criminal Law” (1987) 12 Iyunei Mishpat 581Google Scholar.

50 11 L.S.I. 157, at 165. Sec. 41 of the Courts Law, 1957 has now become sec. 71 of the Courts Law (Consolidated Version) 1984 (S.H. no. 1123, p. 195).

51 See supra n. 45.

52 Traffic Ordinance [New Version] (1 L.S.I. [N.V.] 222).

53 The State of Israel v. Shor (1983) 100(i) P.M. 350.

54 See supra n. 1.

55 Draft bill for the amendment of the Traffic Ordinance (Amendment No. 18), 1984, sec. 5 (H.H. no. 1663, p. 150).

56 Traffic Ordinance (Amendment No. 18) Law, 1985, sec. 5 (S.H. no. 1138, p. 56).

57 Cappelletti, , “The Law-Making Power of the Judge and its Limits: A Comparative Analysis” (1981) 8 Mon. L.R. 15, at 42Google Scholar.