Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  angielskie prawo karne
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Odpowiedzialność karna za przestępne współdziałanie w prawie angielskim po wyroku R v. Jogee; Ruddock v. The Queen

100%
Brzostek P.
Studia Iuridica
|
2018
|
vol. 76
98-121
PL
The combined decisions of the UK Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in R v. Jogee; Ruddock v. The Queen caused upheaval in the English law on criminal complicity. The Supreme Court/Privy Council decided that the law on criminal complicity „took a wrong turn” 33 years ago in the Privy Council ruling in Chan Wing-Siu which concerned a controversial doctrine of parasitic joint enterprise liability. According to the said doctrine, if A and B set out to commit a crime X (e.g. robbery) and B foresees that A might commit crime Y (e.g. murder) in the course of committing crime X, B will be liable for crime Y, even if he does not intend that crime Y be committed. The mere fact of foresight on B’s part is enough for him to be criminally liable. Decision in Jogee; Ruddock is of seminal importance as it overturned the doctrine of parasitic joint enterprise liability. It is doubtful, however, to what extent the Supreme Court has resolved the problems that have bedeviled this area of law. This article presents in outline the English law on criminal complicity and attempts to assess the changes that were introduced in Jogee; Ruddock. A number of issues still call for further refinement and resolution. It appears, however, that the emphasis the Supreme Court put on intention as a required standard of fault, draws, at least superficially, the continental (Polish and German) and English criminal law closer together in terms of mens rea requirements for secondary liability.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Orzeczenia zbieżne (concurrent sentences) i orzeczenia konsekutywne (consecutive sentences) w angielskim prawie karnym

57%
Błachnio-Parzych A.
Studia Prawnicze
|
2016
|
issue 2 (206)
157-170
EN
The purpose of this article is to analyze the institution of the concurrent and the consecutive sentences in the English criminal law. The differences between them are based on the way they are executed and on the premises which courts take into consideration. Generally, the concurrent sentences are imposed for offences which arose out of a single act and therefore the terms of imprisonment shall run at the same time (concurrently). However, a deeper analysis of the literature and the case law of the English courts leads to the conclusion that the differences between them are not so important, because the main role plays the totality principle. It changes the way the institution of the concurrent and the consecutive sentences shall be perceived.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.