The Construct of Strict Liability in Criminal Law of England and Wales in the Context of Polish Legal Regulations on the Subjective Element in the Structure of a Prohibited Act

Andrzej Lewna

Abstract


The construction of strict liability has been for years one of the most controversial concepts in the field of substantive criminal law in common law countries. While the very idea of basing the liability of an individual of a repressive nature on a regime based on strictly objective assessments seems to stand in opposition to the principles of criminal law that are fundamental to Western systems, such as the individualization of liability and the principle of guilt, at the same time, the use of the construct discussed may bring about considerable instrumental benefits, especially with regard to the protective function of criminal law. The article discusses the concept of strict criminal liability as developed in the system of England and Wales and presents the position that this concept occupies in relation to the classic for Anglo-Saxon countries, a two-element approach to the structure of a prohibited act, based on the correspondence of both objective and subjective components, and then transfers the considered problems onto the Polish criminal law plane in order to analyse the possibility of adapting an analogous construct in the statutory regulation of the subjective side of a prohibited act. In addition, the article presents the thesis that the advantages of strict liability may support the modification of the national approach towards a partial resignation from the requirements of the presence of a specific subjective element in the psyche of the perpetrator of a prohibited act in relation to all its objective features.


Keywords


strict liability; subjective side; prohibited act; individualization of liability; principle of guilt; criminal law

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Andrejew I., Ustawowe znamiona czynu. Typizacja i klasyfikacja przestępstw, Warszawa 1978.

Ashworth A., Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford 1991.

Ashworth A., Should Strict Criminal Liability Be Removed from All Imprisonable Offences?, “Irish Jurist” 2010, vol. 45.

Banaszak B., Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, Warszawa 2012.

Barczak-Oplustil A., Zasada koincydencji winy i czynu w Kodeksie karnym, Kraków 2016.

Bliźniak C., Specyfika regulacji mens rea w polskim kodeksie karnym na tle prawa krajów anglosaskich, “Prokuratura i Prawo” 2018, no. 10.

Bogusz M., Delikt administracyjny i kara administracyjna z perspektywy konstytucyjnej, [in:] „Administratywizacja” prawa karnego czy „kryminalizacja” prawa administracyjnego?, eds. M. Bogusz, W. Zalewski, Gdańsk 2021.

Czichy K., O niestosowaniu gwarancji karnych do administracyjnych kar pieniężnych, “Prokuratura i Prawo” 2018, no. 12.

Danecka D., Konwersja odpowiedzialności karnej w administracyjną w prawie polskim, Warszawa 2018.

Dimock S., The Malum prohibitum – Malum in se Distinction and the Wrongfulness Constraint on Criminalization, “Dialogue” 2016, vol. 55(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217316000275.

Glover R., Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The ‘Licensing Approach’, “Journal of Criminal Law” 2007, vol. 71(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2007.71.3.259.

Green S.P., Six Senses of Strict Liability: A Plea for Formalism, [in:] Appraising Strict Liability, ed. A.P. Simester, Oxford 2005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278510.003.0001.

Herring J., Criminal Law, London 2011.

Horder J., Strict Liability, Statutory Construction and the Spirit of Liberty, “Law Quarterly Review” 2002, vol. 118(3).

Husak D., Varieties of Strict Liability, “Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence” 1995, vol. 8(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900003167.

Jacobs F.G., Criminal Responsibility, London 1971.

Jamieson P., A Question of Criminal Guilt – Mens Rea Under Animal Protection Law, “The University of Queensland Law Journal” 1988, vol. 15(1).

Kaczmarek T., Sporne problemy umyślności, [in:] Umyślność i jej formy, ed. J. Majewski, Toruń 2011.

Królikowski M., [w:] Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Komentarz do artykułów 1–116, eds. R. Zawłocki, M. Królikowski, Legalis 2021.

Lachowski J., [in:] Kodeks karny. Komentarz, ed. V. Konarska-Wrzosek, LEX/el. 2020.

Lachowski J., Przejawy obiektywizacji odpowiedzialności karnej w k.k. z 1997 r., “Studia Prawnicze” 2006, no. 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2006.1.6.

Lachowski J., Strona podmiotowa czynu zabronionego, [in:] System Prawa Karnego, vol. 3: Nauka o przestępstwie. Zasady odpowiedzialności, ed. R. Dębski, Warszawa 2017.

Lachowski J., Wina w prawie karnym, [in:] System Prawa Karnego, vol. 3: Nauka o przestępstwie. Zasady odpowiedzialności, ed. R. Dębski, Warszawa 2017.

Levenson L.L., Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes, “Cornell Law Review” 1993, vol. 78(3).

Lewna A., Obiektywizacja odpowiedzialności za lekkomyślność w prawie karnym Anglii i Walii (spojrzenie komparatystyczne), “Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2018, no. 2.

Norrie A., Crime, Reason and History, London 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139031851.

Peterson J.H., The Voluntary Intoxication Defense in Florida: A Question of Intent, “Stetson Law Review” 1984, vol. 13(3).

Picinali F., Innocence and Burdens of Proof in English Criminal Law, “Law, Probability and Risk” 2014, vol. 13(3–4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu007.

Richardson G., Strict Liability for Regulatory Crime: The Empirical Research, “Criminal Law Review” 1987 (May).

Simester A.P., Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?, [in:] Appraising Strict Liability, ed. A.P. Simester, Oxford 2005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278510.001.0001.

Simons K.W., When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just?, “Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology” 1997, vol. 87(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1144016.

Sullivan G.R., Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, Oxford 2003.

Sullivan G.R., Strict Liability for Criminal Offences in England and Wales Following Incorporation into English Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, [in:] Appraising Strict Liability, ed. A.P. Simester, Oxford 2005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278510.003.0008.

Szumiło-Kulczycka D., Prawo administracyjno-karne, Kraków 2004.

Turski J., Administracyjne kary pieniężne w świetle Konstytucji RP – wybrane zagadnienia, “Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Administracji i Biznesu im. Eugeniusza Kwiatkowskiego w Gdyni” 2014, no. 20.

Zalewski W., Administratywizacja prawa karnego, [in:] „Administratywizacja” prawa karnego czy „kryminalizacja” prawa administracyjnego?, eds. M. Bogusz, W. Zalewski, Gdańsk 2021.

Zoll A., Kodeks karny. Część ogólna, vol. 1: Komentarz do art. 1–116, Warszawa 2012.

ONLINE SOURCES

The Law Reports (Appeal Cases), http://www.worldlii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1969/1.html (access: 2.2.2022).

LEGAL ACTS

Act of 6 June 1997 – Penal Code (consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2020, item 1444, as amended).

Act of 7 April 2017 amending the Act – Code of Administrative Procedure and certain other acts (Journal of Laws 2017, item 935).

Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 (Journal of Laws 1997, no. 78, item 483, as amended).

Human Rights Act 1998 (UK Public General Acts 1998 c. 42).

Licensing Act 1872 (UK Public General Acts 1872 c. 94).

Licensing Act 1964 (UK Public General Acts 1964 c. 26).

Licensing [Young Persons] Act 2000 (UK Public General Acts 2000 c. 30).

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK Public General Acts 2003 c. 42).

CASE LAW

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824 (HL).

B (A Child) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428 (HL).

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General for Hong Kong [1985] AC 1 (HL).

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 16 May 2000, P 1/99, OTK 2000, no. 4, item 111.

Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 November 2004, K 18/03, OTK-A 2004, no. 10, item 103.

McCrone v Riding [1938] 1 All ER 137.

Montana v Egelhoff [1996] 518 US 37.

R v G (Appellant) [2008] UKHL 37.

R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50.

R v Larsonneur [1933] 24 Cr App Rep 74.

R v Majewski [1977] AC 443.

Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918.

Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.2.203-223
Date of publication: 2023-06-27 10:36:53
Date of submission: 2021-08-04 14:02:05


Statistics


Total abstract view - 870
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Andrzej Lewna

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.