D(1) LegalityCriminal law theory engaged by inchoate offences1.12 The legality principle is a foundati<strong>on</strong>al principle of moderncriminal law. It can be stated in various ways. 20 One formulati<strong>on</strong> says thatpers<strong>on</strong>s should be c<strong>on</strong>victed and punished for doing X <strong>on</strong>ly if they in factdid X and X was clearly and accessibly marked out in advance as somethingthat is prohibited and that can result in punishment. This legality principleforms the core of “the rule of law” which applies to all law – not justcriminal law – and is fleshed out with principles including: law should not beretroactive, it should be accessible, capable of being obeyed, stable, andcertain, applied in practice c<strong>on</strong>sistent with how it is promulgated and so <strong>on</strong>. 21The rule of law is c<strong>on</strong>cerned with respecting citizens‟ aut<strong>on</strong>omy andfreedom. When the law is certain and applied as it says it will be applied,citizens can lead self-shaping lives enjoying maximum freedom. Certaintyin law provides security for citizens to rely <strong>on</strong> the law to be enforced fortheir protecti<strong>on</strong> and not to their detriment provided they keep within itsboundaries. 221.13 The legality principle has played a crucial role in informing theCommissi<strong>on</strong>‟s recent recommendati<strong>on</strong>s for criminal law. 23 It is also adriving force presupposed in current processes to codify the criminal law. 24This <str<strong>on</strong>g>Paper</str<strong>on</strong>g> will pay much attenti<strong>on</strong> to the legality principle, especially whenc<strong>on</strong>sidering reform of c<strong>on</strong>spiracy. 25202122232425McAuley and McCutche<strong>on</strong> Criminal Liability (Round Hall Press 2000) at 42,Ashworth Principles of Criminal <strong>Law</strong> (5 th ed Oxford University Press 2006) at 68,Dripps “The C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al Status of the Reas<strong>on</strong>able Doubt Rule” (1987) 75 Calif LRev 1665.This draws <strong>on</strong> L<strong>on</strong> Fuller‟s account of the rule of law and its value in Fuller TheMorality of <strong>Law</strong> (Yale University Press 1965). The C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> of Ireland expresslyenshrines a number of these principles, for example, the prohibiti<strong>on</strong> of retroactivecriminalisati<strong>on</strong> in Article 15.5.1º.See Simm<strong>on</strong>ds Central Issues in Jurisprudence (2 nd ed Sweet & Maxwell 2002) atchapter 7.<strong>Law</strong> <strong>Reform</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>C<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Paper</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Legitimate Defence (LRC CP 41-2006).Legality is invoked 12 times in the Report of the Expert Group <strong>on</strong> the Codificati<strong>on</strong> ofthe Criminal <strong>Law</strong> Codifying the Criminal <strong>Law</strong> (Government Publicati<strong>on</strong>s 2004).See Chapter 3 below at paragraphs 3.64-3.76.11
(2) Subjectivism and objectivism1.14 Tensi<strong>on</strong> between subjectivism and objectivism is engaged byinchoate offences. Broadly speaking, subjectivists 26 recommend thatcriminal defendants be punished <strong>on</strong> the basis of their resp<strong>on</strong>sibility andculpability for criminal harm. Objectivists 27 say this c<strong>on</strong>cern should betempered with recogniti<strong>on</strong> of the actual harm people have caused. <strong>Inchoate</strong>offences uniquely do not, or need not, occasi<strong>on</strong> actual criminal harm. Thusobjectivists argue for narrow inchoate offences while subjectivists argue forwider. While subjectivism tends to work as an exculpatory doctrine – andobjectivism inculpatory – when applied to defences such as duress and selfdefence,for inchoate offences the roles are reversed. Thus an objectivistlike Ant<strong>on</strong>y Duff proposes a quite narrow definiti<strong>on</strong> for criminal attemptwhile Glanville Williams‟ subjectivist approach recommends a widercriminal attempt. 28(3) The significance of mens rea for inchoate offences1.15 Generally, criminal law operates so that specified acts (oromissi<strong>on</strong>s) are prohibited. If these acts are d<strong>on</strong>e with a culpable or guiltymind liability, specified punishment may result. Punishment is imposedbecause a (criminal) harm was caused by an actor with a guilty mind. Inc<strong>on</strong>trast, inchoate offences serve to punish <strong>on</strong> the basis of, at most, risked orthreatened criminal harm posed by an actor with a guilty mind. Withinchoate offences the emphasis <strong>on</strong> the aspects <strong>on</strong> the offence is the reverse ofwhat is typical in criminal law. That is, the guilty mind of the accused,rather than his or her physical acti<strong>on</strong>s, is the most important part of aninchoate offence. Indeed, his or her acti<strong>on</strong>s by definiti<strong>on</strong> will not satisfy theactus reus of the substantive offence to which the inchoate offence chargedrelates, for otherwise the substantive offence is the appropriate charge. Ofcourse, the evidence in a case of attempted murder, for example, will oftenalso tend to suggest the commissi<strong>on</strong> of lesser offences such as assault. Butthis is not necessarily the case. People who plan shoplifting most likely d<strong>on</strong>ot commit any substantive special part offence, though they commit theinchoate offence of c<strong>on</strong>spiracy to commit theft. 29 The acti<strong>on</strong>s that c<strong>on</strong>stitutea criminal attempt may be innocuous if viewed without reference to theguilty mind. For incitement and c<strong>on</strong>spiracy the acti<strong>on</strong>s are typically merecommunicati<strong>on</strong>s.26272829Leading writers include HLA Hart, Glanville Williams, and Andrew Ashworth.Prop<strong>on</strong>ents include Oliver W Holmes, Ant<strong>on</strong>y Duff.See below at paragraph 2.34.See Enker “Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt” (1977) Am B Found Res J 845, at 847.12
- Page 1: Consultation <stro
- Page 4 and 5: Law Reform CommissionTHE LAW REFORM
- Page 6 and 7: Law Reform CommissionLaw Reform Res
- Page 8 and 9: Law Reform CommissionContact Detail
- Page 10 and 11: TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Legislati
- Page 12: TABLE OF LEGISLATIONAbortion Act 19
- Page 15 and 16: Lajoie v R [1974] SCR 399 CanLeigh
- Page 17 and 18: R v O‟Brien [1954] SCR 666 CanR v
- Page 20 and 21: INTRODUCTIONABackground to the proj
- Page 22 and 23: 5. Inchoate offences do not exist i
- Page 24 and 25: 11. Chapter 1 explores the nature o
- Page 26 and 27: CHAPTER 1INCHOATE LIABILITYAIntrodu
- Page 28 and 29: its pure relational form as an agre
- Page 32 and 33: 1.16 Some textbook writers reverse
- Page 34 and 35: one resulted in conviction by the j
- Page 36 and 37: 1.30 Evident here is a principled r
- Page 38: excusatory defences 51legitimate de
- Page 41 and 42: codifying inchoate offences will be
- Page 43 and 44: called “the proximity rule” to
- Page 45 and 46: Appeal, was because more than one i
- Page 47 and 48: accused for which she stood trial a
- Page 49 and 50: defendant had progressed well beyon
- Page 51 and 52: And it is costly to try - police an
- Page 53 and 54: and subsequently abolished in New Z
- Page 55 and 56: “proximate” was more like “ne
- Page 57 and 58: providing, bluntly, that attempting
- Page 59 and 60: unlawful entry of a structure, vehi
- Page 61 and 62: drafted by James Fitzjames Stephen,
- Page 63 and 64: 2.68 The Law Commission for England
- Page 65 and 66: crime; (2) an overt act toward the
- Page 67 and 68: (3) D commits an offence or an act
- Page 69 and 70: the Court of Criminal Appeal has ap
- Page 71 and 72: activity. Purposive activity is int
- Page 73 and 74: a Working Party assisting the Law C
- Page 75 and 76: consequences/circumstances distinct
- Page 77 and 78: inchoate liability) because such pr
- Page 79 and 80: Oireachtas has sole law-making powe
- Page 81 and 82:
either label could be applied to a
- Page 83 and 84:
2.135 Perhaps Walsh J, when imagini
- Page 85 and 86:
subjectivist approach to impossibil
- Page 87 and 88:
man carried away his own umbrella d
- Page 89 and 90:
just to make it look like he would
- Page 91 and 92:
ii)Having an abandonment defence gi
- Page 93 and 94:
i) The would-be perpetrator had a c
- Page 96 and 97:
3CHAPTER 3CONSPIRACYAIntroduction3.
- Page 98 and 99:
two or more persons involving resol
- Page 100 and 101:
3.12 The People (Attorney General)
- Page 102 and 103:
the Brighton Conspiracy Case 37 sta
- Page 104 and 105:
Henchy J went on to state, obiter,
- Page 106 and 107:
conspiracy is exempt from liability
- Page 108 and 109:
Subsequently, in R v Anderson, 73 t
- Page 110 and 111:
(b)(i)Non-criminal unlawfulnessTort
- Page 112 and 113:
“[A]n agreement by two or more by
- Page 114 and 115:
decency, which has an ancillary inc
- Page 116 and 117:
where they will fall in.” The ice
- Page 118 and 119:
abolishing the latter but not the f
- Page 120 and 121:
G(a)Abandonment of a conspiracyThe
- Page 122 and 123:
4CHAPTER 4INCITEMENTAIntroduction4.
- Page 124 and 125:
approach to that of the common law.
- Page 126 and 127:
(v)Incitement need not be directed
- Page 128 and 129:
verbs used to describe a physical a
- Page 130 and 131:
4.23 It is noted that while the act
- Page 132 and 133:
direction. The analysis of criminal
- Page 134 and 135:
(iii)Inciting non-criminal conduct4
- Page 136 and 137:
encouragement or assistance will in
- Page 138 and 139:
Convention on Human Rights. 75 Inci
- Page 140 and 141:
conduct incited. This position was
- Page 142 and 143:
5CHAPTER 5PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIO
- Page 144 and 145:
(4) Impossible conspiracies5.21 The
- Page 146:
The Law Reform Commission is an ind