Criminal Law Act 1827

Last updated

Criminal Law Act 1827 [1]
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Long title An Act for further improving the Administration of Justice in Criminal Cases in England
Citation 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 28
Territorial extent  England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent 21 June 1827
Commencement 1 July 1827
Repealed1967
Other legislation
Repealed by Criminal Law Act 1967
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Criminal Law Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 28) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, applicable only to England and Wales. It abolished many obsolete procedural devices in English criminal law, particularly the benefit of clergy. It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Contents

The Act has sixteen parts. Parts I - V concerned the formalities of pleading, Parts VI - VII abolished benefit of clergy, Parts VIII - X dealt with the punishment of felonies, Part XI created offences related to fraudulent certificates of indictment, Part XII covered criminal cases handled by the Court of Admiralty, Part XIII made provision for pardons, and Parts XIV - XVI were interpretation and jurisdiction provisions.

Part I: Mode of trial

This part of the act stated:

if any Person not having Privilege of Peerage, being arraigned upon any Indictment for Treason, Felony or Piracy, shall plead thereto a plea of "Not guilty", he shall by such Plea, without any further Form, be deemed to have put himself upon the Country for Trial. [2]

Before this enactment, defendants who pleaded "not guilty" to a charge of felony were formally obliged to choose their mode of trial, in a standard exchange with the clerk of the court: "How wilt thou be tried?" "By God and my country." "God grant thee a good deliverance." [3] By this process, the prisoner elected jury trial rather than trial by ordeal: however, as trial by ordeal had been officially abolished by a statute of Henry III in 1219, [4] :507 the prisoner in fact had no choice to make. Part I of the 1827 act removed the requirement for this formality.

Part II: Consequences of refusal to plead

Historically, prisoners who refused to plead to an indictment were tortured, in a process known as peine fort et dure , until they died or entered a plea. The "Act for the More Effectual Proceedings Against Persons Standing Mute" of 1772 (12 Geo. 3. c. 20) [5] abolished this: instead, prisoners who refused to answer the indictment were deemed to have pleaded "Guilty", and were then sentenced for the crime. The 1827 act reversed the position; [5] "if any Person being arraigned or charged with any Indictment or Information ... shall stand mute of Malice, or not answer directly to the Indictment or Information, in every Case it shall be lawful for the Court, if it shall so think fit, to order the proper Officer to enter a Plea of 'Not guilty' on behalf of such Person". [2]

Parts III - V

Part III of the act limited the number of peremptory challenges to jurors that a defendant could make; after the limit was reached, any subsequent challenges were to be disregarded. [2] Part IV of the act restricted the plea of autrefois convict – "no Plea setting forth any Attainder shall be pleaded in bar of any Indictment unless the Attainder be for the same Offence as that charged in the Indictment." [2] Part V prevented the jury from making any enquiries into the assets of the prisoner on a charge of felony – if the prisoner were convicted, these assets would be confiscated.

Parts VI - VII: Benefit of clergy

Part VI stated - "And be it enacted, That benefit of clergy, with respect to persons convicted of felony, shall be abolished". Benefit of clergy was a traditional practice which enabled many convicted felons to avoid the death penalty by reading (or memorizing) a passage from the Bible; originally, this was held to prove that the defendant was in Holy Orders, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts (which did not have the power to impose capital sentences) rather than the civil courts, but, by the eighteenth century, this was disregarded [4] :514 – female defendants, for whom being in Holy Orders was impossible, were entitled to claim benefit of clergy by a statute of 1691 (3 Will. & Mar. c. 9). [6] Previously to the 1827 act, Parliament had responded to the perceived injustice by reducing the number of offences for which clergy could be claimed: the 1827 act abolished it altogether. However, a statute of Edward VI also enabled peers to claim a similar benefit, and it was uncertain that this form of proceeding was covered by the words of the 1827 Act. The abolition of the benefit for peers was abolished by an Act of 1841 (4 & 5 Vict. c. 22). [7]

Part VII of the 1827 Act preserved the relief from the death penalty that was formerly available to felons entitled to claim benefit of clergy. [2]

Parts VIII - XI: Punishment of felons

Part VIII specified the penalties for felonies for which no punishment was explicitly prescribed: imprisonment for up to two years, together with flogging for male offenders only, or transportation for up to seven years. Part IX allowed the imposition of hard labour as part of custodial sentences. Part X permitted consecutive sentences to be imposed on felons. [2]

Part XI provided for increased penalties (imprisonment for up to seven years or transportation for life) for repeat offenders, and made it a felony for any court official to produce fraudulent evidence of previous convictions. [2]

Part XII: Admiralty cases

Part XII prescribed that "all Offences prosecuted in the High Court of Admiralty of England shall, upon every first and subsequent Conviction, be subject to the same Punishments, whether of Death or otherwise, as if such Offences had been committed upon the Land." [2]

Part XIII: Pardons

Part XIII dealt with pardons – "no free Pardon ... shall prevent or mitigate the Punishment to which the Offender might otherwise be lawfully sentenced on a subsequent Conviction". [2]

Parts XIV - XVI

Part XIV of the act stated that references to males in the act included females, references to singular persons included multiple persons, and that the Act applied to legal persons as well as natural persons. [2] Part XV specified the date on which the Act was to come into force (1 July 1827), and Part XVI excluded Scotland and Ireland from its provisions.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arraignment</span> Formal reading of the offence toward a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, in some jurisdictions, the accused is expected to enter a plea; in other jurisdictions, no plea is required. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they generally include guilty, not guilty, and the peremptory pleas, or pleas in bar, setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of nolo contendere and the Alford plea are allowed in some circumstances.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanour is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines or community service.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

Peine forte et dure was a method of torture formerly used in the common law legal system, in which a defendant who refused to plead would be subjected to having heavier and heavier stones placed upon his or her chest until a plea was entered, or death resulted.

In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a criminal case under common law using the adversarial system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that person pleaded or pled guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere, no case to answer, or Alford plea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

In English law, the benefit of clergy was originally a provision by which clergymen accused of a crime could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts and be tried instead in an ecclesiastical court under canon law. The ecclesiastical courts were generally seen as being more lenient in their prosecutions and punishments, and many efforts were made by defendants to claim clergy status, often on questionable or fraudulent grounds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High treason in the United Kingdom</span> Offence under British law

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or as indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

Capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. In some parts of the US, this term still defines the category of murder for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

Misprision of felony is a form of misprision, and an offence under the common law of England that is no longer active in many common law countries. Where it was or is active, it is classified as a misdemeanor. It consists of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. Exceptions were made for close family members of the felon and where the disclosure would tend to incriminate the felon himself of that offence or another.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

A discharge is a type of sentence imposed by a court whereby no punishment is imposed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piracy Act 1717</span> Act of the Parliament of Great Britain

The Piracy Act 1717, sometimes called the Transportation Act 1717, was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that established a regulated, bonded system to transport criminals to colonies in North America for indentured service, as a punishment for those convicted or attainted in Great Britain, excluding Scotland. The Act established a seven-year transportation sentence as a punishment for people convicted of lesser felonies, and a fourteen-year sentence for more serious crimes, in lieu of capital punishment. Completion of the sentence had the effect of a pardon; the punishment for returning before completion was death. An estimated 50,000 convicts were transported to the British American colonies.

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury to determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1967</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made some major changes to English criminal law, as part of wider liberal reforms by the Labour government elected in 1966. Most of it is still in force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1790</span> US bill

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes".

References

  1. The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by the Short Titles Act 1896, section 1 and the first schedule. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pratt, John Tidd (1827). A Collection of the Late Statutes Passed for the Administration of Criminal Justice in England. 52 Fleet St, London: W Benning. p. 69.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. Bouvier, John (1856). "Bouvier's Law Dictionary". Constitution Society. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  4. 1 2 Baker, J. H. (2007). An Introduction to English Legal History (4th ed.). Oxford: OUP. ISBN   978-0-406-93053-8.
  5. 1 2 Oldham, James (1 June 2006). Trial by Jury . New York: NYU Press. p.  278. ISBN   0814762042.
  6. Burtsell, Richard (1907). "Benefit of Clergy". The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 11 June 2016 via New Advent.
  7. Deedes, John; Merivale, Herman (1851). Law Society Reports. Vol. X. London: E B Ince. p. 27.