Withdrawal and Criminal Liability under the Criminal Laws of Jordan and Australia: A Comparative Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-40
Author(s):  
Mamoun Abu-Zeitoun ◽  
Mouaid Al-Qudah
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Conceptual Basis ◽  
Voluntary Withdrawal ◽  
Current State ◽  
Conceptual Nature

This article is a comparative study of withdrawal as a defence to the criminal liability of an offender in Jordan (a civil law jurisdiction) and Australia (a common law jurisdiction). The analysis in this paper reveals that, in both jurisdictions, criminal laws have long accepted withdrawal as a conduit through which the offender’s liability can be modified or completely quashed. However, there has been no serious attempt, at least in Jordan, to provide anything approaching a complete explanation of the conditions under which the defence may be available and to explore its limits and boundaries. Neither has any serious effort been made to offer an account of the defence’s conceptual nature and governing rationale. The present paper seeks to identify and explore the defence’s conceptual basis and rationale, its current state of law and the appropriate direction in which the defence might be developed. To achieve this purpose, the paper is divided into three sections. In Section 1, it explores the conceptual nature of withdrawal. Section 2 addresses the rationale of the defence in light of the underlying principles of criminal liability in both jurisdictions. In Section 3 a comparative analysis of the defence’s qualifying requirements is undertaken in relation to both primary and accessorial criminal liability. Comparative analysis shows that withdrawal can be used as a defence to all forms of criminal complicity with differing degrees of variations in relation to both its qualifying requirements and the extent to which it may affect the liability of an offender. In cases involving incitement, however, the inciter cannot rely on the defence to avoid criminal liability although his or her punishment can be reduced pursuant to his or her voluntary withdrawal under the JPC.

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

A Comparative Study on the Noise between Floors of Apartment and Multiplex Housing

2015 ◽  
Vol 752-753 ◽  
pp. 1232-1235
Author(s):  
Ji Hun Kim ◽  
Yoon Seok Shin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Noise And Vibration ◽  
Korean Government ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Future ◽  
House Type ◽  
Almost All

Since recently almost all housing built in Korean have shared walls and floor, diverse problems are unavoidable including noise between floor arising from noise and vibration. Many efforts have been made by the Korean government, but the number of complaints related with the noise between floors has been gradually increasing. Therefore, through the field measurements by house type, the current state of noise was understood. To do this, the noise between floors was measured in an apartment household and a multiplex house to perform a comparative analysis. As the result, the differences in the noise between the two house types were clarified. The findings of this research are expected to contribute to reduction of the noise between floors in an apartment building in the future.

Voluntary Withdrawal in the Context of Attempt – A Defence?

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
Shannon Hoctor
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Voluntary Withdrawal ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Mitigating Factor

Once a crime has been committed, full repentance and restoration do not have any bearing on liability, but may be taken into account in mitigation of sentence. On the other hand, there is no question of criminal liability ensuing for an attempt at a crime if there is a withdrawal from the envisaged crime while still in the stage of preparation, and before, in South African law, reaching the watershed moment of the “commencement of the consummation”. However, what occurs between the moment when the attempt begins, and the moment when the crime has been completed, where there has been a withdrawal from the criminal purpose, is more contested terrain. The disagreement does not apparently arise in the South African case law, where the few judgments that refer to this question have consistently held that where the accused withdraws after the commencement of the consummation of the crime, there will be attempt liability and, at best, the accused may rely on the abandonment as a mitigating factor in sentencing. However, as is discussed, prominent South African academic commentators, along with comparative sources in both the civil-law and common-law jurisdictions, demur from such an “unyielding analysis”, and would regard such withdrawal as giving rise to a defence to criminal liability. Which approach ought to be applied in South African law?  The question may be posed as to how to categorise a defence of voluntary withdrawal? It is neither a justification ground nor a ground excluding fault, but rather a ground excluding punishment. The uniqueness of the defence is demonstrated in that the accused has already met all the requirements for liability, and thus it is not an intending criminal, but an actual criminal who is being considered. This is at least true of the common-law approach (also adopted by South African law), where a two-stage approach is applied to the trial, relating first to establishing criminal liability and followed, if guilt is so established, by an inquiry into sentence. At the outset, it may be stated that the view that is taken in the discussion that follows is that there is no good reason to treat voluntary abandonment as a special defence. As Yaffe has stated, to grant a defence on the basis of abandonment is to mistake the absence of a reason to issue a particular sanction rather than a lower one for a sufficient reason to issue no sanction at all.In the discussion that follows, the current case law is examined, whereafter the alternative approach contended for by some academic writers (and used in other jurisdictions) is discussed; the arguments for and against a renunciation defence are set out, before these aspects are drawn together in a final concluding analysis.

Climate Change Liability: Comparing Risks for Directors in Jurisdictions of the Common and Civil Law

Climate Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-196
Author(s):  
Rolf H. Weber ◽  
Andreas Hösli
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Social Impacts ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
The Common

Businesses are increasingly expected to consider the environmental and social impacts of their undertakings. In recent years, the focus has shifted to climate-change-related aspects of corporate behaviour. While climate change litigation against corporations continues to evolve globally, there is a growing debate with regard to directors’ duties: are directors expected to consider climate-change-related risks in their decision making? If yes, to what extent? The issue has received considerable attention from commentators in relation to common law jurisdictions, but so far it has been less discussed in relation to civil law countries. This article attempts to contribute to filling this gap by presenting a comparative analysis, with a main focus on claims based on corporate and securities law.

Boundaries of Criminal Liability: Participation in Crime, Preparatory Offences and Omissions

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-408
Author(s):  
Miriam Gur-Arye
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Anglo American

The book Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues is the first volume of an Anglo-German project which aims ‘to explore the foundational principles and concepts that underpin the different domestic systems and local rules’. It offers comparative perspectives on German and Anglo-American criminal law and criminal justice as ‘examples of the civil law and the common law worlds’. The comparisons ‘dig beneath the superficial similarities or differences between legal rules to identify and compare the underlying concepts, values, principles, and structures of thought’. The review essay focuses on the topics of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime, all of which extend the typical criminal liability. It presents the comparative German and Anglo-American perspectives discussed in the book with regard to each topic and adds the perspective of Israeli criminal law. It points out the features common to all these topics as an extension of criminal liability and discusses the underlying considerations that justify the criminalisation of omissions, preparatory offences, and participation in crime. In evaluating whether extending criminal liability in these contexts is justified, the review essay suggests reliance on two main notions: that of ‘control over the commission of the offence’ and that of ‘liberty (or personal freedom)’.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Civil Procedure in Common Law and Civil Law Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Nader Ghanbari ◽  
Hassan Mohseni ◽  
Dawood Nassiran
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Separate Branch ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Comparative Study

Comparing the legal systems is a specific method in which due to its important function is considered as a separate branch in law. None of the branches in law can place its knowledge merely on ideas and findings within the national borders. Several basic objections have been given regarding the definition and purpose of comparative study in civil procedure. In addition there are specific problems regarding studying practically the similar systems in a legal system like differences in purpose, definition and concept. In different legal systems like civil law and common law systems in which there is a divergence, even the judicial system`s organs and judges` appointment and judicial formalism are different, which add to the problems of the comparative study. Reviewing these differences could lead to a better understanding of these legal systems and recognizing the common principles in making use of each other`s findings considering these differences and indicate the obstacles of comparative study in this regard.

scholarly journals Perspectives and obstacles of the shareholder activism implementation: A comparative analysis of civil and common law systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 520-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khurram Parvez Raja ◽  
Alex Kostyuk
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Stock Market ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Shareholder Activism ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

The paper outlines shareholder activism development in common law and civil law countries and identifies features of these legal systems that create preconditions and obstacles for shareholder activism. Our findings show that tendencies of shareholder activism depend on the type of the legal system, but also vary within the countries that share the same legal system. Thus, we conclude that the type of legal system is not the chief determinant of shareholder activism. A comparative analysis of shareholder activism in Germany and Ukraine (civil law countries) and the USA and the UK (common law countries) shows that the system of domestic corporate regulation, development of the stock market, companies’ capitalization and corporate governance influence the development of shareholder activism in equal measure.

scholarly journals Dimensions of precedent: a methodology to understand the doctrine of precedent

Perspectivas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-107
Author(s):  
Florencia S. Ratti Mendaña ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Adequate Understanding

This article evidences multiple ways in which judicial precedent is used in different legal systems. It shows that: a) precedent is currently used, one way or another, in every legal system but its use differs in each legal system and frequently it is used differently even between courts of the same legal system; b) a comparative analysis under the methodology hereby proposed would provide useful tools in order to address how to “treat like cases alike”. The main aim of this research is to set the conceptual framework for an adequate understanding and study of the doctrine of precedent. To do this, some dimensions of the doctrine of precedent will be added to those enumerated by Michele Taruffo and analyzed not only theoretically, but also under concrete examples of how they work in different legal systems —both of common law and civil law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document