15.08.2013 Views

Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts Responses - Law ...

Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts Responses - Law ...

Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts Responses - Law ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Faculty of Advocates<br />

1.631 It would make for a more coherent legal system is duplication was avoided,<br />

leav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>choate offences, attempts and fraud to be dealt with by exist<strong>in</strong>g general<br />

rules. In Scots law these matters are largely regulated by common law and the<br />

law is, therefore less codified. For the most part, this should not cause any<br />

difficulties but there might be a potential problem at the marg<strong>in</strong>s because it<br />

cannot be assumed that the coverage by the Scots common law rules and that of<br />

the legislation <strong>in</strong> England and Wales is necessarily coextensive. As the Scottish<br />

<strong>Law</strong> Commission has recognised, many of the regulatory regimes relate to<br />

reserved matters. It is, <strong>in</strong> any event, <strong>in</strong>cumbent on Westm<strong>in</strong>ster Departments<br />

mak<strong>in</strong>g policy <strong>in</strong> reserved matters to approach their task <strong>in</strong> a way which treats<br />

Scots law as an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of their task and not as an “add on”. Proposal 4 can<br />

be understood as hav<strong>in</strong>g reference to both legal systems but proposal should be<br />

amended so as to refer also to the law of fraud <strong>in</strong> Scotland as well.<br />

Central England Trad<strong>in</strong>g Standards Authorities (CETSA) and West Midlands<br />

Region County Chief Environmental Health Officers Group<br />

1.632 In pr<strong>in</strong>ciple this is difficult to argue aga<strong>in</strong>st. We would be supportive of a<br />

consistent way of deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>in</strong>choate offences. However, when written directly<br />

<strong>in</strong>to specific statutes a simpler test is often applied. The mens rea elements of<br />

the <strong>in</strong>choate offences can be difficult with extensive case law to consider, for<br />

<strong>in</strong>stance on what amounts to “an act that is more than merely preparatory”.<br />

1.633 The advantage of hav<strong>in</strong>g attempts, <strong>in</strong> particular, <strong>in</strong> specific legislation is that it<br />

promotes “ownership” of the offences by a specific regulator, who is likely to be<br />

under a duty to enforce. Whilst we can see the issue with Parliament’s practice<br />

of writ<strong>in</strong>g offences <strong>in</strong>to new legislation that are already covered by the <strong>in</strong>choate<br />

offences, we believe they may have done so deliberately, <strong>in</strong> order to promote<br />

certa<strong>in</strong>ty where us<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>choate offences would not do so. If we are to cease<br />

hav<strong>in</strong>g such offences <strong>in</strong> the primary legislation we would ideally like a review, and<br />

simplification, of the requirements necessary to establish <strong>in</strong>choate offences.<br />

1.634 Us<strong>in</strong>g other legislation also <strong>in</strong>troduces another layer of complexity. Costs<br />

<strong>in</strong>crease when legislative issues become complex. If there is less certa<strong>in</strong>ty,<br />

issues are less likely to go to court. Experience leads us to suggest that local<br />

lawyers are likely to be less supportive and more reluctant to prosecute under, for<br />

example, the 1981 <strong>Crim<strong>in</strong>al</strong> Attempts Act.<br />

1.635 There is a considerable amount of comment <strong>in</strong> the consultation paper about the<br />

CPR’s and the implication seems to be that these regulations only have crim<strong>in</strong>al<br />

offences <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to them as this was the easiest way of implement<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

directive. In fact the opposite is true, which the authors of the paper could have<br />

established had they asked either BIS or the Trad<strong>in</strong>g Standards profession. The<br />

orig<strong>in</strong>al regulations conta<strong>in</strong>ed entirely civil remedies with no crim<strong>in</strong>al offences.<br />

The offences were <strong>in</strong>troduced after a long period of consultation between BIS,<br />

regulators and bus<strong>in</strong>esses. This consultation was afterwards held up by BIS as a<br />

model as to how future regulation of this type should ideally be conducted as it<br />

resulted <strong>in</strong> workable, proportionate regulation of bus<strong>in</strong>ess that <strong>in</strong>cluded crim<strong>in</strong>al<br />

offences.<br />

123

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!