英语论文网

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Improve Common Law Law essay

1981刑事举措法案提高了普通法律

普法可能是英国法学的最基本的特征也是司法的一个有力工具。它允许法律保持灵活性且对于现代不断改变的世界是永远适用的。正如桑德拉弗里德曼所说，它的目的就是“防止由于一种法定制度的严重后果导致的贫穷”。[1]然而先例法律和法官的明智审判仍然是作为一个议会法律基础的补充。因此，很多时候在章程的建立上，必须取决于大纲的提供，普法能够适用它，且能取得被解释的好处。刑事企图法案立于1981年，试图也这样做。它的目的是增加某种成文法的形式，以指导和澄清，标准化和提供一个合法的确定程度，但是却缺少一致性。在本文中，我会揭示刑事企图法案带来的进步性，但我也会揭示法案目前的赤字和为了进步的策略。我主要会关注的事实就是法案似乎在一些领域中关注的目的性太狭义，而在另一些领域中又太宽泛。同时我也会评价一个问题，是否改革是必要的，什么选择是最有利可图的。
通过刑事企图法案1981的所导致进步的不可能性。

Common law is perhaps the most fundamental feature of the United Kingdom’s jurisprudence and a powerful tool for the judiciary. It allows the law to remain flexible and forever applicable to the modern changing world. As Sandra Fredman says, it seeks to, “prevent destitutions which arise as a consequence of the statutory regime.” [1] However the precedent of case law and the judges’ wise interpretations must still be supplemented with a foundation of Parliamentary law. Therefore there are times where statute must be relied upon to provide an outline to which the common law can apply its interpretative benefits. The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 ‘attempted’ to do just this. Its goal was to create some form of codified law which would guide and clarify, standardize and provide a level of legal certainty where there was a lack of consistency. In this essay I will reveal the improvements which the Criminal Attempts Act brought but I will also expose the law’s current deficiencies and strategies for improvement. Mainly I will focus on the fact that the law appears to be too narrow concerning attempts in some areas and too wide in others. Also I will evaluate the question of whether reform is necessary and what options would be the most beneficial.

Improvements of Impossibility Through the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Several issues arose under the common law such as impossibility, unclear terminology of the actus reus, and uncertainty about the mens rea requirement. Prior to 1981 the common law did not acknowledge the fact that impossible crimes could nevertheless lead to a defendant’s conviction. This can be seen in Anderton v Ryan [2] where the court’s dicta spoke of “objectively innocent acts” which cannot be turned into crimes even if the actus reus and the intent is present. This involved the defendant who was charged with handling stolen property in the form of a video recorder. She thought it to be stolen but this could not be proven by the court. Thus the court ruled that in common law a person who does the actus resus of an offence, with an intent to commit a specific crime which he believed to be possible (but was in fact not possible) is not convictable. It seems strange that although the actus reus and the mens rea were fulfilled that there was no crime simply because it could not be proven that the handled item was stolen. There was much concern at this time that this would cause the continuation of faulty logic and would lead to further cases being decided on this basis of impossibility.

It is precisely due to this inadequacy that the Law Commission decided to enact the Criminal Attempts Act. The Act clearly states that a defendant is convictable “even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.” [3] This was affirmed in future case law and Anderton was swiftly overturned in th本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。