首页> 外文期刊>The journal of criminal law >Powers of Attorney and 'Lack of Capacity' under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: A Narrowing of the s 44 Offence? R v Kurtz [2018] EWCA Crim 2743
【24h】

Powers of Attorney and 'Lack of Capacity' under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: A Narrowing of the s 44 Offence? R v Kurtz [2018] EWCA Crim 2743

机译:《 2005年心理能力法》规定的授权书和“能力不足”:缩小第44条罪行? R v Kurtz [2018] EWCA犯罪2743

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 marked a turning point in the statutory rights of people who may lack capacity. The legislation sought to place the individual at the centre of decision-making and was viewed as having the potential to give people a voice and an opportunity to be heard. Section 44 of the legislation introduced a criminal offence of 'ill treatment or neglect' of a person who lacks capacity. The maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment (or a fine or both) was intended to underly the seriousness of the offence, especially considering the vulnerability of potential victims. Interpreting s 44 has, however, proved a real challenge and the courts have acknowledged the difficulties which its drafting presents. The recent Court of Appeal (COA) decision in R v Kurtz is illustrative of the kind of issue that the statute has generated. The court was tasked with deciding whether proving a lack of capacity on the part of the victim is required when the donee of a power of attorney is charged with the offence under s 44(1)(b). This article considers Kurtz within the context of the MCA 2005 and notes three related COA decisions. It examines what impact Kurtz may have on future prosecutions brought under s 44(1)(b) and considers the future of the s 44 criminal charge more generally.
机译:2005年《心理能力法案》(MCA)标志着可能缺乏能力者的法定权利的转折点。该立法试图将个人置于决策的中心,并被认为有潜力使人们发表意见和机会。立法第44条规定了对能力不足的人“虐待或忽视”的刑事犯罪。最高刑期为五年监禁(或处以罚款或两者兼有),以期轻视罪行的严重性,特别是考虑到潜在受害者的脆弱性。然而,事实证明《解释》第44条是一个真正的挑战,法院已经承认其起草工作所带来的困难。 R诉库尔兹(R v Kurtz)一案中的上诉法院(COA)最近的判决说明了该法规所产生的问题。法院的任务是确定当授权书的受赠人被指控犯有第44(1)(b)条所述的罪行时,是否需要证明受害人缺乏能力。本文在MCA 2005的背景下考虑了Kurtz,并指出了三个相关的COA决定。它研究了库尔兹(Kurtz)对根据第44(1)(b)条提出的未来起诉可能产生的影响,并从更一般的角度考虑了第44条所指的刑事指控的未来。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号