Published
2016-06-30
Keywords
- concurrent sentences,
- consecutive sentences,
- English criminal law,
- concurrence of legal rules,
- legal qualification,
- assessment of penal sanctions,
- aggregate penalty,
- concurrence of offences,
- foreign country,
- Great Britain
...More
Less
Abstract
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.
References
- Ashworth A., Redmayne M., The Criminal Process, Oxford 2005.
- Ashworth A., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, Cambridge 2010.
- Banasik K., Przyszłość angielskiego prawa karnego, „Prokuratura” i Prawo” 2013, nr. 10.
- Bottoms A., Five Puzzles in von Hirsch’s Theory of Punishment [w:] A. Ashworth, M. Wasik (red.), Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory, Oxford 1998.
- Cieślak M., Polskie prawo karne – zarys systemowego ujęcia, Warszawa 1994.
- Friedland M. L., Double Jeopardy, Oxford 1969.
- Hungerford-Welch P., Crimila Litigation and Sentencing, London-Sydney- Portland-Oregon 2004.
- Jaślan J., Jaślan H., Słownik terminologii prawniczej i ekonomicznej. Angielsko-Polski, Warszawa 1991.
- Kardas P., Majewski J., Kilka uwag o kwestii tzw. rzeczywistego zbiegu przepisów ustawy w prawie karnym i sposobach jej rozstrzygania [w:] Z. Ćwiąkalski, M. Szewczyk, S. Waltoś, A. Zoll (red.), Problemy odpowiedzialności karnej. Księga ku czci profesora Kazimierza Buchały, Kraków 1994.
- Kardas P., Zbieg przepisów ustawy. Analiza teoretyczna, Warszawa 2011.
- Moxon D., Sentencing Practice in the Crown Court, Home Office Research Study 1988, nr 103.
- Offences Taken into Account and Totality. Definitive Guideline, London 2012, www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk [dostęp: 17.08.2016].
- Orzeczenie w sprawie Lawrence (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 580 (CA).
- Sprack J., A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure, Oxford 2015.
- Sprawa French [1982] 4 Cr App R (S) 57.
- Sprawa Graves and Jaffier, [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 10.
- Sprawa Hardy [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 47.
- Sprawa Jenkins et al., [2009] I Cr App R (S) 109.
- Sprawa Kent [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 367.
- Sprawa Tamby, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 63.
- Sprawa Wheatley, (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 417 (CA).
- Thomas D. A., Principles of sentencing, London 1979.
- Vibla N., More than One Crime: Sentencing the Multiple Conviction Offender [w:] J. Roberts (red.), Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales, Hampshire 2015.
- Wasik M., Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Revisited, [w:] L. Zedner, J. V. Roberts (red.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth, Oxford 2012.
- Wells M., Sentencing for Multiple Offenses in Western Australia, University of Western Australia Crime Research Centre, „Research Report” 1992, nr 6.
- Wolter W., Kumulatywny zbieg przepisów ustawy, Warszawa 1960.
- Wróbel W., Struktura normatywna przepisu prawa karnego, „RPEiS” 1993, nr 3.
- Zieliński M., Wykładnia prawa. Zasady, reguły, wskazówki, Warszawa 2006.
