Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)434-471
JournalThe Journal of Criminal Law
Volume74
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2010

Fingerprint

Law
justice
human being
criminal law
liability
offender
penalty
appeal
pragmatics
offense

Bibliographical note

Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 4/11/2010]

Cite this

@article{611f22c7036847228013a0eb361c91e3,
title = "Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission",
abstract = "This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.",
author = "Catherine Crosby",
note = "Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 4/11/2010]",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1350/jcla.2010.74.5.658",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "434--471",
journal = "The Journal of Criminal Law",
issn = "0022-0183",
publisher = "Vathek Publishing",
number = "5",

}

Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission. / Crosby, Catherine.

In: The Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 74, No. 5, 01.10.2010, p. 434-471.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission

AU - Crosby, Catherine

N1 - Author can archive publisher's version/PDF. For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 4/11/2010]

PY - 2010/10/1

Y1 - 2010/10/1

N2 - This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.

AB - This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.

U2 - 10.1350/jcla.2010.74.5.658

DO - 10.1350/jcla.2010.74.5.658

M3 - Article

VL - 74

SP - 434

EP - 471

JO - The Journal of Criminal Law

JF - The Journal of Criminal Law

SN - 0022-0183

IS - 5

ER -