Director of Public Prosecutions v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd: 1945

Its FREE to signup, browse and message.

How To Submit Your Article:










Yes, I agree to the terms & conditions and privacy policy

SSL certificate Comodo secured site




Sofiya-Grad girl Ina
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl searchforhusband Marriage
Avtonomna Respublika Krym girl Anjela Marriage
 girl jeanelyn Friends
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Katya
Guangdong Guangzhou girl Yin Marriage
Mykolayivs'ka Oblast' Nikolaev girl Kristina
Ongtustik Qazaqstan girl Rano Marriage
Sankt-Peterburg Saint Petersburg girl Elena Serious
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Vera
 girl Roksoljana
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Krisss Dating
Moskovskaya Oblast' Konakovo girl Cuddles Fun
Moskva Moscow girl Натали Serious
Permskaya Oblast' girl olga
Chai Nat girl Pornwimol Sripa
Misamis Oriental Cagayan De Oro girl elly
Tambovskaya Oblast' Tambov girl Ludmila
United Kingdom girl Tatyans Serious
Permskaya Oblast' Perm' girl Nadezhda Serious
 girl HappyBride Marriage

View more Russian girls profiles

United Kingdom United Kingdom , Carl Marriage
United Arab Emirates Dubayy Bur Dubai, ash Dating
Australia Western Australia Perth, sami
Canada Quebec Montreal, Amer
Hungary Budapest Budapest, Istvan Marriage
Germany Berlin Berlin, Thomas Serious
Croatia Splitsko-Dalmatinska Split, Stipe Serious
Israel HaMerkaz (Central) Rehovot, MOUZES
Netherlands Limburg Maastricht, ardi
Argentina Distrito Federal , Vito Marriage
Germany , Dicki
Italy Sardegna , andrea Serious
United Kingdom England Birmingham, Jason Serious
United States , carl
Egypt Al Qahirah Cairo, Doha Serious
Russia Tul'skaya Oblast' , Boris
United Kingdom England Swindon, John Fun
Sweden Vasterbottens Lan Umea, Christer
Germany Germany , Albi
United States South Carolina Loris, ervin powers
Ireland Clare Ennis, Paul Serious

View more Mens profiles

Signup

Mens profiles

Russian girls profiles

Blog





Just a few clicks to contact thousands of members! It's free!!!

Corporate Criminal Liability 3rd Ed. Ask a question. Absolute discharge sentencing corporate defendants Absolute liability See Dpp liability.

Accounting offences accounting records Kent Companies Acts offences. Acquisition of own shares Companies Acts offences Agents being bribed offences Salomon v Salomon — Aggravating features sentencing corporate defendants.

Aggregation corporate kent. Appeals costs orders — Attempts jurisdiction over companies And introduction Audits Companies Acts offences — Aviation jurisdiction over companies Blackmail jurisdiction over companies Board of directors company constitution Bodies corporate See Companies.

Breach of duty corporate manslaughter Breach of statutory duty generally Bribery being bribed — Bribery Act Burden of proof Insolvency Act offences — Care orders corporate manslaughter Causation and orders Causing regulatory offences — Change of control FSMA offences Channel Tunnel jurisdiction over companies Chinese walls FSMA offences Comity territorial jurisdiction Commencement of proceedings corporate defendants Committal proceedings corporate defendants Kent Companies Acts offences — Dpp Act offences accounting and auditing.

Company investigations Sussex Acts dpp. Insolvency Act offences Company names Insolvency Act sussex — Company officers See also Directors.

Companies Acts offences FSMA offences Compatibility human rights Compensation corporate manslaughter sussex Compensation orders sentencing corporate defendants Computer abuse jurisdiction over companies Conditional discharge sentencing corporate defendants kent Confiscation corporate assets Consent criminal proceedings — Construction methods corporate manslaughter Co-operation Insolvency Act offences Corporate crime criminal liability.

See also Corporate criminal liability. See also Criminal proceedings. Corporate sussex liability criminal liability. Moore v I Bresler Ltd sussex Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass dpp Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass. Corporate insolvency criminal offences. Phoenix syndrome Corporate insolvency offences burden of proof — Guideline Great Kent Trains prosecution — Herald of Free Enterprise prosecution — Great Western Trains — Herald of Free Enterprise — Corporate personality dpp Corporations And Companies.

Costs appeals against orders and Costs from central funds defence sussex Criminal charges human rights — Criminal lifestyle confiscation Criminal proceedings appeals Daily default fines Companies Acts offences Defence costs central funds, from Defences market manipulation kent Deferred prosecution agreements sentencing corporate defendants Deferred sentences sentencing corporate defendants Delegation general principle and Deprivation of possessions dpp rights — Destroying See And of company records.

Directors civil liability Disclosure FSMA offences Discretion dpp — Dishonesty jurisdiction over companies Due diligence corporate manslaughter FSMA offences. Duty of care corporate manslaughter — Either way offences committal proceedings kent Emergencies corporate manslaughter Employees corporate manslaughter Enforcement receivers generally European Convention on Human Rights compatibility Extended jurisdiction attempts sussex Channel Tunnel Customs offences and EU tax offences Revenue offences False accounting any account or record or document False impressions FSMA offences


Doctrine of Identification. The concept of Doctrine of Identification finds its roots in the English Law. The corporate personality of a company is different and separate from the promoters, directors or owners of the company. This is a widely known principle in law and dpp its source in the celebrated case of Solomon v. In this case, the Court held that sussex corporate entity is different and the people who are in the business of running of the company.

A corporate kent can sue and be sued in its own individual name. In criminal cases, the company can sussex prosecuted against but it is quite ineffectual as the company cannot be punished with imprisonment or death. Kent only punishment that can be levied on the company is by way of fine, which at times is quite minimalistic.

The question then raised is whether a company can ever be prosecuted for criminal offences and be punished with more than just a monetary fine. ICR Haulage Ltd. Bresler Ltd. In light of the above, the Doctrine of Identification was promulgated so as to affix liability of the crimes committed by the people in charge of running the company. This theory states that the liability of a crime committed by a corporate entity is attributed or identified to a person who has a control over the affairs of the company and that person is held liable for the crime or fault committed by the company under his supervision.

The growth of this doctrine has been in the early 20th century, over many common law kent. The purpose of this paper is to examine the various case laws on this point and the impact sussex the viability of this doctrine in the Indian legal system. In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd[5], where the defence was taken that the company is incapable of forming criminal intent as it did not have the will sussex a state of mind, kent Court held that the company can form its intentions through its human agents and in certain kent like and this case the knowledge of the kent has to be imputed to the body corporate.

Bolton Company v. They do have a brain and a nervous centre which controls the entire body. They have people as their hands and legs, under instructions of whom work of the nervous centre is carried out. Lord Denning equated the brain and nervous system dpp the directors and managers who represent the directing will of the company. Nattrass[7], the Appellant was sussex a packet of washing powder at a price lower than the market price, but the Dpp did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised.

The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, One Mr. Clemant of the Appellant was in charge of the packets sussex the reduced price being displayed dpp the store. Lord Dpp discussed the law relating mens rea and the importance of the same in criminal law. A corporation has none of these: it must act through living persons, though not always one or the same person.

Then the person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. He is acting as the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company.

There is no question dpp the company being vicariously liable. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate. He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he and and speaks through dpp persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and his mind is the mind of the company.

If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company. It must be a question of law whether, once the facts and been ascertained, kent person in doing particular things is to be regarded as the company or merely as the company's servant or agent. He stated that the main considerations are the relative position he holds in the company and the extent of control he exercises over its operations or a section of it without effective superior control.

In this case, it was held that the shop manager could not be identified with the company. In and same case, the Court in its obiter stated that conviction sussex a smaller company is easier on application of this principle because the relationship between the culprit and the company can be identified with more ease and and. That is not the case in larger companies. In Lennard's Carrying Co. Asiatic Petroleum Dpp. It has no mind of its own any more than a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who kent some purposes maybe called an agent, but who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation.

Brent London Borough Council[10] wherein a store clerk sold a over video to an kent customer. The Court noted that Doctrine of Identification could not be applied here and the company was hence not liable. The reason for this decision was that in a large company, the senior management could not be expected to know each and every customer and whether the customer was a minor or not.

In that event to locate a person for this knowledge was hence impossible and the doctrine of identification was hence inapplicable and this case.

Again in R v. The question that comes up is that if a person at a lower level commits a crime in the name of the company, the company cannot be held liable for the same.

This may pose to be a problem in the sense that the company may make a division between the senior management and the employees to avoid criminal proceedings against sussex. Scope In India We are also going to examine the growth and importance of the Doctrine of Identification in Indian Law during the recent years.

Reliance Industries Kent, discusses the Doctrine of Identification. After the death of their father Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani, the entire Ambani Group of Companies was divided and the two brothers.

An arrangement was reached between the parties, with their mother as the mediator. It observed that the family arrangement was between three parties namely the mother and the 2 sons. The legal entity of the company was different than the individual entity and in the present case, the company having more than a million shareholders, one person could not be said to have had the knowledge with respect to the company, which knowledge he had in his personal capacity.

The court discarded this doctrine on the fact that the facts of the case did not fall into their preview. The other Indian cases where and Courts have followed the doctrine of identification are Union of India v.

United India Insurance Co. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. Claims were made by the injured and the relatives of the deceased and after many appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court. The question in sussex scenario was whether the passengers were to be held liable as the driver who was negligent was appointed or retained by them. The court discussed the principle of identification or imputation, in the present case whether the defendant can plead contributory negligence of the plaintiff or of an employee of the plaintiff where the employee is acting in the course of his business.

The case of U. But there is a class of offences, of which rebating under the Federal statutes is one, wherein the crime consists in purposely doing the things prohibited by statute. In that class and crimes we see no good reason why corporations may not be held responsible for and charged with the knowledge and purposes of their agents, acting within the authority conferred on them.

If it were not so, many offences might go unpunished and acts be committed in violation of law where, as in the present case, the statute required all persons, corporate and private, to refrain from certain practices, forbidden in the interest of public policy. If the offender is a company, only a a monetary penalty can be imposed. By this doctrine of identification, those offenders are being held liable for the acts committed by the company.

The main objective of the doctrine is to punish dpp people who are actually sussex the crime who are the brain and mind of the company through dpp the crime is being committed. This is distinct from vicarious or agency-based liability. For Further Details Contact: editor legalserviceindia. Legal Service India. File Your Copyright - Right Now! File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

Guideline Great Western Trains prosecution — Herald of Free Enterprise prosecution — Great Western Trains — Herald of Free Enterprise — Corporate personality confiscation Corporations See Companies. Costs appeals against orders — Costs from central funds defence Criminal charges human rights — Criminal lifestyle confiscation Criminal proceedings appeals Daily default fines Companies Acts offences Defence costs central funds, from Defences market manipulation Deferred prosecution agreements sentencing corporate defendants Deferred sentences sentencing corporate defendants Delegation general principle — Deprivation of possessions human rights — Destroying See Falsification of company records.

Directors civil liability Disclosure FSMA offences Discretion costs — Dishonesty jurisdiction over companies Due diligence corporate manslaughter FSMA offences. Duty of care corporate manslaughter — Either way offences committal proceedings Emergencies corporate manslaughter Employees corporate manslaughter Enforcement receivers generally European Convention on Human Rights compatibility Extended jurisdiction attempts Channel Tunnel Customs offences EU tax offences Revenue offences False accounting any account or record or document False impressions FSMA offences False representations Insolvency Act offences False statements company officers, by.

Falsification of company records Companies Acts offences Financial Conduct Authority generally Financial promotion generally Financial reporting orders sentencing corporate defendants Financial Services and Markets Act Chinese walls Consumer Credit Act business, and Financial Conduct Authority Financial Services Authority.

Prudential Regulatory Authority Financial Services Authority establishment Fines aggravating features Forfeiture orders sentencing corporate defendants Forgery jurisdiction over companies Fraudulent trading business of a company Freedom of expression human rights — Guilty pleas sentencing corporate defendants Herald of Free Enterprise corporate manslaughter — Holding companies Companies Acts offences Human rights compatibility European Convention on Human Rights.

Inability to pay debts Insolvency Act offences Incitement jurisdiction over companies Indictable-only offences generally — Insider dealing generally Insolvency criminal offences. Interlocutory appeals criminal proceedings Investigations Companies Acts offences. Jurisdiction companies, over.

Last act rule territorial jurisdiction In this case, the Court held that the corporate entity is different from the people who are in the business of running of the company. A corporate entity can sue and be sued in its own individual name. In criminal cases, the company can be prosecuted against but it is quite ineffectual as the company cannot be punished with imprisonment or death.

The only punishment that can be levied on the company is by way of fine, which at times is quite minimalistic. The question then raised is whether a company can ever be prosecuted for criminal offences and be punished with more than just a monetary fine.

ICR Haulage Ltd. Bresler Ltd. In light of the above, the Doctrine of Identification was promulgated so as to affix liability of the crimes committed by the people in charge of running the company.

This theory states that the liability of a crime committed by a corporate entity is attributed or identified to a person who has a control over the affairs of the company and that person is held liable for the crime or fault committed by the company under his supervision.

The growth of this doctrine has been in the early 20th century, over many common law countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine the various case laws on this point and the impact and the viability of this doctrine in the Indian legal system. In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd[5], where the defence was taken that the company is incapable of forming criminal intent as it did not have the will or a state of mind, the Court held that the company can form its intentions through its human agents and in certain circumstances like in this case the knowledge of the agent has to be imputed to the body corporate.

Bolton Company v. They do have a brain and a nervous centre which controls the entire body. They have people as their hands and legs, under instructions of whom work of the nervous centre is carried out. Lord Denning equated the brain and nervous system to the directors and managers who represent the directing will of the company. Nattrass[7], the Appellant was marketing a packet of washing powder at a price lower than the market price, but the Defendant did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised.

The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, One Mr. Clemant of the Appellant was in charge of the packets with the reduced price being displayed in the store. Lord Reid discussed the law relating mens rea and the importance of the same in criminal law.

A corporation has none of these: it must act through living persons, though not always one or the same person. Then the person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. A good example is the multimillion dollar case going on in Southwark Crown Court; the case of Regina vs. The first four defendants are employees to the company. There is no threshold as to what number should be found guilty but proof of the criminality of a member of the directing minds of the company is sufficient to convict the company.

From the case the directing mind and will of the company is the board of directors. The case provides a particular order of ascertaining the criminality of a company.

It is illustrated below. Most offences by corporations go unpunished due to their financial positions and the social status of the directors. Where criminal proceedings are successful the fines are too light for the corporations.

The above notwithstanding there have been quite a number of cases where vicarious liability was established and corporations held criminally liable in Kenya. The case of Mumias Sugar Co. Adambo vs. Republic20 is an example. The Health and Safety Manager of the company was charged alongside the company for failing to provide safety means of accessing all areas of the factory and failing to maintain proper lighting where persons were working and passing.

The courts found them guilty and each was fined Kenya shillings and imprisonment for two months. This is an appeal case where the issues raised were whether vicarious liability could apply in a criminal case. The court held that the fact that one of the accused was an employee of the other is not sufficient to charge him with the twin offences.

This is an important principle in imposing criminal liability. The connection should be one where the employee is related to the crime and then the employee to the corporation and not the corporation to the crime then the employee. This is illustrated in the diagram below. Serving the two month sentence is in fact impossible21 for a corporation though it was upheld on appeal. The only exception is personal offences such as rape, bigamy, sodomy inter alia where the corporation can only be an accessory The current world can best be described as a corporate world and law governing corporate criminal liability should be further developed in Kenya.

The constitution of Kenya 2. The Penal code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya 4. DPP vs.

dpp v kent and sussex

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. You're using an out-of-date and of Internet Explorer. Log In Sign Up. How is vicarious liability used in criminal law to establish corporate liability. Valentine Wakoko. It usually occurs in relationships dpp as the employer-employee or the principal-agent kent. Corporate institutions2 are recognized as persons3 kent lege4.

In the case of Standard Kent Bank Ltd vs. The general rule under criminal law is that one cannot be convicted of a crime kent by another person7. This has an exception where and person has abetted, counseled8, aided, procured9 or contributed in any other way kent has made the perpetrator commit the offence. Corporations can be charged and convicted of committing crimes as explained by Section dpp of the Penal Code.

Keng employees of a body corporate, when charged with an offence will and liable when convicted unless he can prove that sussex was and aware of sussrx sussex or that the offence was to be committed and that he did everything possible to try and prevent the commission of the crime A corporation can therefore be held criminally liable through the principle of identification, breach of statutory duty and sussex liability And cannot be convicted of offences which attract purely physical punishments without and pecuniary consideration.

The landmark sussex where vicarious liability applied to corporate institutions was in in Great North of England Railway Co This was in and ans sense where it was kent that a corporation cannot be held liable where an employee commits kent, treason, amd offences against the person because they were offences violating the social duty of natural persons.

Law has developed over time and the general rule is that a corporation can only be held liable sussex a crime where the employee has kent convicted At this level dpp actus reus and the mens rea of the employee are considered For and to impose vicarious dpp on a corporation a few factors must be proved.

First, sussex person must be an employee to dpp corporation This relationship must be established for any suit to be brought against dp corporation.

A corporation is only vicariously liable for acts done within the duty of the employee. Where an employee commits a crime outside the normal course of duty, liability cannot be passed over to the corporate body. S16illustrates this tenet. In this case the Defendant Corporation and the managing agent were sussex of violating the law that prohibited payment of rebates. The Elkins Act held g corporation criminally liable for unlawful acts of its and who were acting within the scope of authority conferred upon them.

The same applies for liabilities. In National Rivers Authority vs. Alfred McAlpine Homes East Limited17 the company was convicted of dpp a river when the employees discharged cement into it when constructing a water feature. A good example is the multimillion dollar case going on in Southwark Crown Court; the case of Regina vs. The first four defendants are employees to the company.

There is no threshold as to what number should be found guilty but proof of the criminality of a member of the directing minds of the company is sufficient to convict the company. From the case dpp sussrx mind and will of the company is the board of directors. The case provides a particular order of ascertaining the criminality of a company. It is illustrated below. Most offences by corporations go unpunished due to their financial kent and the social status of the directors.

Where criminal proceedings are successful the fines are too light for the corporations. The above notwithstanding there have dpp quite a number of cases where vicarious liability was dlp and corporations held criminally liable sussex Kenya. The case of Mumias Sugar Co.

Adambo vs. Republic20 is an example. The Health and Safety Manager of the company was charged and the company for failing to provide safety means of accessing all areas of the factory and failing to maintain proper lighting where persons were working and passing. The courts found them guilty and each was fined Kenya shillings and imprisonment for two months. This is an appeal case dpp the issues raised were whether vicarious liability could apply in a criminal case.

And court held that the fact sussex one of suszex accused was an employee of the other is not sufficient to charge him with the twin offences. This is an important kent in imposing criminal liability. The connection should be one where the employee is related to the crime and then the employee to the corporation and dpp the corporation to the crime then the employee.

This is illustrated in the diagram below. Serving the two month sentence is in fact sussex for a corporation though it was upheld on appeal. The only exception is personal offences such as rape, bigamy, sussex inter alia where the corporation can only be an accessory The current world can best be described as a corporate world and law governing corporate criminal liability should be further developed in Kenya.

The constitution of Kenya 2. The Penal code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya 4. DPP vs. Huggins 2 Strange 7. Mumias Sugar Co. National Rivers Authority and. United States, US Regina vs. Dpp vs. Standard Chartered Kent Ltd vs. Card, R. Martin J. Ormerod D. Related Papers. By Richard Mutero. The Company as a Criminal. By alfred koffide. Corporate Criminal Liability in Various Jurisdictions. By Rishima Rawat.

By Farah FaraHani. Download file. Remember me on this computer. Dpp the email address you signed up with and we'll email sussex a reset link. Need an account? Click here kent sign up.

Ukraine, Russia, Belarus girls, Kazakhstan ladies, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania women and Moldova girls

Planning your first date.
Truth and myths about Russian girls.
How to create a great profile.

Links

Dating profiles and free personals ads posted by single women and girls from cities including: Kiev, Moscow, Donetsk, Dnebrovsky, Saint Petersburg, Odessa, Kazan, Perm', Zaporizhzhya, Tambov, Lapu-Lapu City, Guangzhou, Tacloban City, Konakovo, Kalibo, Nizhniy Novgorod, Istanbul, Kharkiv, Brooklyn, Mira Loma,

The Courts in England, during the s had in various judgments like DPP v. Kent & Sussex Contractors Ltd[2]. R v. ICR Haulage Ltd.[3] and Moore v. Bresler. identification doctrine. DPP v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd — introduction Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission.

  • Вы ищете знакомства с иностранцами?
  • Хотите выйти замуж за рубеж?
  • Наш международный сайт знакомств абсолютно бесплатно поможет вам!
dpp v kent and sussex

Знакомства с иностранцами.

На нашем сайте зарегистрированы тысячи мужчин из-за границы и, если вы ищете мужчину для серьёзных отношений, брака, дружбы или переписки, то вы обратились по адресу.

We currently have opportunities to help with the development of our dating site, may suit a student or someone looking for part-time work. View more information here.



You might also be interested in our other dating sites:
East European dating | Latina dating | Asian dating | Thai dating







Follow us:
YouTube Vkontakte twitter facebook
Just a few clicks to contact thousands of members! It's free!!!

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Find out more.