2

Suppose that Bob committed on Jan 1 an offence for which the statutory limitation period was 6 months, and then on Aug 1 of the same year, a law came into effect changing the limitation period (but not the potential sentence) of the offence to 1 year, and then he was charged on Sep 1 for the offence committed on Jan 1.

In any jurisdiction, is this a post-facto legislation of offence? I mean, it basically turned something that for the whole month of July Bob shouldn't have ever again been able to be punished for into something that he could again for the next five months continue to get charged with. But that seems not to be entirely the same thing as criminalising post-facto conduct which was at the time of its commission not illegal.

In your jurisdiction of knowledge, are there bars to such post-facto legislation extending the limitation periods for proceedings for past acts for which the deadline may have already passed?

user80346
  • 831
  • 2
  • 16

1 Answers1

3

It depends

As a high-level overview, it is very unlikely that the extension would apply to criminal acts that were committed before the legislation was passed. On the other hand, in the context of civil liability, this could go either way. I will begin by discussing the civil context, as the framework can also be applied in the context of criminal liability.

The statute will specify the relevant information about how the extension applies. In particular, it will address how it impacts any existing law either explicitly or implicitly.

For example: the Latent Damage Act 1986 overrides a 6-year limitation period under s2 of the Limitation Act 1980. However, s4(1) states:

(1) Nothing in section 1 or 2 of this Act shall—

(a) enable any action to brought which was barred by the 1980 Act or (as the case may be) by the Limitation Act 1939 before this Act comes into force; or

(b) affect any action commenced before this Act comes into force.

In the context of criminal law, which your question alludes to, any retrospective change is likely to violate Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights:

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Since the United Kingdom is party to the Convention and has incorporated it into domestic law, it is very unlikely that Parliament will pass any legislation that contradicts this. However, Parliament is supreme and so they are able to pass legislation contrary to the Convention. For confirmation, you should always check the language of the statute.

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80