Criminal Law Act 1827

Last updated

Criminal Law Act 1827 [1]
Act of Parliament
Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2022, variant 1).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
Amended by Interpretation Act 1889
Repealed by Criminal Law Act 1967
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted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 It was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.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.

Similar provision was made for Ireland by the Criminal Law (Ireland) Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4. c. 54).

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 to a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the criminal 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 setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of nolo contendere and the Alford plea are allowed in some circumstances.

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 prison time of no longer than one year, monetary fines, or community service.

A plea bargain, also known as a plea agreement or plea deal, is a legal arrangement in criminal law where the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to a charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor. These concessions can include a reduction in the severity of the charges, the dismissal of some charges, or a more lenient sentencing recommendation. Plea bargaining serves as a mechanism to expedite the resolution of criminal cases, allowing both the prosecution and the defense to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. It is a prevalent practice in the United States, where it resolves the vast majority of criminal cases, and has been adopted in various forms in other legal systems worldwide.

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 their chest until a plea was entered, or death resulted.

In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including nolo contendere, no case to answer, or an Alford plea.

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 defendants made many efforts 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 on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, 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. 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 reporter himself.

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

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

<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. It is commonly accepted that 30,000 convicts may have been transported to the British American colonies, with some estimates going as high as 50,000.

<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.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled part of the Federal Kidnapping Act unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 1948</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 1948 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It implemented several widespread reforms of the English criminal justice system, mainly abolishing penal servitude, corporal punishment, and the right of peers to be tried for treason and felony in the House of Lords. The act also dealt with more minor aspects of criminal law, such as the procedure regarding bail. Early versions of the bill attempted to abolish the death penalty, but this would not occur until 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

<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.