Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts Responses - Law ...

Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW)
1.614 We agree with these two proposals, which deal with two specific areas of
pointless overlap between offences. However, there should also be a general
duty on the drafters of legislation, and Parliament itself, to avoid and remove any
other areas of pointless overlap. Besides the unnecessary complexity introduced
by such separately drafted provisions, they also inevitably tend to result in
unintended consequences, inconsistent outcomes and penalties and doubtful
justice, as noted in a number of instances in the consultation document.
1.615 This should also apply to the inappropriate placement of offences, identified in
paragraphs 3.129 to 3.135 of the Consultation Document.
1.616 However, please see our comment in paragraph 6 above, on the desirability of
criminal offences to back up and reinforce regulatory provisions. This could be
done, perhaps, by specifically providing in Statute that certain offences
committed in a regulatory or business context should be treated in accordance
with the provisions of the Fraud Act.
City of London Law Society
1.617 In principle we agree that pointless overlaps between offences should be
avoided. However, we can see the benefits of trying to clarify what actions
amount to “attempt”, “assisting” and “encouraging” in some cases particularly
where offences may be committed by companies or bodies other than individuals.
Where clarity is provided perhaps the more general law should be excluded.
Chamber of Shipping
1.618 The point made appears to have merit.
The Law Society
1.619 It is eminently sensible, in our view, that the criminal law should not be used to
deal with inchoate offending when the behaviour is covered by existing law, and
agree in principle that pointless overlaps between offences should be avoided.
This would go some way to avoid the undesirable duplication of offences, as the
consultation paper so graphically illustrates. There are too many situations
where there are many possible offences in relation to the same behaviour, which
is unnecessary and creates confusion and lack of clarity.
1.620 However, we can see also the benefits of trying to clarify what actions amount to
“attempt”, “assisting” and “encouraging” in some cases particularly where
offences may be committed by companies or bodies other than individuals.
Where clarity is provided perhaps the more general law should be excluded.
Food Standards Agency
1.621 Strongly support. Not always easy to get police to investigate cases involving
food or CPS to take on food cases.
120