Is there any rational basis for the distinction which criminal law draws between acts and omissions? How consistently is the distinction maintained?

Is there any rational basis for the distinction which criminal law draws between acts and omissions? How consistently is the distinction maintained? "I will punish you as your deeds deserve", the Lord says in the Bible.1 God told Adam to keep away of eating from the tree. Adam was disobedient and ate of the tree. Adam was removed from heaven as a consequence of his disobedience. God told the devil to bow in front of Adam. The devil refused to do so. The devil was cursed as a consequence of his disobedience. To make it simple. The conduct of Adam the English legal system would call an act. The conduct of the devil the English legal system would call an omission. It is perfectly clear and well established to punish people for their deeds. But why punish people for things they have done not? Are we not all omitting to everything in the world what is not done. This would mean we all are a conditio in conditio sine qua non. Similar to the butterfly in Australia is a conditio for the storm in Singapore. Williams2 makes it clear: "We omit to do everything in the world that is not done", but only "those of us omit in law who are under a duty to act". This duty-theory is widely acknowledged in numerous cases. Hogan however calls it ill-defined. He rather would like to keep the issue "simply one of causation"3. The question for him is rather more, whether the conduct of the

  • Word count: 1626
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary Sovereignty: In the absence of a written constitution, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, or supremacy, is often cited as one of the cornerstones of the United Kingdom constitution. The traditional analysis of the United Kingdom's constitution identifies, as one of its key features, the notion that Parliament, as the legislature, is sovereign, by which is meant the absence of any legal restraint on the legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament. The classical definition of sovereignty, offered from a constitutional law rather than a jurisprudential perspective is that of AV Dicey. Dicey stated that - Parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact laws on any subject matter; No Parliament can may be bound by a predecessor or bind a successor; No person or body - including a court of law - may question the validity of the Parliament's enactments. In effect, it means that Parliament has competence to alter any aspect of the constitution, and interference in all matters relating to individual constitutional rights. As Laws LJ observed in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002), Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of any legislation - the common law does not recognize any such power. Being sovereign Parliament cannot abandon its sovereignty. Parliaments has unlimited law making power.

  • Word count: 1387
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Parliamentary sovereignty

Has Parliamentary sovereignty survived the UK's membership of the European Community/European Union and the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998? Parliamentary sovereignty is the 'basic principle' of the UK's unwritten constitution (Loveland, 2003, p.21). One of the sources used in describing this concept is Dicey's (1961) legal theory, which splits Parliamentary sovereignty into two limbs. The positive limb articulates that "Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever", while the negative limb expresses that "no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" (p.3). Thus, the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty can be summarised as follows: Parliament may pass legislation concerning anything; it neither bind its successors nor be bound by its predecessors; and only Parliament can change or reverse an Act of Parliament. Wade (1955) extended this by stating that the only limit to Parliament's legal power is that it cannot detract from its own continuing sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty prevents judicial review of domestic law. Since the late 20th Century, this concept has undergone erosion from devolution in Scotland, the increasing use of referendums, the UK's accession to the EU and the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law. In

  • Word count: 3635
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Parliamentary Supremacy

The Supremacy of Parliament is still relevant and evident today as it was when A. V. Dicey wrote' the Law of the Constitution' in 1885. Discuss this proposition in light of any developments in the United Kingdom constitution. A.V. Dicey described Parliamentary Supremacy also referred to as sovereignty, in the 'Law of the Constitution, 1885' as meaning; 'Neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside legislation of Parliament1. From this three rules can be extracted. Firstly, parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact laws on any subject matter; secondly, no parliament may be bound by a predecessor or bind a successor; and finally no person or body, including a court of law may question the validity of parliament's enactments2. If all three rules are apparent within Parliament, then following Dicey's view there is legal sovereignty. Nevertheless, Dicey did acknowledge that Political sovereignty wasn't held by Parliament, but in fact lay 'with the people'3, and that there may be political restraints that inhibit the exercise of parliamentary power. The first rule, that parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact laws on any

  • Word count: 2167
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

PUBLIC LAW

PUBLIC LAW 2004 COMPULSORY WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT THOMAS HORDER 288310 TUTOR: JOHN DAWSON "The main function of public law is to promote the accountability of government. This function, however, often has the effect of trespassing on the domains of our democratically elected decision-makers and law-makers. The friction between accountability and democratic values seems to be inevitable" [1] This is a critical discussion in which I shall question the legitimacy of the above statement in light of the constitutional principles existent within the New Zealand legal system. I submit that the friction between accountability and democratic values is, in reality, no friction at all. It is an apparent friction which, upon deeper reflection, serves to harmonise the workings of the entire structure into a coherent equilibrium. "The main function of public law is to promote the accountability of government" [2] The concept of accountability is defined as "liable to be called account" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Oxford University Press; 5th ed. (2002)) and government in this sense means the Executive and the Legislature. This statement suggests that public law promotes a situation where the Government is liable or answerable for their actions. Prima facie, this seems to be an accurate conception. After all, many of the documents which form the foundation of our public law today

  • Word count: 2217
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Public Law.

Public Law Essay Richard Wilson Week Seventeen It is well established and acknowledged that judges should remain independent from certain areas, such as political affiliation and relationship with the parties before them. However, in some cases, this autonomy is put in jeopardy, and these cases must be scrutinised. In this essay, it will be necessary to examine three different situations- those of Ranter, Singh and Twitcher. After analysis of their circumstances one must then consider the grounds which could justify their dismissal and also the mechanisms which would be employed if removal from office is justified. Firstly, the case of Ranter must be studied. Ranter is a full time sheriff who writes a weekly column for The Scotsman, a quality broadsheet newspaper. After the imposition of significant sentences on football hooligans, controversy develops over his extra-judicial journalism and it emerges that he had expressed views on the seriousness of football violence in his column three months before. In this situation, the suspension of the sentences and convictions of the alleged football hooligans would be a likely outcome. My view is backed up by the case of Bradford v McLeod1. In this situation, a sheriff, while attending a social function in Ayr, made remarks to the extent that he "would not grant legal aid to miners". Subsequently, fourteen

  • Word count: 1543
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay