Abstract
The essay considers fictions in four areas of criminal law. The area of jury nullification fits most easily into a narrative of fictions as a mechanism for gentle amelioration of undesirable laws (in particular, undesirable penalties). The value of fictions in this narrative depends upon acceptance of the reactivity of the jury as the finger on the contemporary moral pulse. The construction of facts as a bargaining process is easier to accept in the civil field, but can also operate successfully in the criminal law, in which to fail altogether to recognise the possibility of fact construction would be to commit to a worse fiction. The essay contrasts these two against two other uses of fiction in criminal law which ought to be treated with greater scepticism. One is the use of forfeiture deriving its justification from the medieval fiction to the effect that the thing is guilty. This is impossible to justify and the recent growth of forfeiture is to be regretted. Finally, by way of contrast, the essay looks at the use of deeming provisions in criminal proscriptions. Whatever their value elsewhere, they ought not to be countenanced in substantive criminal law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Doli incapax, as to which see the saga from C. v. D.P.P. [1996] A.C. 1, via Crime and Disorder Act 1998s 34, to R. v. J.T.B. [2009] UKHL 20, [2010] 1 A.C. 1310.
- 2.
The fiction of consent as the basis of the marital rape immunity was only finally laid to rest in R. v. R. [1992] 1 A.C. 599, [1991] 4 All E.R. 481.
- 3.
“[T]hose infelicitous legal fictions a court of human rights can well do without.” Al-Skeini v United Kingdom (55721/07) European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 18; 30 B.H.R.C. 561.
- 4.
Zupančič (1983), p. 21.
- 5.
Sturdy v. Jackaway (71 U.S. 174, 1869) and Sparkes, this volume, Chap. 13.
- 6.
Lon Fuller (1967), introduction.
- 7.
Because of Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.8. See also the critique by Lord Steyn, dissenting in R v. Connor, R v. Mirza [2004] UKHL 2.
- 8.
The authority usually cited is R v. Penn (1670) 6 How.St. Trials 951. More modern examples are R v Ponting (Central Criminal Court, 1985, and see Ponting 1987) and R v Randle &. Pottle (1991, Alliott J.) acquittals said to have been “ … quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges.” R v. Wang [2005] UKHL 9 para 16, citing famous passages from Devlin 1956, pp. 160, 162. Compare R. v Smith (Patrick) R. v Mercieca [2005] UKHL 12; [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 10.
- 9.
D.P.P. v Stonehouse [1978] A.C. 55; R v. Wang [2005] UKHL 9, [2005] 1 All E.R. 782.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
And see Clarkson and Cunningham 2008.
- 13.
See Radzinowicz 1948, pp. 268 and 333–337. Langbein 1983 at 37–43.
- 14.
And see Kesselring 2003, Appendix 2 pp. 46, 78, 212–214 (benefit of the belly), 46–48, 57, 62, 63, (benefit of clergy).
- 15.
This list is by no means exhaustive. A range of decisions at the border of murder and (both voluntary and involuntary) manslaughter could be considered in the same light, as could valuations of property so as to avoid grand larceny.
- 16.
Langbein 2003.
- 17.
- 18.
25 Edw.III, c.4.
- 19.
4 Henry VIII. c. 2.
- 20.
Blackstone IV Commentaries 360.
- 21.
18 Eliz.I c.7.
- 22.
.Blackstone IV Commentaries 362.
- 23.
3&4 W. & M. c. 9, 4&5 W. & M. c. 24.
- 24.
6 Anne, c. 9.
- 25.
7&8 Geo VI c 28.
- 26.
4&5 Vic c.22.
- 27.
- 28.
Oldham 1985.
- 29.
Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931.
- 30.
M’Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200. A striking example is R v Eric Brown (Essex Assizes, 1943, The Times, November 5, 1943) (the ‘Rayleigh bath chair murder’). The defendant killed his father with an anti-tank mine during an air-raid, hoping that the outcome would be mistaken for injuries caused by bombing. He gave a confession that presented his actions as a response to his father’s abusive attitude both to him and to his mother. The jury nonetheless held him to be insane within the M’Naghten Rules. I have been unable to trace the direction to the jury. The verdict can be read as a statement by the jury that taking the lives of people with disabilities does not “count”.
- 31.
The Homicide Act 1957 differentiated capital from non-capital murders. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 ended capital punishment for murder in the U.K.
- 32.
Gowers 1953 p. 77 and Appendix 3 table 8, p. 311.
- 33.
The Commission received some unspecific anecdotal evidence of cases where the rules are ignored (Gowers at page 82).
- 34.
Ruth Ellis (R v Ellis [2003] EWCA Crim 3556), Derek Bentley (R v Bentley (Deceased) [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. 21) and Guenther Podola (R v. Podola (1959) 43 Cr. App. Rep. 220) are examples. Podola shot a police officer. Bentley was complicit in killing one.
- 35.
R v. Podola (1959) 43 Cr App Rep 220.
- 36.
Gowers 1953.
- 37.
Homicide Act 1957 s. 2.
- 38.
Homicide Act 1957 s. 5. Murder of police and prison officers, murder in the course of theft, murder by shooting or explosion (but see Brown, above footnote 30) remained capital.
- 39.
White 1985.
- 40.
- 41.
The reference is to Blackstone IV Commentaries 239, 359 et seq (my footnote).
- 42.
Langbein 1987, p. 37.
- 43.
Radzinowicz 1999.
- 44.
- 45.
Thompson 1975, pp. 258–269.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
Thompson also has many defenders—e.g. Cole 2001.
- 49.
Sweeney J. in R. v. Vicky Pryce (2013). “Vicky Pryce faces retrial after jury ‘fails to grasp basics’”, The Guardian, 20 February 2013.
- 50.
And see Roberts 2011.
- 51.
- 52.
Smith 2005.
- 53.
E.g. R. v. Wise [1979] R.T.R. 57: “If a judge enters into a blatant plea-bargain, his fitness to sit as a judge on the criminal law Bench is called into question.” (Lord Widgery C.J. at 59C–D); R. v. Grice(1978) 66 Cr. App. R. 167 “We find it quite astonishing that any recorder should characterise what he is doing as ‘plea bargaining.’ But even more so when it clearly was ‘plea bargaining’” (Roskill L.J. at 308).
- 54.
- 55.
R. v. Turner [1970] 2 Q.B. 321.
- 56.
- 57.
Auld 2001, pp. 434–444.
- 58.
Ib.
- 59.
And see Ashworth 2010, p. 172. Sentencing Advisory Panel (Now Council) Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea: Definitive Guideline (2007).
- 60.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s. 48, Criminal Justice Act 2003 s. 144.
- 61.
Sentencing Guidelines Council on the Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea (December 2004).
- 62.
R. v. Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888.
- 63.
Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004)[2004] 1 W.L.R. 2111, R v Simpson[2004] Q.B. 118.
- 64.
Auld 2001, above footnote 57, paras 55–80.
- 65.
Goodyear at para 46.
- 66.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994s.48.
- 67.
Below, pp. 376–378.
- 68.
- 69.
Bennett and Feldman (1981).
- 70.
R. v. BAE Systems Plc [2010] EW Misc 16.
- 71.
Companies Act 1985 s. 221.
- 72.
Under EU Directive 2004/18/EC Article 45.
- 73.
R. v. Innospec Plc [2010] EW Misc 7 (EWCC); [2010] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 462, [2010] Crim. LR 665.
- 74.
Para 7.
- 75.
Para 26.
- 76.
And see para 47.
- 77.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 s. 45.
- 78.
Luna 1997.
- 79.
Finkelstein 1973 at 257.
- 80.
Berman 1999.
- 81.
1 Blackstone, Commentaries, 300.
- 82.
U.S. v Sixty Pipes of Brandy (1825) 23 U.S. (10 Wheat) 421; R v Forty-Nine Casks of Brandy (1836), 3 Hag. Adm. 257, 166 E.R. 401 (H.C. Adm.)
- 83.
United States v Ursery (1996) 518 U.S. 267; 116 S. Ct. 2135.
- 84.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s. 143.
- 85.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s. 294 et sEq.
- 86.
Terrorism Act 2000 s. 23 and 23A.
- 87.
‘[T]he imagination of the mind to do wrong, without an act done, is not punishable in our law.’ Hales v Petit (1562) 1.Plow. 253, 259, 75 E.R. 387, 397; Hitchler 1934, p. 97; 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 21 (‘[A]s no temporal tribunal can search the heart, or fathom the intentions of the mind, otherwise than as they are demonstrated by outward actions, it therefore cannot punish for what it cannot know.’); Perkins 1939, p. 907, all cited in Goldstein 1959, fn. 1. Even the Terrorism Act 2000 s 5 requires ‘preparation’. See, e.g., A.P. Simester et al. 2010 and Chan and Simester 2011.
- 88.
‘Compassing the sovereign’s death’ in treason does not just mean thinking about it. See, e.g., Barrell 2000.
- 89.
Which is what would be required respectively for incitement or conspiracy or the general law on criminal liability for omissions.
- 90.
Terrorism Act 2006 s 3: compare Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1.
- 91.
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234.
- 92.
Lobban, supra ch 10 citing Edward Wynne, Eunomus: or Dialogues concerning the Law and Constitution of England (Dublin: James Moore 1791), pp. 70–71.
- 93.
An imaginary number is a number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is defined by its property i2 = − 1.
- 94.
Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins [1913] A.C. 1, Barnett v. Cohen [1921] 2 K.B. 461.
- 95.
Criminal Law Revision Committee 1966.
- 96.
It had to be considered by the House of Lords in DPP v Turner [1974] A.C. 357, DPP v Ray [1974] A.C. 370, MPC v Charles [1977] A.C. 177 and R v Lambie [1982] A.C. 449.
- 97.
R v Royle [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1764 per Edmund-Davies L.J.
- 98.
Criminal Law Revision Committee (1977).
- 99.
Theft Act 1978.
- 100.
R v Preddy [1996] A.C. 815, [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 524.
- 101.
Law Commission 1996.
- 102.
Theft Act 1968 Section 15A.
- 103.
Introduced after Law Commission 2002.
- 104.
First in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, now the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s. 76.
- 105.
R. v. Smith (David Cadman) [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 All E.R. 366.
- 106.
Para 20.
- 107.
R. v. Dimsey [2001] UKHL 46; [2002] 1 A.C. 509; R. v. Allen [2001] UKHL 45; [2002] 1 A.C. 509.
- 108.
On appeal from Shakeel Ahmad, Syed Mubarak Ahmed v. R. [2012] EWCA Crim 391.
- 109.
S.340(6).
- 110.
And see Mumford and Alldridge 2005, making a series of points ignored in R. v. K [2007] EWCA Crim 491; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2262; [2008] S.T.C. 1270; R. v. Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 980 and R. v. William et al. [2013] EWCA Crim 1262.
- 111.
References
Alschuler, A. W. 1979. Plea bargaining and its history. Columbia Law Review 79:1.
Ashworth, Andrew. 2010. Sentencing and criminal justice. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auld, R. (Chair). 2001. Review of the criminal courts of England and Wales, September.
Baker, Newman F. 1927. Benefit of clergy—A legal anomaly. Kentucky Law Journal 15:85–115.
Baldwin, John and Michael McConville. 1977. Negotiated justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barrell, J. 2000. Imagining the king’s death: Figurative treason, fantasies of regicide 1793–1796. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Martha S. Feldman. 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom—Justice and judgment in American culture. Camden: Rutgers.
Berman, Paul Schiff. 1999. An anthropological approach to modern forfeiture law: The symbolic function of legal actions against objects. Yale Journal Law & Humanities 11:1.
Boll, Matthias. 2009. Plea bargaining and agreement in the criminal process. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag.
Brants, Chrisje. 2007. Consensual criminal procedures: Plea and confession bargaining and abbreviated procedures to simplify criminal procedure vol.11.1. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (May). http://www.ejcl.org/111/article111-6.pdf.
Chan, Winnie, and Andrew Simester. 2011. Four functions of mens rea. Cambridge Law Journal 70:381.
Clarkson, C. M. V., and Sally Cunningham. 2008. Criminal liability for non-aggressive death. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Cole, Daniel H. 2001. ‘An unqualified human good’: EP Thompson and the rule of law. Journal of Law and Society 28:177–203.
Criminal Law Revision Committee. 1966. Eighth report: Theft and related offences (Cmnd 2977).
Criminal Law Revision Committee. 1977. Thirteenth report: Section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 (Cmnd 6733).
Cunningham, Sally. 2008. Vehicular homicide: Need for a special offence? In ed. Clarkson and Cunningham, 97.
Devlin, P. 1956. Trial by jury. London: Stevens.
Elliott, D. W., and H. Street. 1968. Road accidents. London: Allen Lane.
Finkelstein, J. 1973. The goring ox: Some historical perspectives on deodands, forfeitures, wrongful death and the western notion of sovereignty. Temple Law Quarterly 46:169.
Fuller, L. 1967. Legal fictions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gallacher, Ian. 2006. The beggar’s opera and its criminal law context. In John Gay’s the beggar’s opera 1728–2004: Adaptations and re-writings, eds. Uwe Boeker, Ines Detmers, and Anna-Christina Giovanopoulos, 103–125. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Goldstein, A. 1959. Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Yale Law Journal 68:405.
Gowers, E. (chair). 1953. Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949–1953 (Cmd. 8932).
Hay, Douglas. 1975. Property, authority and the criminal law. In Albion’s fatal tree, ed. Douglas Hay et al., 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hay, Douglas. 2011. Writing about the death penalty. Legal History 10:1.
Herbert, A. P. 1982. More uncommon law. London: Mandarin.
Hitchler, W. H. 1934. The physical element of crime. Dickinson Law Review 39:95.
Horder, Jeremy. 2008. Homicide reform and the changing character of legal thought. In ed. Clarkson and Cunningham, 11.
Kesselring, K. J. 2003. Mercy and authority in the Tudor state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lacey, Nicola. 2008. Women, crime, and character: From Moll Flanders to Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langbein, John H. 1983a. Albion’s fatal flaws. Past & Present 98:96–120.
Langbein, John. 1983b. Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial: A view from the Ryder sources. University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1): 37–43.
Langbein, John H. 1987. The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French revolution. In The trial jury in England, France, Germany 1700–1900, ed. Padoa Schioppa, 34 et sEq. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Langbein, John H. 2003. Origins of the adversarial criminal trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law Commission No 237. 1996a. Legislating the criminal code: Involuntary manslaughter.
Law Commission No 243. 1996b. Offences of dishonesty: Money transfers.
Law Commission No 276. 2002. Fraud.
Luna, Erik Grant. 1997. Fiction trumps innocence: The Bennis court’s constitutional house of cards. Stanford Law Review 49:409.
McConville, M. 1998. Plea bargaining: Ethics and politics. Journal of Law and Society 25:562.
McConville, M., et al. 1994. Standing accused. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, J. 2006. The rise and fall of the general duty of care. Professional Negligence 4:206–224.
Mumford, A., and P. Alldridge. 2005. Tax evasion and the proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Legal Studies 25:353.
Oldfield, Josiah. 1901. Penalty of death or the problem of capital punishment. Bell Ch. 9, The fiction.
Oldham, James. 1985. On pleading the belly. Criminal Justice History 6:1–64.
Perkins, R. 1939. A rationale of mens rea. Harvard Law Review 52:905.
Ponting, C. 1987. R v Ponting. Journal of Law and Society 14:366.
Radzinowicz, Leon. 1948. A history of English criminal law and its administration, 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radzinowicz, Leon. 1999. The awkward question of capital punishment. In Adventures in criminology, 245 et sEq. London: Routledge.
Roberts, Paul. 2011. Does Article 6 of the European convention on human rights require reasoned verdicts in criminal trials? Human Rights Law Review 11:213.
Runciman, W. (chair). 1993. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Cm.2263).
Simester, A. P., et al. 2010. Criminal law theory and doctrine. 4th ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Smith, Bruce P. 2005. Plea bargaining and the eclipse of the jury. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1:131.
Sparkes, Peter. 2014. Ejectment: Three births and a funeral. In Legal fictions in theory and practice, ed. Maksymilian Del Mar and William Twining. Dordrecht: Springer.
Thomas, Philip A. 1978. Plea bargaining in England and Wales. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 69:170.
Thompson, E. P. 1975. Whigs and hunters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Thompson, E. P. 1980. The state versus its enemies. In Writing by candlelight, 99. London: Merlin Press.
Thompson, E. P. 1986. Subduing the jury. London Review of Books, Dec 4.
Tonry, Michael. 2009. The mostly unintended effects f mandatory penalties: Two centuries of consistent findings. Crime and Justice 38:65.
White, Edward J. 1912. Benefit of clergy. American Law Review 46:78.
White, Stephen. 1985. The insanity defense in England and Wales since 1843. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 45:477.
Zupančič, Boštjan M. 1983. Criminal law: Its nature and its function. New York: B. M. ZupancÌicÌ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Conclusion
Conclusion
The jury equity cases will be popular with people with whom the jury is popular. They are the closest to the Maine/Fuller idea of the constructive fiction. The plea bargaining cases are more problematic. They involve not so much fictions but fact creations. As such they do represent, in criminal law, something of a threat, because the requirements of transparent and open justice should imply that decisions by prosecutors as to the facts of a case and a proposed determination should coincide as closely as possible, so far as it is possible to establish, to the history. Forfeiture is based no less on superstition now than it was in the eighteenth century. Save where there is a clear and sufficient justification, it should be abolished. That justification can never arise from the thing itself. Deeming provisions ought never to be permitted in that part of criminal law that is intended to provide a guide to conduct.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alldridge, P. (2015). Some Uses of Legal Fictions in Criminal Law. In: Del Mar, M., Twining, W. (eds) Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 110. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09232-4_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09232-4_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09231-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09232-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)