15.08.2013 Views

public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

public nuisance and outraging public decency - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Summary: Analysis & Evidence<br />

Policy Option: 3 Description: Abolish the existing offences <strong>and</strong> create new statutory<br />

offences<br />

COSTS<br />

BENEFITS<br />

ANNUAL COSTS<br />

One-off (Transition) Yrs<br />

£ Small 1-2<br />

Average Annual Cost<br />

(excluding one-off)<br />

Description <strong>and</strong> scale of key monetised costs by ‘main<br />

affected groups’<br />

The creation of new offences might generate initial uncertainty <strong>and</strong><br />

some increased litigation while the boundaries are tested.<br />

Otherwise, effects are the same as for option 2.<br />

£ Negligible Total Cost (PV) £<br />

Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’<br />

The main suggestion so far for a statutory formula (“act not warranted by law or omission to<br />

discharge a legal duty”) might complicate the law rather than simplifying it. We propose to work<br />

on devising an alternative formula that would avoid this problem.<br />

ANNUAL BENEFITS<br />

One-off Yrs<br />

£<br />

Average Annual Benefit<br />

(excluding one-off)<br />

Description <strong>and</strong> scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main<br />

affected groups’<br />

As for option 2<br />

£ Total Benefit (PV) £<br />

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’<br />

As for option 2. Also, full codification leads to greater legal certainty in the long run <strong>and</strong> saves the<br />

need for further work if it is later decided to codify the criminal law as a whole.<br />

Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks<br />

Key assumption: that we shall be able to devise a statutory formula which accurately represents the<br />

current law, as modified by our proposals on fault. Risk: that the definition of the act or omission<br />

causing the common injury would create an extra hurdle.<br />

Price Base<br />

Year<br />

Time Period<br />

Years<br />

Net Benefit Range (NPV)<br />

£<br />

78<br />

NET BENEFIT (NPV Best estimate)<br />

£<br />

What is the geographic coverage of the policy/option?<br />

On what date will the policy be implemented?<br />

Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales<br />

Which organisation(s) will enforce the policy? Courts, prosecutors<br />

What is the total annual cost of enforcement for these organisations? £ Negligible<br />

Does enforcement comply with Hampton principles? Not applicable<br />

Will implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? Not applicable<br />

What is the value of the proposed offsetting measure per year? £ Not applicable<br />

What is the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions? £ Not applicable<br />

Will the proposal have a significant impact on competition? No<br />

Annual cost (£-£) per organisation<br />

(excluding one-off)<br />

Micro Small Medium Large<br />

Are any of these organisations exempt? Yes/No Yes/No N/A N/A<br />

Impact on Admin Burdens Baseline (2005 Prices)<br />

(Increase - Decrease)<br />

Increase of £ Decrease of £ Net Impact £ None anticipated

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!