Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law

Last updated

Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law
Royal Commission overview
Formed22 February 1845 (1845-02-22)
Preceding Royal Commission
Dissolved3 July 1849 (1849-07-03)
Superseding Royal Commission
Jurisdiction England and Wales
Royal Commission executives
Key documents

The Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (also known as the Criminal Law Commission of 1845 or the Statute Law Commission of 1845) was a royal commission that ran from 1845 to 1849 to consolidate existing statutes and enactments of English criminal law.

Contents

The Commission replaced the 1833 Royal Commission on the Criminal Law, and five reports. The commission's proposals and draft bills were not pursued.

Background

In the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament remain in force until expressly repealed. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the late 18th-century, raised questions about the system and structure of the common law and the poor drafting and disorder of the existing statute book. [1] By the start of the 19th-century, it was widely recognised that the criminal law stood in need of the greatest reform. [1]

The Royal Commission on the Criminal Law 1833 issued its final report in 1845, proposing a draft bill digesting criminal law and procedure. [2] However, the ambition for such a comprehensive legal was dissipating. [1] The Tories were in government and the new Whig ministry led by John Russell in 1846 would not include the Lord Chancellor, Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux. [3]

Lord Brougham introduced a bill embodying the digest, but it was withdrawn on an undertaking by Brougham's opponent, Lord Lyndhurst, that a second Commission would be appointed to revise it. [2]

Terms of reference

The commission was appointed by letters patent dated 22 February 1845 by the Lord Chancellor, John Copley, 1st Baron Lyndhurst. [4] The commission's terms of reference were: [2]

The Commissioners were paid, and included several members from the 1833 Commission: [2]

The barrister James John Lonsdale was appointed Secretary to the commission. [5]

Starkie died in 1849, before the publication of the commission's fifth report. On 27 April 1849, permission was granted by the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, 2nd Baronet, for the commission to complete their work. [6]

Proceedings

The Commission issued five reports, dated 30 May 1845, 14 May 1846, 10 June 1847, 30 March 1848 and 13 July 1849.

The commission also completed the unfinished eighth and final report of their predecessor, the Royal Commission on the Criminal Law, on 5 July 1845. [2]

First report

The Commission issued its first report on 30 May 1845, covering penalties and disabilities in regard to religious opinion: [5]

  1. Maintaining the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction and authority within this realm
  2. Uniformity of public worship
  3. Professing, exercising or promoting a religion other than that established
  4. Recusancy, or the not resorting to a person's parish church
  5. Holding offices or places of public trust, or following certain public occupations, without complying with certain tests; and refusing to comply with certain tests when tendered by Justices of the Peace, or other persons appointed for the purpose by the Queen in Council, or under the Great seal
  6. A summary of the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to the foregoing subjects

Second report

The Commission issued its second report on 14 May 1846, covering homicide and offences against the person and providing a draft bill for an "Act for Consolidating and Amending so much of the Criminal Law as relates to Incapacity to commit Crimes, Duress, the essentials of a Criminal Inquiry, Criminal Agency and Participation, and Homicide and other Offences against the Person". [7]

Third report

The Commission issued its second report on 10 June 1847, covering: [8]

  1. Fraudulent appropriations, including
    1. Theft
    2. Robbery
    3. False pretences
    4. Embezzlement
    5. Cheats, and other like fraudulent practices
    6. Receiving or otherwise unlawfully dealing with property stolen, embezzled or wrongfully obtained
  2. Piracy and offences connected with the slave trade
  3. Forgery and other offences connected therewith
  4. Offences against the habitation, including
    1. Burglary
    2. Arson
  5. Malicious injuries to property
  6. Offences relating to the coin, and to bullion and gold and silver plate
  7. Offences against the law of marriage
  8. Offences relating to public records and registers
  9. Offences against public morals and decency
  10. Offences relating to trade, commerce and public communication

Fourth report

The Commission issued its fourth report on 30 March 1848, covering: [9]

  1. Treason, and other offences against the state
  2. Offences against religion and the established church
  3. Offences against the executive power generally
  4. Offences against the administration of justice
  5. Offences against the public peace
  6. Libel
  7. Offences against public health
  8. Common nuisances
  9. Illegal solicitations, conspiracies, attempts and repetition of offences
  10. Penalties

The Commissioners highlighted three primary point of disagreement:

  1. Criminal incapacity. The majority view was that the proper test for criminal incapacity is whether the accused had the capacity to discern if their actions were contrary to the law of the land. The dissenting view was that a party should not be regarded as responsible for their actions if they cannot discern whether what they are doing is wrong, not just illegal.
  2. Responsibility of married women. The majority view was that married women should be exempt from criminal responsibility for actions performed in the presence of their husbands, based on the presumption of marital coercion. The dissenting view was that the exemption should not be so limited — the law should consider whether the wife acted freely or under coercion, based on the facts of each case.
  3. Homicide responsibility. The majority view was that if a death is caused by medical treatment meant to cure an injury caused by the accused, the accused should still be deemed guilty of homicide.
  4. Execution of process. The majority supported provisions are designed to protect officers of justice when they act under the belief that they are acting legally, even if in reality, they are acting illegally.
  5. Previous consent to homicide. The majority view was that if the person killed had previously consented to the homicide, this would be considered a ground of extenuation. One Commissioner disagreed.
  6. Suicide. The majority proposed to extenuate the promoting, procuring, or aiding in the crime of suicide. One Commissioner disagreed on moral grounds.
  7. Duelling. The majority view was that the killing of a party in a duel should no longer be capital punishment, provided no unfair advantage was take. The dissenting view was that duelling should still carry the severe consequence of capital punishment.
  8. Excess of Violence. The majority supported the provision dealing with the legal effect of an excess of violence beyond what is allowed by law. One Commissioner found this provision to be too lenient.

Fifth report

The Commission issued its fifth and final report on 13 July 1849, covering indictable offences and providing a draft bill for "An Act for Consolidating and Amending the Law of Procedure in respect of Indicatable Offences". [6]

Criticism

The Commission incurred expenses of £12,557 3s. 3d., [4] which was subject to criticism by Peter King MP and George Hadfield MP as part of an 1869 resolution criticising the expensive process of legal revision that had taken place over 36 years, costing the country over £80,000 without yielding substantial results. [10]

Legacy

On 6 June 1846, Lord Brougham introduced a draft Bill of an "Entire Digest of the written and unwritten Law relating to the Definition of Crimes and Punishment" but was not proceeded with. [2]

In autumn of 1852, the Lord Chancellor, Edward Sugden, 1st Baron St Leonards, directed James John Lonsdale and Charles Greaves to prepare Bills for the codification of criminal law based on the reports of the Criminal Law Commissioners. [2] Two major Bills based on the work of the Commission covering offences against the person and larceny were introduced in 1853 and continued under Lord Cranworth. The bills made no progress, principally because of the unanimously unfavourable judicial reaction to the prospect of the common law being embodied in statutory form. [11]

Little remained of the Commissioner's work in Charles Greaves' Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. [3] However, the commission's reports were complemented and acknowledged by Greaves: [2]

"[The reports contain a] vast mass of most valuable information, together with many observations on the different parts of the criminal law, which are well deserving consideration by any one who may turn his attention to the importance of that branch of the law."

At the start of the parliamentary session in 1853, Lord Cranworth announced his intention to the improvement of the statute law and in March 1853, appointed the Board for the Revision of the Statute Law to repeal expired statutes and continue consolidation, with a wider remit that included civil law. [2] The Board issued three reports, recommending the creation of a permanent body for statute law reform. On 29 August 1854, the temporary Board was superseded by the Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law. Recommendations made by the commission were implemented by the Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 64), the Statute Law Revision Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 101) and subsequent Statute Law Revision Acts.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Campbell, 1st Baron Campbell</span> Scottish politician (1779–1861)

John Campbell, 1st Baron Campbell, PC, FRSE was a British Liberal politician, lawyer and man of letters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arson in royal dockyards</span> Capital crime in the UK until 1971

Arson in royal dockyards and armories was a criminal offence in the United Kingdom and the British Empire. It was among the last offences that were punishable by capital punishment in the United Kingdom. The crime was created by the Dockyards etc. Protection Act 1772 passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, which was designed to prevent arson and sabotage against vessels, dockyards, and arsenals of the Royal Navy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offences Against the Person Act 1861</span> UK criminal statute

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, incorporating subsequent statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Virginia</span> Statutory law of the U.S. state of Virginia

The Code of Virginia is the statutory law of the U.S. state of Virginia and consists of the codified legislation of the Virginia General Assembly. The 1950 Code of Virginia is the revision currently in force. The previous official versions were the Codes of 1819, 1849, 1887, and 1919, though other compilations had been printed privately as early as 1733, and other editions have been issued that were not designated full revisions of the code.

The Revised Statutes of the United States was the first official codification of the Acts of Congress. It was enacted into law in 1874. The purpose of the Revised Statutes was to make it easier to research federal law without needing to consult the individual Acts of Congress published in the United States Statutes at Large.

The jurisdiction of England and Wales does not have a Criminal Code though such an instrument has been often recommended and attempted. As of April 2009, the Law Commission is again working on the Code.

Thomas Starkie was an English lawyer and jurist. A talented mathematician in his youth, he especially contributed to the unsuccessful attempts to codify the English criminal law in the nineteenth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act 1961</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Crimes Act 1961 is an act of New Zealand Parliament that forms a leading part of the criminal law in New Zealand. It repeals the Crimes Act 1908, itself a successor of the Criminal Code Act 1893. Most crimes in New Zealand are created by the Crimes Act, but some are created elsewhere. All common law offences are abolished by section 9, as are all offences against acts of the British Parliaments, but section 20 saves the old common law defences where they are not specifically altered.

The Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861 were acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They consolidated provisions from a large number of earlier statutes which were then repealed. Their purpose was to simplify the criminal law. There were six consolidation Acts and a further Act which effected consequential repeals.

In the United States, the law for murder varies by jurisdiction. In many US jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as homicide, of which first-degree murder and felony murder are the most serious, followed by second-degree murder and, in a few states, third-degree murder, which in other states is divided into voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter such as reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which are the least serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law Revision Act 1863</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Statute Law Revision Act 1863 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repealed for England statutes that had ceased to be in force from the Magna Carta to King James II. The Act was intended, in particular, to facilitate the preparation of a revised edition of the statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law Revision Act 1867</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Statute Law Revision Act 1867 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repealed for the United Kingdom statutes that had ceased to be in force from the start of the Reign of William III of England and Mary II in 1688 to the tenth year of the Reign of George III in 1770. The Act was intended, in particular, to facilitate the preparation of a revised edition of the statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which repealed, as to Ireland, certain acts of the Parliament of England which had been extended to the then Lordship of Ireland by royal writs or acts of the Parliament of Ireland from the Magna Carta to Poynings' Law (1495). The Act was intended, in particular, to make the revised edition of the statutes already published applicable to Ireland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law Revision Act 1874 (No. 2)</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Statute Law Revision Act 1874 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repealed for the United Kingdom statutes from 1837 to 1844. The Act was intended, in particular, to facilitate the preparation of the revised edition of the statutes, then in progress.

James John Lonsdale was an English barrister and judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Henry Bellenden Ker</span> English barrister and legal reformer (c.1785–1871)

Charles Henry Bellenden Ker (c.1785–1871) was an English barrister and legal reformer.

The Code of the District of Columbia is the codification of the general and permanent laws relating to the District of Columbia. It was enacted and is revised by authority of the Congress of the United States.

The Board for the Revision of the Statute Law was a commission from 1853 to 1854 to consolidate a significant portion of the statute law of the United Kingdom.

The Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law was a royal commission that ran from 1854 to 1859 to consolidate existing statutes and enactments of English law.

The Royal Commission on the Criminal Law was a royal commission that ran from 1833 to 1845 to consolidate existing statutes and enactments of English criminal law, including an English Criminal Code.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Farmer, Lindsay (2000). "Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review. 18 (2): 397–425. doi:10.2307/744300. ISSN   0738-2480. JSTOR   744300.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ilbert, Courtenay (1901). Legislative methods and forms. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 51–53. Retrieved 9 September 2024.
  3. 1 2 Wright, Barry (2007). "Self-Governing Codifications of English Criminal Law and Empire: The Queensland and Canadian Examples" (PDF). The University of Queensland Law Journal. 26 (1): 39–65.
  4. 1 2 Commons, Great Britain Parliament House of (1869). Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons. Ordered to be printed. pp. 601–604.
  5. 1 2 Great Britain. Royal Commission for Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (1971). Reports from the Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law; with appendices and index, 1845-49. Internet Archive. Shannon : Irish University Press. pp. 9–169. ISBN   978-0-7165-1141-0.
  6. 1 2 Great Britain. Royal Commission for Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (1971). Reports from the Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law; with appendices and index, 1845-49. Internet Archive. Shannon : Irish University Press. pp. 559–760. ISBN   978-0-7165-1141-0.
  7. ↑ Great Britain. Royal Commission for Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (1971). Reports from the Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law; with appendices and index, 1845-49. Internet Archive. Shannon : Irish University Press. pp. 169–244. ISBN   978-0-7165-1141-0.
  8. ↑ Great Britain. Royal Commission for Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (1971). Reports from the Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law; with appendices and index, 1845-49. Internet Archive. Shannon : Irish University Press. pp. 245–344. ISBN   978-0-7165-1141-0.
  9. ↑ Great Britain. Royal Commission for Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law (1971). Reports from the Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law; with appendices and index, 1845-49. Internet Archive. Shannon : Irish University Press. pp. 345–558. ISBN   978-0-7165-1141-0.
  10. ↑ "Resolution". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 196. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. 4 June 1869. col. 1246.
  11. ↑ "Criminal Law: Codification of the Criminal Law: A Report to the Law Commission" (PDF). Law Commission. p. 7. Retrieved 10 September 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.