"INTERNET LAW BOOK REVIEWS" Provided by Rob Jerrard LLB LLM (London)

Intersentia Books Reviewed in 2012/13

Siracusa Guidelines for International, Regional and National Fact-Finding Bodies
Edition: 1st
Format: Paperback
Author: M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed.)Christina Abraham (ed.)
ISBN: 978-1-78068-193-1
Publishers: Intersentia
Price: £47
Publication Date: Sept 2013

Publisher's Title Information

“The Siracusa Guidelines have appeared at an important and opportune moment. Those keen to promote accountability in conflicts around the world are increasingly relying on fact finding bodies to provide necessary documentation which will ensure that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice. The 'Guidelines', developed from inputs by more than 80 experts, provide a thorough and welcome framework to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the processes of creating, investigating, reporting and follow-up for these various bodies.” Karen Koning AbuZayd Commissioner, Syria UN CoI; Former High Commissioner UNRWA
 
“The Siracusa Guidelines for fact-finding bodies derive from a wealth of combined knowledge and experience in the field. They address in a comprehensive and integrated way many essential issues which have often been inadequately dealt with or ignored. The application of the guidelines will not only improve the conduct and effectiveness of such missions but also enhance their legitimacy.” Philippe Kirsch Former President, ICC; Former Ambassador and Legal Adviser, MOFA, Canada
 
“Fact-Finding Bodies are an essential component of international, regional and national investigative processes. It is of paramount concern that they work to high and common standards. The obvious expertise and solid work of the Siracusa Committee has produced a draft of high quality, and of great practical application.” Howard Morrison Judge, ICC; Former Judge, ICTY
 
“These Guidelines are indispensable to those engaged in fact-finding and will contribute immensely to the process of international criminal justice.” Hassan B. Jallow Chief Prosecutor, UNICTR/UNMICT
 
“These guidelines are an essential resource for anybody working on issues connected with international investigation commissions in the future.” Serge Brammertz Prosecutor, ICTY
 
“Hindsight, Insight and Foresight....These Guidelines provide a wealth of wisdom for discussion and reflection.” Vitit Muntarbhorn Professor of Law, Bangkok University; international human rights expert who served in several UN capacities


Preventive Detention: Asking the Fundamental Questions
Edition: 1st
Format: Paperback
Author: Edited by Patrick Keyzer
ISBN: 978-1-78068-117-7
Publishers: Intersentia
Price: £66
Publication Date: April 2013

Publisher's Title Information

In any society some people pose a risk to others. For hundreds of years preventive detention has been authorised by governments to ensure people are available for criminal proceedings (e.g. remand), in the mental health area, for quarantine, for inebriates, enemy aliens, and sexual predators. The policy has also been famously employed more recently to control suspected terrorists.
 
These regimes have proliferated in recent years, and this book asks and answers some of the fundamental questions about these regimes. What are their doctrinal foundations? Is there a risk in laws that blur the historic division between criminal and civil law, allowing civil law to be used for criminal law purposes but without the protection normally provided to criminal defendants? Are they effective in protecting people from harm? How do these regimes challenge fundamental principles, such as human rights? Are our laws and policies geared towards the rehabilitation of the detained? What are the remedies available to people who seek to challenge these regimes?
 
Regimes that punish people who have not been convicted of a fresh crime or that contemplate the infliction of punishment upon breach of a 'control order' require careful scrutiny to avoid human rights abuse. This volume considers preventive detention in its many varying forms across Europe, the Americas and Australasia, interrogates the theoretical underpinnings of the regimes, and then critically analyses these regimes for consistency with international human rights. The volume brings together respected international experts to guide lawmakers, policymakers and academics in an increasingly significant area of penal and public policy.
 

Review

'This essential collection of writings on the growing use of preventive detention could not be more timely. Preventive Detention: Asking the Fundamental Questions provides an international perspective available nowhere else on how democracies can preserve civil liberties while addressing public risk. It needs to be read and discussed by every policymaker, practitioner, and legal scholar concerned with one of the most important issues of our time.'
John Petrila, Chair and Professor, Department of Health Policy & Management, University of South Florida

The Editor

Bachelor of Arts [Honours] - Sydney University Bachelor of Laws [Honours] - Sydney University Master of Laws - Sydney University Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice - University of Technology, Sydney Professor Patrick Keyzer joined Bond University in 2006 after previous work as a solicitor, barrister, academic, consultant and Executive Associate to the Chief Justice of Australia. Keyzer is a constitutional lawyer who represents clients in the High Court of Australia and in the Supreme Courts of New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Vanuatu. Keyzer has written a number of texts on constitutional law, and has a particular research interest in the topic of access to justice. Keyzer has completed grant-funded research for the Australian Research Council, the Criminology Research Council and the Queensland Attorney-General's LPITAF Fund. Research interests & research expertise Along with scholars from Monash, UTS and several overseas institutions, Keyzer recently won ARC funding for 2008-2010 to advance his research interest in the preventive detention of dangerous offenders. During 2008 Keyzer will work on this project and also a LPITAF-funded project to develop and evaluate a free legal advice service for ageing carers of people with intellectual disability.

"More Details on the Intersentia Website"

Actus Reus and Participation in European Criminal Law
Edition: 1st
Format: Paperback
Author: Johannes Keiler
ISBN: 978-1-78068-135-1
Publishers: Intersentia
Price: £90
Publication Date: April 2013-10-10

Publisher's Title Information

With the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon the competences of the European Union in the realm of criminal law have greatly expanded. The Union, in a multitude of legislative instruments, requires its Member States to criminalize a big variety of harmful conducts. However, the criminal law legislation of the European Union has so far almost exclusively focused on specific criminal offences and has failed to develop and define general principles of criminal law. The Union frequently refers to conduct, attempt and participation in its legislation but fails to determine what these concepts should denote to. As a result the scope of European criminal law may differ among European countries as Member States will apply their national doctrines to European legislation.
 
This book aims to step in this lacuna by establishing what actus reus and rules on participation should look like in European criminal law. In addition it investigates inchoate offences and corporate criminal liability. How should the doctrines of conduct, omission and causation be defined? How to attribute liability in case several people cooperate to bring about a criminal result? What should preparing and attempting a crime denote to in European criminal law and how can corporations best be held responsible for the harm they have caused? To answer these questions this book distills common general principles on actus reus, participation, inchoate and corporate liability from the national criminal justice systems of the Member States as well as from European Union law. These results are subsequently merged into coherent principles of European criminal law.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Chapter I
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. European criminal law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. The need for a general part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Practical Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Theoretical relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Elaborated research questions and outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Participating in crime - the multiple actor scenarios . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Inchoate liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.4. Corporate Criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Comparative research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. The investigated penal systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Comparative methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Criteria for synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1. External criteria for the synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.2. Internal criteria for the synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Criminal Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1. Defi nition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2. Harm versus Culpability and Objectivism versus subjectivism in
the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3. The framework of criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4. Criminal liability in the risk society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter II
Perpetration - The elements of crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2. The doctrine of conduct or the conundrum of the baseline of criminal
liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Contents
viii
2.2. The doctrine of conduct and the criminal law's image of man . . . . . . . 45
2.2.1. The image of man in the Risk Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.2. Is criminal liability confi ned to human conduct? . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.3. Different theories of conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.1. The causal theory of action - or the ghost in the machine . . . 53
2.3.2. The teleological theory of action - human conduct is
“seeing”, not blind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.3.3. The social theory of action - signifi cance lies not in the act
but in the context in which it is born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.3.4. The normative act requirement - the legal normative view . . . 59
2.4. The conduct requirement in practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.1. Loss of physical control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.4.2. Impaired consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.5. The underlying rationale of the conduct requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3. Omissions: Criminal liability in absence of physical action? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.2. Omissions in criminal law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.1. Statutory duties of care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2.2. Commission by omission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4. Causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.2. The conditio sine qua non or the 'but for' test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.3. The theory of proximate cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.4. The theory of adequate causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5. The relevance theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.6. Causation in Criminal Law in England, the Netherlands and
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.6.1. The legal principled approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.6.2. The metaphysical/normative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.6.3. The normative/legal approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.7. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.8. Conundrums of causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.8.1. Predispositions of the victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.8.2. Conduct of the victim breaking the chain of causation . . . . . 142
4.8.3. Medical interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.8.4. Drug administration cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.9. Causation in European Union Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Contents
ix
Chapter III
Modes of liability - The multiple actor scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
2. Terminology and outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
2.2. Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3. Unitarian and differentiated concepts of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4. The derivative nature of the accomplices' liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2. Rationales for secondary liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4.3. The nature and quality of the derivative relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5. The concepts of participation in England: a short introduction . . . . . . . . . . 167
5.1. The English approach to participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.2. Secondary forms of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.2.1. Actus reus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.2.2. The fault element in complicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.3. An expansion of liability - The Serious Crime Act 2007 . . . . . . . . . . 180
6. Perpetration: Choices and Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2. A Restrictive or extensive conception of perpetration? . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.2.1. The different connotations of perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.2.2. The restrictive concept of perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.2.3. An extensive concept of perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.3. A Subjective or objective approach to perpetration? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.4. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7. Vertical forms of perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
7.2. The Perpetrator behind the scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7.2.1. The German hegemony over the act doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7.2.2. The Dutch doctrine of functional perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . 200
7.2.3. The English doctrine of vicarious liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
7.2.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7.3. Perpetration by means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.3.1. The traditional scope of the doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.3.2. The different designs and limitations of the doctrine . . . . . . 217
7.3.3. Extending perpetration by means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.3.4. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.4. Instigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.4.2. Instigation in Germany and the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.4.3. The fault element of instigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
7.4.4. Errors of the perpetrator and their effect on the instigator . . 235
7.4.5. The means of instigation in the Dutch penal system . . . . . . . 235
Contents
x
8. Horizontal forms of perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
8.1. Co-perpetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
8.1.1. Expanding the scope of mutual attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.1.2. Is mere presence suffi cient to establish co-perpetration? . . . 248
8.1.3. The limits of mutual attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
8.2. The English doctrine of joint criminal enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
8.3. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
9. Assisting a criminal offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
9.2. Assistance in the Netherlands, Germany and England/Wales . . . . . . 266
9.3. The scope and nature of assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
9.3.1. The scope of assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
9.3.2. The nature of assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
9.4. The furthering effect of aid (causality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
9.5. The fault element of assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10. Limitations to participatory liability - Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
10.1. Withdrawal from participation in a joint enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
10.2. Withdrawal from assistance and encouragement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
11. The notions of perpetration and participation in EU Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
11.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
11.2. The notions of agreement and concerted practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
11.3. The objective requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
11.4. The subjective requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
11.5. The model of participation in competition law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11.6. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
12. Preliminary conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
13. Towards a European concept of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.2. A normative concept of participation in crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
13.3. Trivial assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Chapter IV
Inchoate offences: Attempt and preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
2. Two patterns of criminality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
2.1. The pattern of manifest criminality a.k.a. the harm-centred view . . . 324
2.2. The pattern of subjective criminality a.k.a. the culpabilitycentred
view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
2.3. The communalities of the two patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
3. The Objective - Subjective Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
4. The pattern of criminality in the culture of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
5. Attempt versus preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Contents
xi
6. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
6.2. Offences criminalising preparatory conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
6.2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
6.2.2. Specifi c offences: Possession and endangerment . . . . . . . . . . 336
6.3. Preparation as a doctrine of the general part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
6.3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
6.3.2. The Dutch doctrine of preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
6.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
7. Criminal attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
7.2. The rationale for punishing attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
7.2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
7.2.2. Objective rationales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
7.2.3. Subjective rationales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
7.2.4. Mixed rationales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
7.3. Analysing the legislative starting point of attempt liability . . . . . . . . 359
7.3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
7.3.2. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
7.3.3. The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.3.4. England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.4. The actus reus of criminal attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
7.4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
7.4.2. Drawing the line between attempt and preparation . . . . . . . . 364
7.4.3. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
7.5. The fault element in attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
7.5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
7.5.2. The fault element in England/Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
7.5.3. The fault element in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
7.5.4. The fault element in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
7.5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
8. Impossible attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
8.2. The objective approach: Impossibility in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . 394
8.3. The Subjective approach: Impossibility in England and Wales . . . . . 397
8.4. The mixed approach: Impossibility in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
8.5. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
9. Voluntary Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
9.2. Rationales for accepting voluntary withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
9.3. The nature of the exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
9.4. The constituent elements of withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
9.4.1. Categories of attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Contents
xii
9.4.2. Voluntariness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
9.4.3. The actus contrarius in complete attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
9.5. Voluntary withdrawal from preparation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
10. Inchoate offences in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
11. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
11.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
11.2. Criminal attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
Chapter V
Criminal liability of legal entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2. Alternative and complementary methods to tackle corporate wrongdoing . 441
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.2. Regulatory offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
2.3. Strict liability offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
2.4. Personal liability of corporate directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
3. Models of Corporate criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
3.2. Objective models of liability: Vicarious liability and the benefi t
theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
3.3. The identifi cation doctrine in English law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.3.1. The application of the identifi cation doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
3.3.2. Acting within the scope of corporate duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
3.3.3. The Meridian Case: Towards a more fl exible approach of
identifi cation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
3.3.4. The impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
3.4. The identifi cation doctrine in the German Administrative
Offences Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
3.5. The identifi cation doctrine in European Union Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
3.6. The attribution of fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
3.7. The pitfalls of the identifi cation doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
3.8. Alternative models of liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
3.8.1. The Drijfmest (slurry) judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
3.8.2. Jurisprudence after the Drijfmest (slurry) judgment . . . . . . . 482
3.8.3. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
4. Corporate culture and ethos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
4.2. Organisational fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
5.2. Corporate liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
Contents
xiii
Chapter VI
Conclusion - Towards a general part of European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . 503
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
1.1. The increasing normativity of criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.2. The limits of criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
2. A European concept of actus reus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
2.1. The conduct requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
2.2. Omission liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.3. Causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
3. Multiple actor scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
4. Inchoate offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
5. Corporate criminal liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
6. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
Samenvatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
Curriculum Vitae Johannes Keiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

The Author

Johannes Keiler is a researcher/lecturer at the department of criminal law. He holds a master's degree in law from the University Innsbruck, Austria and a master's degree in European Union Law from the Universiteit van Amsterdam.
 
In 2013 he defended his dissertation on "Actus reus and participation in European criminal law". This project aimed at creating a general part of European criminal law by induction of common elements of the existing legal systems of the Member States and subsequently merging them with elements to be found in existing EU legislations and case law.

"More Details on the Intersentia Website"

Whose Responsibility?
A Study of Transnational Defence Rights and Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions within the EU
Edition: 1st,
Format: Paperback
Author:
ISBN: 978-1-78068-175-7
Publishers: Intersentia
Price: £52
Publication Date: July 2013

Publisher's Title Information

The growing attention being paid to transnational criminality and the emergence of new models of state cooperation make it necessary to reconsider the traditional features of human rights enforcement. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of how criminal procedural rights are (if at all) protected within the framework of mutual recognition within the EU. The study concentrates on the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant.
 
The central issue of analysis is the national and extraterritorial responsibility for violations of fundamental rights which occur in the framework of such transnational procedures. Are there any provisions in international or national instruments, which aim at effectively preventing or remedying violations? Is there any functioning judicial control? The effect of national legislation and human rights bars to cooperation is discussed on the basis of a comparative study of the legislation and case-law in Sweden and the UK. Further, the roles of the European Courts for the protection of due process rights are analysed.
 
The book focuses on the special features of mutual recognition in relation to state responsibility for an executing and issuing State. Especially the concept of mutual trust and the justifications for a system of division of labour between the States are critically discussed. Whose responsibility? provides the reader with new and interesting perspectives regarding the specific problems of being a defendant within the EU, and gives some new answers to the question of responsibility for transnational defence rights.

The Author

Dr. Malin Thunberg Schunke is an Associate Professor in Criminal Law at the University of Uppsala. She holds an LLD in Criminal Law (Uppsala University) and an LLM in Criminology and Criminal Justice (King`s College, London). Her research interests lie in national and international criminal law. She has been an Apprentice Judge at Stockholm City Court and has been working several years as an Assistant Prosecutor in Stockholm.

"More Details on the Intersentai Website"

Mens rea and defences in European criminal
Volume 54
Edition: 1st
Author Jeroen Blomsma
Format: Paperback
ISBN: 978-1-78068-104-7
Publishers: Intersentia
Price: RRP £100
Publication Date: October 2012

Publisher's Title Information

In the past decades, the process of European integration has influenced all fields of law, and eventually also criminal law. Whereas the creation and enforcement of criminal liability used to be purely a national matter, European legislation now requires Member States to criminalize all sorts of harmful conduct. However, this legislation does not determine the full scope of criminal liability, omitting to define general principles of criminal law. For example, the Union refers to 'intention' in its legislation, but it has not determined what qualifies as such. As a result, what is criminal in one State may not be in another, which runs counter to the goal of harmonization.

This book aims to remedy this by establishing what mens rea and defences should look like in European criminal law. Should intentional conduct also encompass those consequences that were not wanted, but merely foreseen as possible side-effects? Should the European legislator be allowed to criminalize conduct that does not require any proof of mens rea? What justifications and excuses could a defendant raise in Court? Can torture or murder ever be excused? To answer these questions, this book infers common principles of mens rea and defences from European law and the legal systems of the Member States. Subsequently, it merges them into one coherent and enforceable system.

"More Details on the Intersentia Website"

LINKS

"Internet Law Book Reviews", Copyright Rob Jerrard 2012/13