- Page 1 and 2:
CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN REGULATORY CO
- Page 3 and 4:
1.8 The current approach of making
- Page 5 and 6:
1.21 We remain concerned that many
- Page 7 and 8:
Michelle Welsh, Monash University 1
- Page 9 and 10:
1.41 Looking for alternative dispos
- Page 11 and 12:
1.50 It is important that any regim
- Page 13 and 14: 1.61 Range of matters that may be s
- Page 15 and 16: Raymond Schonfeld, Single Market Ve
- Page 17 and 18: 1.90 Sometimes appropriate to prose
- Page 19 and 20: 1.101 Note Commission’s point in
- Page 21 and 22: 1.113 Welcome Commission’s desire
- Page 23 and 24: Trading Standards Institute (TSI) 1
- Page 25 and 26: 1.132 CP has misunderstood this imp
- Page 27 and 28: 1.144 There are different levels of
- Page 29 and 30: 1.156 We note, however, that it is
- Page 31 and 32: 1.167 The distinction between “tr
- Page 33 and 34: 1.173 Defence of due diligence: One
- Page 35 and 36: Residential Landlords Association 1
- Page 37 and 38: 1.193 Any self regulatory scheme it
- Page 39 and 40: 1.201 Another issue in the case of
- Page 41 and 42: “regulatory authorities should ma
- Page 43 and 44: 1.223 The paper says (n. 10) it is
- Page 45 and 46: 1.234 While for many arguments in t
- Page 47 and 48: 1.244 The identification doctrine i
- Page 49 and 50: 1.253 Decriminalising the regulatio
- Page 51 and 52: 1.262 The present position: Using k
- Page 53 and 54: 1.275 On the other, the immediately
- Page 55 and 56: 1.290 Another UK example of applica
- Page 57 and 58: Judges of the Court of Session 1.30
- Page 59 and 60: 1.317 Spirit drinks in the EU are c
- Page 61 and 62: 1.325 Whether or not HMRC succeeded
- Page 63: 1.335 Furthermore, to suggest that,
- Page 67 and 68: 1.346 The civil sanctions regime fo
- Page 69 and 70: Trading Standards South East Ltd 1.
- Page 71 and 72: 1.363 Perhaps even more critically,
- Page 73 and 74: (6) whether there are grounds for b
- Page 75 and 76: 1.380 Believes the aim of proposal
- Page 77 and 78: 1.393 Local regulators already (ie
- Page 79 and 80: 1.399 At what stage does reprehensi
- Page 81 and 82: 1.412 There is a reference at 1.47
- Page 83 and 84: Both factors are relevant to a cons
- Page 85 and 86: 1.425 We do not think that the dete
- Page 87 and 88: 1.435 Further, it is considered tha
- Page 89 and 90: 1.449 The civil sanctions regime fo
- Page 91 and 92: 1.460 For my part, I struggle to se
- Page 93 and 94: 1.472 Very often an either-way offe
- Page 95 and 96: Local Government Regulation (LGR) 1
- Page 97 and 98: Institute of Employment Rights 1.48
- Page 99 and 100: 1.499 2008 Act limits the maximum f
- Page 101 and 102: 1.514 Agree. Residential Landlords
- Page 103 and 104: 1.528 Whilst these sanctions provid
- Page 105 and 106: 1.542 What is meant by “low level
- Page 107 and 108: 1.550 In addition ASIC sees value i
- Page 109 and 110: 1.557 Further, the RSPCA undertakes
- Page 111 and 112: 1.564 Civil remedies under the Ente
- Page 113 and 114: 1.573 FSA currently consulting publ
- Page 115 and 116:
EEF: The Manufacturers’ Associati
- Page 117 and 118:
1.595 Selling alcohol to children c
- Page 119 and 120:
Criminal Bar Association and Bar Co
- Page 121 and 122:
GC100 (association for general coun
- Page 123 and 124:
Faculty of Advocates 1.631 It would
- Page 125 and 126:
1.642 Agree. Criminal Bar Associati
- Page 127 and 128:
NHS Counter Fraud an Security Manag
- Page 129 and 130:
Local Government Regulation (LGR) 1
- Page 131 and 132:
Trading Standards Institute (TSI) 1
- Page 133 and 134:
(4) prosecution in relation to new
- Page 135 and 136:
Criminal Sub-Committee of the Counc
- Page 137 and 138:
CBI 1.717 Yes in principle, but see
- Page 139 and 140:
GC100 (association for general coun
- Page 141 and 142:
1.736 Procedural fairness is alread
- Page 143 and 144:
Trading Standards South East Ltd 1.
- Page 145 and 146:
Association of Chief Trading Standa
- Page 147 and 148:
1.765 It is also important that pro
- Page 149 and 150:
Kingsley Napley LLP 1.775 In our ex
- Page 151 and 152:
Food Standards Agency 1.785 Strongl
- Page 153 and 154:
Trading Standards South East Ltd 1.
- Page 155 and 156:
1.805 Agree. (3) Examples of Codes
- Page 157 and 158:
EEF: The Manufacturers’ Associati
- Page 159 and 160:
Residential Landlords Association 1
- Page 161 and 162:
QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers, Justi
- Page 163 and 164:
RSPCA 1.845 As stated in this respo
- Page 165 and 166:
Central England Trading Standards A
- Page 167 and 168:
1.867 Due to a series of budgetary
- Page 169 and 170:
The Law Society 1.876 As a general
- Page 171 and 172:
City of London Law Society 1.886 We
- Page 173 and 174:
Criminal Sub-Committee of the Counc
- Page 175 and 176:
East of England Trading Standards A
- Page 177 and 178:
GC100 (association for general coun
- Page 179 and 180:
OFT 1.927 With regard to the fault
- Page 181 and 182:
The Faculty of Advocates 1.940 The
- Page 183 and 184:
Kingsley Napley LLP 1.952 Where the
- Page 185 and 186:
1.964 Work to or involving asbestos
- Page 187 and 188:
Local Government Regulation (LGR) 1
- Page 189 and 190:
1.989 There is also the situation o
- Page 191 and 192:
HSE 1.1000 We recognise that in gen
- Page 193 and 194:
1.1012 We note that generally legis
- Page 195 and 196:
QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers 1.1023
- Page 197 and 198:
1.1033 We are however of the opinio
- Page 199 and 200:
Trading Standards North West (TSNW)
- Page 201 and 202:
Judges of the Court of Session 1.10
- Page 203 and 204:
Association of Chief Trading Standa
- Page 205 and 206:
Care Quality Commission (CQC) 1.108
- Page 207 and 208:
1.1094 This is an appropriate addit
- Page 209 and 210:
1.1105 Furthermore, there are a num
- Page 211 and 212:
1.1113 Should the defendant fail to
- Page 213 and 214:
1.1121 Both sets of regulations enf
- Page 215 and 216:
HSE 1.1134 Under this proposal, and
- Page 217 and 218:
Institute of Chartered Accountants
- Page 219 and 220:
Trading Standards South East Ltd 1.
- Page 221 and 222:
1.1171 I argue that the proposal to
- Page 223 and 224:
Justices’ Clerks’ Society 1.118
- Page 225 and 226:
East of England Trading Standards A
- Page 227 and 228:
PROPOSAL 16 Clifford Chance 1.1217
- Page 229 and 230:
City of London Law Society 1.1231 W
- Page 231 and 232:
1.1244 Question 3: No. Negligence b
- Page 233 and 234:
Central England Trading Standards A
- Page 235 and 236:
Institute of Employment Rights 1.12
- Page 237 and 238:
1.1284 Q4: We do not agree with the
- Page 239 and 240:
HSE 1.1296 We are opposed to this p
- Page 241 and 242:
Michelle Welsh, Monash University 1
- Page 243 and 244:
1.1312 The finding of the empirical
- Page 245 and 246:
1.1319 Q3: We do not agree that an
- Page 247 and 248:
1.1333 In that case, the Court of A
- Page 249 and 250:
1.1343 We have set these matters ou