In a basic introduction to law class (major is computer science, I'm in the UK and the focus of our course is England and Wales) we were told that conduct which can be considered as both civil and criminal is called 'Double Indemnity' (eg assault).
The only definitions of 'Double Indemnity' I've found online refer to insurance clauses. For example in Cambridge Dictionary.
I've tried to clarify with my lecturer but they stated that it is an accepted legal term. Is this correct?
I've never heard the phrase used this way, and it wouldn't make any sense, anyway; "indemnity" is security against a consequence, so the existence of civil and criminal consequences would be a double non-indemnification.
Maybe ask the lecturer for a published example of this usage.
Apparently in the law of the Philippines the term "Double Indemnity" is used for provisions that impose on an employer who fails to pay the required minimum wage, an obligation to pay to the employee(s) twice the amount which would otherwise be due. This is imposed by Republic Act No. 8188. See:
Aside from references to RA 8188, the only mentions of the phrase "Double Indemnity" I can find in online legal writing are in an insurance context. The only similar phrase that I am aware of is 'Double Jeopardy", which of course has nothing to do with civil liability.
Thus I think the professor is mistaken, and this is not an accepted legal term with the meaning of an act that carries both civil and criminal penalties (such as fraud).
However, it might be unwise to argue too strongly with one's professor.
My suggestion would be to use the term in that class as the professor has defined it, and not so use it anywhere else.
