No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
This chapter explores the relationship between tort law and criminal law. In particular it tracks one line of developments in the procedural co-ordination of criminal and civil law: the ability of criminal courts to award compensation for harm. It is a study of legal change or development: how and why law has evolved from the middle of the nineteenth century through to the present day. The chapter is also comparative, looking at the English and Spanish legal systems. The history of powers to compensate has highlighted two fundamentally different ways to resolve claims based on a concurrently tortious and criminal wrong. The English system has slowly moved from disparate and piecemeal provisions to a general if under-theorised system. On the other hand, Spain created a novel and complete system of liability to be administered by the criminal courts. This chapter seeks to trace and explain this development with a view to understanding how much civil and criminal law can perform the same function: compensation.
1 Legislation on Cruelty to Animals will not be discussed. The first relevant provision was the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 (5 & 6 Will 4 c 59) ss 2 and 17 and its heir was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, Sch 6 Pt II.
2 Malicious Trespass Act 1820 (1 Geo IV c 56).
3 See Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo IV c 30) s 34 (and ss 24 and 32); re-enacted in s 66 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1861; Larceny Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo IV c 29) s 68 and re-enacted in s 68 of the Larceny Act 1861.
4 See also the Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839 (2 & 3 Vict c 71) s 38 on tenants and criminal damage compensation.
5 See, eg, House of Commons Papers (1833) XXIX, 393, paper 765, Felon’s Property Returns for 1823–33: £3,200 forfeited of which the majority was held in trust for the felon or his family. See also eg, Hansard [200], cols 931–7 and Baker, J, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London, Butterworths, 2002) 509 Google Scholar, suggesting that enforcement had tailed off by the 18th century.
6 Compensation was to be in addition to, and not as an alternative for punishment: R v Lovett (1870) 11 Cox CC 602, 23 LT 95.
7 The few reported cases decide procedural matters. See also Cox, E, The Principles of Punishment (London, Times Law Office, 1877) 181–2Google Scholar, lamenting that only seven applications had ever been made to him.
8 Eg, Mr Jessel, Hansard [200] col 936.
9 Ross, R (ed), Archbold’s Pleading, Evidence & Practice in Criminal Cases, 28th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd; Stevens & Sons, Ltd, 1931) 303 Google Scholar: ‘The cases in which [s 4] is most easily applied are to the compensation of persons who are required under a restitution order to give up property obtained by larceny and acquired by them even in good faith before conviction’. Actually this explanation is dubious particularly as such a power already existed in the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 s 9. See also ‘Restitution’ in Dingle, F (ed), Stone’s Justices’ Manual (London, Butterworth & Co; Shaw & Sons Ltd, 1926) 226 Google Scholar, fn u.
10 See the discussion in Tallack, W, Reparation to the Injured and the Rights of the Victims of Crime to Compensation. Paper for the Quinquennial International Prison Congress, Brussels (London, Wertheimer, Lea & Co, 1900) 20–21 Google Scholar. Although there were exceptions, and some even highlighted the need for personal injury compensation: Cox, E and Saunders, T, The Criminal Law Consolidation Acts, 3rd edn (London, Law Times Offices, 1870) liGoogle Scholar.
11 See, eg, R v Lovett (1870) 11 Cox CC 602, 23 LT 95. For an early (1729) example of this and comment, see Beattie, J Crime and the Courts in England: 1660–1800 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986) 457–8Google Scholar.
12 Law Commission: Report on Offences of Damage to Property, Law Com No 29, [87].
13 R v William Jones [1929] 1 KB 211 (CCA) 214–15 (Lord Hewart LCJ) cf R v Dorset Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Randall [1967] 2 QB 222 (DC).
14 Dingle, Stone’s Manual, above n 9, 595.
15 The origins of the provision are strange. See the engimatic p vii of the report: Hansard [246], cols 95–9 (6 May 1879).
16 Though it included new provisions on children in ss 1(3) and 1(4).
17 K Younger, HMSO Advisory Council on the Penal System Report on Reparation by the Offender (1970) (‘Reparation by the Offender’) [47].
18 Attorney-General v Clark [1909] 2 KB 7 (KB) uses the section to award costs.
19 See esp Blows v Chapman [1947] 2 All ER 576 (KB) 576 (Lord Goddard LCJ), 577 (Humphreys J) cf Oaten v Auty [1919] 2 KB 278 (KB) 282 (Darling J).
20 They began at 40 shillings but reached £100 under the Criminal Justice Act 1948.
21 Lord Goddard and the All England Law Reports seem to have taken a particular interest in road traffic offences: eg, Taylor v Saycell [1950] 2 All ER 887 (KB) 890; Gardner v James [1948] 2 All ER 1069 (KB) 1070.
22 Criminal Law Act 1967 s 10(1) Sch 2, para 9.
23 CLRC 7th Report: Felonies and Misdemeanours (Cmnd 2659, 1965), sub-committee chaired by Winn LJ, May 1965 [78]. The 1967 Act was followed by the Criminal Damage Act 1971, but the compensation provisions of this Act were only in force for a year, so will not be commented on.
24 ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17, [24].
25 See eg, Weir, T, A Casebook on Tort, 7th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1992) 177 Google Scholar, saying that 1972 was when compensation was first available in a criminal court. See also Gardiner, E, Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime (London, HMSO, 1985) [1]Google Scholar.
26 ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17. Data is scarce before 1972, but see, eg, Winn Committee (Cmnd 3691, 1968) Personal Injuries Litigation [381], 110, fn 2 on compensation orders outside of criminal damage being rare.
27 In ss 148 and 149. Section 148(2)(a)–(c) on satisfying liabilities with the money found on the defendant ties in with the regulation of property taken by the police. See Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1839 (2 & 3 Vict c 71) s 29, on which see eg Buckley v Gross (1863) 3 B & S 566.
28 It became s 35 in the 1973 Act and is now s 130 in the PCC(S)A 2000.
29 See also s 1(2) on the continuing effect of a prior theft.
30 ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17, [51]. See also [61]: a compensation order should only be available where there is an actionable claim in tort.
31 Section 104(1) and (2), inserting s 35(3C) into the 1973 Act. Motor Accidents are not being covered.
32 Criminal Justice Act 1972 s 4(2). These provisions are found on the same terms in s 134 of the PCC(S)A 2000.
33 For detail on this type of provision, see Baroness Wootton of Abinger, Advisory Council on the Penal system Non-custodial and Semi-custodial Penalties 1970 HMSO, [68]–[78].
34 The abbreviation CICB will be used for the Board itself, though in 1995 it became an ‘Authority’. The abbreviation CICS refers to the compensation scheme in force during the time in question.
35 On its ancestors see eg Tallack, Reparation to the Injured, above n 10, 199 ff. See also Rock, , Helping the Victims of Crime, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990) 57–89 Google Scholar. Compensation for riot damages is a concrete, but discrete, example of this see eg the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which is still in force today.
36 For highly critical comment, see Atiyah, P, Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 3rd edn (London, Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1980) 296–300 Google Scholar.
37 Hansard [697] cols 89–94 (24 June 1964). This followed from (Cmnd 2323, 1964) London, HMSO ‘Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence’. Scottish Home and Health Department. This was the white paper which followed White paper (Cmnd 1406, 1961) ‘Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence’ London, HMSO and of course, that followed from ‘Penal Practice in a Changing Society’ in 1959.
38 On which see D Miers, ‘The Criminal Justice Act 1988: The Compensation Provisions’ [1989] Criminal Law Review 32.
39 Miers, D, Compensation for Criminal Injuries (London, Butterworths, 1990) 11 Google Scholar.
40 From 1 March 1969 to 31 May 1977, 22,000 claims were resolved and £28 million paid out. In the first complete year, 1969–70, the total compensation paid was £132,000, cf £121 million on 35,500 awards in the 2004–05 year: Pearson, Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury 1977–78 HMSO, [1583] and see Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Ninth Annual Report, 2004–05, HC 1427, London, The Stationery Office, 5.
41 Miers, D, State Compensation for Criminal Injuries (London, Blackstone, 1997) Preface, ix–xi Google Scholar.
42 Samuels, A, ‘Compensation for Criminal Injuries in Britain’ (1967) 17 University of Toronto Law Journal 20, 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This is a detailed contemporary account, noting particularly that the early fears of fraudulent applications were seemingly unnecessary.
43 For recent data, see http://www.cica.gov.uk.
44 Willmore, J, Duff, P and Shapland, J, Victims of the Criminal Justice System (Aldershot, Gower, 1985) 129, 173Google Scholar.
45 For an excellent description and analysis of the scheme as it ran until 1990: Miers, Compensation for Criminal Injuries, above n 39. See also Genn, H, ‘Criminal Injuries Compensation’ in Harris, Donald et al (eds), Compensation and Support for Illness and Injury (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar.
46 Veitch, E and Miers, D, ‘Assault on the Law of Tort’ (1975) 38 Modern Law Review 139, 148, fn 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; fn 67 suggests a total of 86,000 potential tort actions based on reported criminal offences to the police in 1973 while fn 68 then compares this with 9,000 applications to the CICB in what appears to be the same year. See also Atiyah, Accidents, above n 36, 336, cfCane, P (ed), Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 4th edn (London, Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1987) 25 and 292Google Scholar.
47 Samuels, ‘Compensation for Criminal Injuries’, above n 42, 38. Samuels is one of the many who argued that there should be no lower limit.
48 In general, see ibid, 44. The original scheme referred to deductions from ‘a claim at common law’, [20], though this later included a reference to a criminal court ordering compensation, see now [48].
49 Gardiner, Compensation and Support, Evidence of the Home Office, [3.7]; magistrates were aware of this: Evidence of the Magistrates’ Association, 75, 76.
50 Winn Committee, Personal Injuries Litigation, above n 26, [384].
51 Deacon, E, A Digest of the Criminal Law of England (London, Saunders and Benning, 1831) vol II, 1108 Google Scholar, citing 3 Inst 242 and 3 Salk 213. There might potentially be an action de re admirata.
52 Stolen Goods Act of 1529 (21 Hen VIII c 11).
53 See: Bentley v Vilmont (1887) 12 App Cas 471 (HL) especially Lord Bramwell at 479–80, cf R v Cuthbertson [1981] AC 470, 472 (Louis Blom-Cooper QC). See also ‘Restitution Orders’ (1907) 71 JP 183, 183: ‘It is not improbable that this provision was merely declaratory of an already recognised rule of law’.
54 Larceny Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo IV c 29) s 57. Then see the Larceny Act 1828 (9 Geo 4 c 55) s 50.
55 See s 100. In general, and on an attempt by a House of Lords Committee to solve this differently, see Greaves, C, The Criminal Law Consolidation and Amendment Acts of the 24 & 25 Vict, 2nd edn (London, V & R Stevens, Sons and Haynes, Sweet, H, and Maxwell, W, 1862) 184–5Google Scholar. Nevertheless further protection was given to pawnbrokers in the Pawnbrokers Act 1872 s 30.
56 Criminal Justice Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict c 126) s 8; see then the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 s 9; the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 s 27(3); Probation of Offenders Act 1907 s 1(4); the Larceny Act 1916, s 45 and the Magistrates Courts Act 1952, s 33.
57 Lindsay v Cundy (1876) 1 QBD 348 (DC); Horwood v Smith (1788) 2 TR 750, 100 ER 404 (CKB).
58 Bentley v Vilmont (1887) 12 App Cas 471.
59 Ibid, 477, with whom the other Law Lords agreed.
60 Section 24(1) mandated that property in goods stolen by a thief who is later convicted for that theft, revests in the original owner, even if sold in market overt. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 s 9, the innocent purchaser who is thus deprived of the property by it being claimed by the original owner may ask the court to award compensation to him out of moneys found on the prisoner on his arrest.
61 Section 24(2). See later R v George (1901) 65 JP 729.
62 Criminal Law Revision Committee, Eighth Report: Theft and Related Offences (Cmnd 2977, 1966) see esp [163].
63 See s 31(2).
64 For instance where equivalents could not be found, see eg, Howard E Perry & Co Ltd v British Railways Board [1980] 2 All ER 579 (Ch). This is also a point returned to repeatedly in J Macleod, ‘Restitution under the Theft Act’ [1968] Crim LR 577.
65 Whiteley v Hilt [1918] 2 KB 808 (CA) 819 (Swinfen Eady MR).
66 See, eg, Payne v Wilson [1895] 1 QB 653 (DC) 653.
67 See eg, Committee, Eighth Report: Theft and Related Offences (Cmnd 2977, 1966) [161], describing the law as complicated and obscure because of ‘a confused [medieval] history’ linked to forfeiture.
68 Williams, G, Criminal Law (London, Stevens & Sons, 1953)Google Scholar.
69 Williams, G (ed), The Reform of the Law (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1951)Google Scholar.
70 Diamond, A, ‘The Law of Contract and Tort’ in Gardiner, Gerald and Martin, Andrew (eds), Law Reform Now (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1963) 73 Google Scholar. See also the expression of his views in Gardiner, Lord ‘The Role of the Lord Chancellor in the Field of Law Reform’ (1971) 87 Law Quarterly Review 326 Google Scholar.
71 Softley, P, Compensation Orders in Magistrates’ Courts (London, HMSO, 1978) 4 Google Scholar.
72 See P Softley and R Tarling, ‘Compensation Orders and Custodial Sentences’ [1977] Crim LR 720, who agreed with the practical reality of the situation. If a defendant has sufficient assets, surely this should not be an issue any longer: Ogden, ‘Compensation Orders in Cases of Violence’, 501; finally, see Softley, Compensation Orders in Magistrates’ Courts, 22: non-custodial sentence was the most important factor in ordering compensation, second was the defendant’s means.
73 Bill 133, 21 July 1948.
74 Mr Forster on Felony Bill, Hansard [200] col 932. This ties in with the role of felony in suspending civil actions another link between tort and crime.
75 Abinger, , Non-custodial and Semi-custodial Penalties (London, HMSO, 1970)Google Scholar.
76 Bosanquet, S et al, A Magistrate’s Handbook (London, Ernst Benn, 1929)Google Scholar: Despite encouraging a more general treatment not punishment of offenders, restitution is mentioned but compensation is not.
77 Milton, F, The English Magistracy (London, Oxford University Press, 1967) 87 Google Scholar. See also Cox, The Principles of Punishment, 181–2.
78 ‘Reparation by the Offender’, [48] on a putative origin in minor assault cases.
79 In regards to the CICB, two contradictory notions of the victim were used in its creation: the vigilante to be bought off and the innocent victim to be compensated: Rock, Helping the Victims of Crime, 88–9. And yet the CICB was a ‘self-fuelled initiative’, just as compensation provisions were: victims were not directly involved, either asking for them or being asked about their views on them: eg, J Shapland, Victims of the Criminal Justice System, above n 44, 120. Yet massive demand only increased the sense that the CICB was working: Rock, P, Constructing Victim’s Rights: The Home Office, New Labour and Victims (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) 284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 Newburn, T and Peyrecave, H de, The Use and Enforcement of Compensation Orders in Magistrates’ Court (London, HO Research Study no 102, 1988) 25 Google Scholar, Table 12 showing that a request for compensation will increase the chance of a compensation order by four times. cf Softley, Compensation Orders in Magistrates’ Courts, 10–11 on ‘slight’ increase thereby.
81 See eg ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17, [76]–[80], recommending its removal.
82 J Shapland, Victims of the Criminal Justice System, above n 44, 125 and sources cited. See also ibid, 126.
83 Miers, ‘The Compensation Provisions’, above n 38, 34.
84 See eg, Hodgson, , Profits of Crime (London, Heinemann, 1984), 59 Google Scholar.
85 Originating in a committee: Gardiner, , ‘Compensation and Support’, above n 49, [46] endorsing Q 299 Google Scholar.
86 I McLean, ‘Compensation and Restitution Orders’ [1973] Crim LR 3, 4.
87 Cornish, W, ‘Defects in Prosecuting—Professional Views in 1845’ in Glazebrook, P (ed), Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville Williams (London, Stevens & Sons, 1978) 307 Google Scholar.
88 Chitty, J, A Practical Treatise on The Criminal Law, 2nd edn (London, Samuel Brooke, 1826) vol I Google Scholar, ch I, ‘Of the Prosecutor’.
89 R v Stanton (1836) 7 Car & P 430, 173 ER 191, there restitution of a bank note, and a prosecutrix.
90 Criminal Law Act 1826 (7 Geo I V, c 64) ss 28–30; still in force. For comment see McLean, ‘Compensation and Restitution Orders’, above n 86, 3.
91 Atiyah, ‘Compensation Orders and Civil Liability’ [1979] Crim LR 504, 505.
92 For pre-1985 comment see Brazier, ‘Appellate Attitudes Towards Compensation Orders’ [1977] Crim LR 710.
93 R v Chappell (1985) 80 Cr App R 31 (CA) 34–5, adding that a lack of ‘culpability’ would be a reason not to make an order.
94 R v Thomson Holidays [1974] QB 592 (CA) 599.
95 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 (HL).
96 ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17, [59].
97 In this context see, eg, Ballantyne, née Ely v Donnelly (1996) SCCR 537 (AC, HCJ).
98 R v Amey [1983] 1 WLR 345 (CA) 347. For comments see Hodgson, Profits of Crime, above n 84, 62.
99 See eg, R v Crown Court at Liverpool and another, ex parte Cooke [1996] 4 All ER 589 (QBD) 595 (Leggatt LJ): ‘The mere fact [of a power to compensate] does not mean that it is always sensible for … what are essentially civil claims’. See also Issa and another v Hackney London Borough Council (1996) 95 LGR 671 (CA).
100 See, eg, R v Supremeplan Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 838 (CA).
101 Florence Herbert v London Borough of Lambeth (1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 489 (DC) 494. This statement mirrors that made in ‘Reparation by the Offender’, above n 17, [49]. See also, for another perspective, Hammertons Cars v London Borough of Redbridge [1974] 2 All ER 216 (CA).
102 Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [1997] Env LR 24 (QBD) 37.
103 Chief Constable of Kent v V and another [1982] 3 All ER 36 (CA) 42.
104 Birks, P (ed), English Private Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar notes compensation orders only in the context of contract law, para 8.173. It does mention, at para 14.62, the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and criminal convictions used as evidence in later civil proceedings.
105 See eg Hodgson, Profits of Crime, above n 84, 27.
106 See eg, Tolsada, M Yzquierdo, ‘El perturbador artículo 1.902 del Código Civil: Cien años de errores’ in Centenario del Código Civil (Madrid, Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, 1990) 2110 Google Scholar.
107 For a general view of the process of Spanish civil codification see Tomas, F y Valiente, , Manual de Historia del Derecho Español, 4th edn (Madrid, Tecnos, 1997) 536–57Google Scholar; Gaite, J Lasso and Comisión General de Codificación, Cronica de la Codificacion Española IV: Codificacion Civil (Génesis e historia del Código) (Madrid, Ministerio de Justicia, 1979) vols I and IIGoogle Scholar.
108 Tolsada, M Yzquierdo, Aspectos Civiles del Nuevo Código Penal (Madrid, Dykinson, 1997) 22 Google Scholar. See also Trías, E Roca i, ‘La Codificación y el Derecho Foral’ (1978) 62 Revista de Derecho Privado 596 Google Scholar.
109 On this opposition see, eg, Harty, S, ‘Lawyers, Codification, and the Origins of Catalan Nationalism, 1881–1901’ (2002) 20 Law and History Review 349, esp 360–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 See eg, Jacobson, S, ‘Law and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: The Case of Catalonia in Comparative Perspective’ (2002) 20 Law and History Review 307, 324–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
111 Ibid, 330–31.
112 Ibid, 326–30.
113 Harty, ‘Lawyers, Codification’, above n 109, 361–6.
114 Quirós, M Peña Bernaldo de, El Anteproyecto del Código Civil Español (Madrid, Reus, 1965)Google Scholar.
115 ‘Las obligaciones civiles que nazcan de los delitos o faltas se regirán por las disposiciones del Código Penal’. This was formerly Art 1109 of the 1882 DCC. See also Art 1089. ‘Delito’ denotes a more serious crime than a ‘falta’ but the analogy with felonies and misdemeanours is insufficiently procedurally precise for ready use.
116 How the criminal code could spring forth unmolested while the civil code barely left the gate is as yet not explained; Alabart merely argues that the criminal code effectively ‘took a different route’: Alabart, S Diaz, ‘La responsabilidad por los actos ilícitos dañosos de los sometidos a patria potestad o tutela’ (1987) 40 Anuario de Derecho Civil 795, 798–800Google Scholar.
117 Devesa, J Rogríguez, ‘Responsabilidad civil derivada del delito o falta y culpa extracontractual’ in Zamora, N Alcalá et al (eds), Libro homenaje a Jaime Guasp (Granada, Comares, 1984) 512 Google Scholar.
118 Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 22.
119 Vizmanos, D Tomás de and Martinez, D Alvarez, Comentarios al Nuevo Código Penal (Madrid, J Gonzalez y A Vicente, 1848) 187–90Google Scholar; Serna, D Gomez de la and Montalban, D Manuel, Elementos del Derecho Penal de España (Madrid, Imprenta de la Revista de Legislación, 1849) 74 Google Scholar. Serna was later President of the Tribunal Supremo.
120 Pacheco, J Francisco, El Código Penal (Madrid, Edisofer, 2000; reprint of 1867) 279 Google Scholar: ‘[Noting that the civil code will not exist for some time] Nothing bad comes from completing and rounding out this material here. It does not seem absurd to deal with, in this area of liability, things which if not daughters of a clearly criminal act, have come from one which … cannot be less than a crime … The transposition seems very small, and clearly innocent: the evil which can be derived from it cannot be seen to our eyes’. See also Pantaleón, Fernando, ‘Perseverare Diabolicum ¿Otra vez la responsabilidad civil en el Código Penal?’ (1993) 19 Jueces para la Democracia 6, 9–10Google Scholar.
121 Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 799.
122 Eg Calero, J Gomez, ‘La responsabilidad civil derivada de acto ilícito penal (I)’ (1960) 16 Revista General de Derecho 506, 506Google Scholar. See also, in general Torres, M Roig, La reparación del daño causado por el delito (aspectos civiles y penales) (Valencia, tirant lo blanch, 2000) 27–39 Google Scholar.
123 This was also the view of Pacheco on codes in the middle ages except for the Partidas: Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 276, fn 1.
124 L 26, tit 8, P V; L.7, tit 14, P VII.
125 L 3, tit 13, P VII.
126 L 20, tit 14, P VII.
127 L 14 tit 9 P VII.
128 Groizard, D Alejandro y Serna, Gomes de la, El Código Penal de 1870 (Burgos, T Arnaiz, 1870) 609 Google Scholar.
129 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 276.
130 L 13, tit 14, P V. Translation from Burns, S (ed), Samuel Parsons Scott (trans.): Las Siete Partidas (Chicago, Commerce Clearing House, 2001)Google Scholar.
131 On the code see, eg, Reig, M Peset, ‘Análisis y concordancias del proyecto de código civil de 1821’ (1975) 28 Anuario de Derecho Civil 29 Google Scholar. On the preparatory work see Alabart ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 807–10.
132 On its legislative history see J Anton Oneca, ‘Historia del Código Penal de 1822’ (1965) Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 263, esp 276–7.
133 Torres, La reparación del daño, above n 122, 42; On the role of Bentham and Lardizábal’s works in this shift see 44–45.
134 See Art 88 and ibid, 43.
135 That is, with the exceptions of possible retractions after libel: Arts 699 and 701 CP 1822.
136 See, eg, Vizmanos and Martinez, Comentarios, above n 119, xl–lxi; Gaite, , Cronica V: Codificacion Penal, vol I, 173–315 Google Scholar.
137 Torres, La reparación del daño, above n 122, 47.
138 Eg Jimenez, F Candil, ‘Observaciones sobre la intervención de don Joaquin Pacheco en la elaboración del Código penal de 1848’ (1975) 28 Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 405 Google Scholar.
139 ‘Toda Persona, responsable criminalmente de un delito ó falta, lo es tambien civilmente’.
140 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 277.
141 On this discussion, see the fudging done by a key member of the 1970 commission, Serna: Serna, El Código Penal de 1870, 618–19. He was particularly fond of the code’s general provision, 618. cf E Font Serra, ‘Reflexiones sobre la responsabilidad civil en el proceso penal’ (1988) Revista Jurídica de Catalunya 99, 99–100 who explicitly blamed this drafting for later problems of interpretation.
142 This article built on Art 27 CP 1822.
143 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 280–82 and 286–7.
144 Ibid, 284–5.
145 Ibid, 289–90.
146 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 491.
147 Pacheco argued that the Brazilian code was simpler and more effective: ibid, 492; on the Brazilian link see also Calero, ‘La responsabilidad civil derivada de acto ilícito penal (I)’, above n 122, 513.
148 On this link to ‘reinvindicación’, and in general on restitution, see Orbaneja, E Gómez, Comentarios a la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Barcelona, Bosch, 1951) vol I, 348–54Google Scholar.
149 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 494; Vizmanos and Martinez, Comentarios, above n 119, 376. See also Orbaneja, , Comentarios, above n 148, vol I, 354–62Google Scholar.
150 Pacheco, El Código Penal, above n 120, 496.
151 For the heir of a perjudicado as distinct from the perjudicado himself, see Orbaneja, Comentarios, above n 148, 404–9, esp 404.
152 See, eg, STS 24 abril 1958 [1958] RJ 1591; STS 25 abril 1984 [1984] RJ 2465; though more recently appeal courts have tended to assume an equal share if none had been stated: eg, STS 7 mayo 1994 [1994] RJ 3622.
153 For the action in contribution, or ‘la acción de repetición’, more complex after successive judgments, see Orbaneja, Comentarios, above n 148, 437–40.
154 On which see Gaite, , Cronica V: Codificacion Penal, above n 136, vol II, 464–5, 602 and esp 618Google Scholar.
155 Vizmanos and Martinez, Comentarios, above n 119, 380–81.
156 This was sometimes done by case law, eg, ‘perjuicios morales’, that is, pain and suffering and other subjective harms were included in calculating compensation, see eg, STS 14 noviembre 1934 [1934] RJ 1985. For more detail on this type of loss, see Orbaneja, , Comentarios, above n 148, vol I, 340–48Google Scholar; II, 583.
157 Art 105 of the 1990 Draft Código Penal (DCP): ‘la ejecución de un hecho descrito por la ley como delito o falta origina la obligación de reparar los daños y perjuicios por el causados en los terminus previstos en el Cógido civil’.
158 Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 36–8. Tolsada cites, 35, fns 13 and 36, Estudios e Informes (1990–93) Gabinete de Estudios y Documentación de la Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura, 157 and 158: ‘…con ignorancia de los inconvenientes qe esas incorporaciones parciales producen en el equilibrio de nuestro particular system jurídico’.
159 See, eg, Tolsada, ‘El perturbador’, above n 106, esp 2111.
160 See, eg, Pantaleón, ‘Perseverare’, above n 120.
161 ‘La ejecución de un hecho descrito por la ley como delito o falta oblige a reparar, en los terminos previstos en las leyes, los daños y perjuicios por él causado’.
162 See, eg, Maíllo, A Serrano, La Compensación en Derecho Penal (Madrid, Dykinson, 1996) 44–148Google Scholar.
163 Olivares, and Sumalla, , ‘De la responsibilidad civil derivada de los delitos y faltas y de las costas procesales’ in Comentarios al Nuevo Código Penal (Cizur Menor (Navarra), Editorial Aranzadi, 2005) 617–18Google Scholar.
164 Ibid, 629–31. Costs are dealt with in Arts 123 and 124. The means of enforcing civil awards are regulated in 125 and 126. Finally Art 122 continues the liability for profiting from a wrong.
165 The first project for a LECrim had been contiguous with the project for the first CP in the early 1800s: Gaite, J Lasso and Comisión General de Codificación, Cronica de la Codificacion Española III: Procedimiento Penal (Mardid, Ministerio de Justicia, 1975) 13–71 Google Scholar.
166 For more detail on the provisional rules, see ibid, 73–104.
167 Gaite and Codificación, Cronica III: Procedimiento Penal, above n 165, 187–234.
168 Promulgated by the Real Decreto of 14 septiembre 1882. For more detail see ibid, 235–56.
169 Ibid, 272.
170 See, eg, Art 320.
171 Orbaneja, Comentarios, above n 148, 367–72.
172 The verb ‘atemperar’ is used, suggesting not obedience to, but mollification by, the civil law rules.
173 Art 4: ‘Sin embargo, si la cuestión prejudicial fuese determinante de la culpabilidad o de la inocencia’. But the court will only wait up to two months; see Martín, A Del Moral and García, A Del Moral, Interferencias entre el Proceso Civil y el Proceso Penal (Granada, Comares, 2002) 298–372Google Scholar.
174 For more detail on Arts 3–7 LECrim, see ibid, 231–82.
175 ‘Todo delito o falta nace acción penal para el castigo del culpable, y puede nacer también acción civil para la restitución de la cosa, la reparación del daño y la indemnización de perjuicios causados por el hecho punible’. This is broadly speaking a reproduction of Art 1 of LECrim 1872 and Art 240 of the Compilación.
176 Art 101 LECrim: ‘La acción penal es pública. Todos los ciudanos españoles podran ejercitarla con arreglo a las prescriptiones de la ley’. See also Art 125 of the Constitution. cf that judicial proceedings should generally be public, Arts 680–682 LECrim; but that if private the civil party can remain: Art 681.
177 Art 250 of the Compilación and Art 11 LECrim 1872 did not authorise the Fiscal to bring the civil claim unless the damage had been to the state (this job now performed by the Abogado del Estado).
178 See Arts 106 and 107 LECrim.
179 See Arts 111 and 112 LECrim.
180 Art 108 LECrim. See also Art 110 LECrim. In both functions the Fiscal is independent, but usuing judicial methodology: Orbaneja, Comentarios, above n 148, 506; on the Fiscal’s role in bringing a prosecution, see 507–18.
181 Orbaneja, , Comentarios, above n 148, vol II, 581 Google Scholar. See also Art 113.
182 And see also Arts 623 and 635.
183 For a recent summary, see eg Irene Nadal Gómez, El ejercicio de acciones civiles en el proceso penal (2002) 38–80: juxtaposing the academic approach of unity with the judicial preference for difference.
184 Orbaneja, E Gómez, ‘La accion civil de delito’ (1949) 33 Revista de Derecho Privado 185, 185–212Google Scholar. The art is cited by many but see, eg, Pantaleón, ‘Perseverare’, above n 120, 6. cf also eg, STS 14 diciembre 1963 [1963] RJ 4988.
185 See, eg, STS 18 diciembre 1981 [1981] RJ 5033; STS 20 octubre 1981 [1981] RJ 3814; STS 20 octubre 1981 [1981] RJ 3862; STS 4 octubre 1982; STS 8 octubre 1984 [1984] RJ 4764; STS 12 marzo 1992 [1992] RJ 2442; STS 13 octubre 1993 [1993] RJ 7377; STS 15 noviembre 1993 [1993] RJ 8581; STS 2 octubre 1997 [1997] RJ 7598; STS 14 febrero 1998 [1998] RJ 1050.
186 STS 18 octubre 1996 [1996] RJ 7576.
187 See especially Múgica, S Cavanillas, La transformación de la responsabilidad civil en la jurisprudencia (Pamplona, Aranzadi, 1987) 21–166 Google Scholar and for case law examples, see STS 10 julio 1943 [1943] RJ 856; STS 17 marzo 1983 [1983] RJ 1482 (presumption of fault ‘iuris tantum’) and STS 17 marzo 1983.
188 STS 18 octubre 1988 [1988] RJ 7586; STS 4 octubre 1982 [1982] RJ 5588; STS 4 noviembre 1981 [1981] RJ 4289.
189 STS 9 diciembre 1993 [1993] RJ 9761. It is also hard to know what to make of cases where the Tribunal Supremo refers to ‘la responsabilidad civil, dimanante de un delito o falta’ eg, STS 5 febrero 1944 [1944] RJ 159, or ‘es consecuencia obligada de la criminal’ as in STS 20 octubre 1960 [1960] RJ 3494.
190 STS 25 junio 2008 (Sentencia 430/2008).
191 See, eg, STS 1 julio 1972 [1972] RJ 3487 and especially STS 25 mayo 1999 [1999] RJ 5253 and Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 798.
192 See, as a small set of examples, STS 29 mayo 1958 [1958] RJ 1997; STS 26 enero 1960 [1960] RJ 230; STS 7 enero 1975 [1975] RJ 110. At the same time, from at least the 1960s, it has been held that the heads of liability can be subject to review by the Tribunal Supremo: eg, STS 16 junio 1980 [1980] RJ 2624; STS 13 marzo 1981 [1981] RJ 1161; STS 25 mayo 1999 and STS 11 marzo 1996 [1996] RJ 1906. The judge determining quantum is not bound to what the parties submit or civil law ideas of damages: STS 7 abril 1980 [1980] RJ 1242.
193 Diéz-Picazo, L y León, Ponce De, Derecho de Daños (Madrid, Civitas, 1999) 278–9Google Scholar. He also adds self-defence: 280–81.
194 See Art 115 LECrim and Orbaneja, , Comentarios, above n 148, vol II, 688–99Google Scholar. See also Art 116 LECrim on extinguishing the ex delicto action, and Monterreal, , Acción y responsabilidad civil derivada de delitos y faltas, (Madrid, Gráficas Menor, 1956) 311–44Google Scholar. Rus, , ‘El artículo 444 del Código Penal y el régimen general de la responsabilidad civil derivada del delito’, (1979) 32 Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 381 Google Scholar, 390 argues that this is, in fact, the only argument for the liability being criminal.
195 STS 24 noviembre 1982 [1982] RJ 7188. See also eg, STS 25 mayo 1962 [1962] RJ 2226; STS 20 diciembre 1989 [1989] RJ 9687.
196 STS 11 marzo 1968 [1968] RJ 1327.
197 See eg, Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 32: Tolsada argues that civil obligations are still civil, even in a criminal code; see also Vidal, et al, Proceso Penal Práctico, (Madrid, La Ley, 1990) 93–4Google Scholar.
198 See, eg, STS 7 abril 1990 [1990] RJ 3202; Torres, La reparación del daño, above n 122, 99–100.
199 Mocholi, M Moreno, ‘La responsabilidad civil por culpa extracontractual, y la penal por el delito o falta de daños por imprudencia’ (1950) 34 Revista de Derecho Privado 633, 633–4Google Scholar.
200 Ripollés, A Quintano, ‘La acción tercera o cuasi criminal, propia de la llamada responsa bilidad civil dimante del delito’ (1946) 30 Revista de Derecho Privado 868 Google Scholar. See also Rus, ‘El artículo 444’, above n 194, 385–93.
201 See, eg, STS 12 marzo 1934 [1934] RJ 454; STS 13 noviembre 1934; STS 8 abril 1936 [1936] RJ 958; STS 30 abril 1959 [1959] RJ 1981; STS 9 febrero 1961; STS 25 febrero 1963 [1963] RJ 1187; STS 13 octubre 1965 [1965] RJ 4440; STS 4 julio 1970 [1970] RJ 3766; STS 25 enero 1974 [1974] RJ 261; STS 2 enero 1978 [1978] RJ 2.
202 STS 14 noviembre 1934 [1934] RJ 1808; STS 10 febrero 1955 [1955] RJ 410; and STS 2 junio 1957 [1957] RJ 1743; STS 27 abril 1963 [1963] RJ 2197; STS 2 noviembre 1981 [1981] RJ 4280: STS 4 noviembre 1981; STS 11 marzo 1996.
203 There are further differences in this field related to motor vehicles, teaching institutions and a few other specific matters. These tend to be governed by special regulations which are, for the most part, more recent creations. For an in depth account of the current position, see Costa, Alfons Surroca, La Responsabilidad Civil de Hecho Ajeno Derivada de Delito o Falta (PhD tesina, Girona, Universitat de Girona, 2006)Google Scholar. On parents in particular, see Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 820–71.
204 See generally Calle, E Gómez Las responsabilidad civil de los padres (Madrid, montecorvio, 1992) 75–137 Google Scholar, and esp. on the historical development 125–32.
205 Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 806–19.
206 Art 1903(4): ‘los dueños o directores de un establecimiento o empresa respecto de los perjuicios causados por sus dependientes en el servicio de los ramos en que los tuvieren empleados o con ocasiones de sus funciones’: see, eg, Tolsada, ‘El perturbador’, above n 106, 2116–18.
207 See eg Art 1901 of DCC 1851.
208 cf Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 806–19 who, writing before the 1995 code, argued that the movement in ex delicto had been towards direct liability.
209 For a general summary, see Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 860–71 and Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 39–42. STS 9 febrero 1961 [1961] RJ 326 and yet cf STS 10 noviembre 1982 [1982] RJ 6535 which rejected an application of subsidiary liability by analogy. For a forceful rebuttal of the earlier case see Tolsada, ‘El perturbador’, above n 106, 2115–16.
210 See, eg, STS 6 octubre 1960 [1960] RJ 3030.
211 Eg, STS 22 noviembre 1983 [1983] RJ 6490; STS 22 diciembre 1986 [1986] RJ 7796.
212 See, eg, A Fernando Pantaleón Prieto, ‘Comentario al STS 13 julio 1984’ (1984) CCJC 1953 (septiembre/diciembre) 1956: ‘absolutamente dominante’.
213 See, generally, Tolsada, M Yzquierdo, ‘La responsabilidad civil en el proceso penal’ in Campos, L Fernando Reglero (ed), Tratado de Responsabilidad Civil (Cizur Menor, Aranzadi, 2002) 140–180 Google Scholar.
214 Eg, the reivindicatory action as the orginial source of the remedy, Arts 348 and 349 CC; see also Heredia, Efectos Civiles, 29–30, 73–74; Diez-Picazo, Derecho de Daños, 278.
215 Pantaleón, ‘Perseverare’, above n 120, 8: only that the property should be returned to the state before the crime was committed.
216 A fact known to Spanish writers, see eg, Olivares and Sumalla, ‘De la responsibilidad civil’, above n 163, 606.
217 STS 22 abril 1980 [1980] RJ 1466.
218 STS 30 abril 1992 [1992] RJ 3335.
219 Diez-Picazo, Derecho de Daños, 279.
220 See, eg, Tolsada, ‘La responsabilidad civil en el proceso penal’, §64; Ligüerre, C Gómez, Solidaridad, y Daños, Derecho de. Los Límites de la Responsabilidad Colectiva (Cizur Menor, Thomson, Civitas, 2007) 78–97 Google Scholar.
221 There are certain other specific obligations derived from certain crimes, eg, Arts 193 on sexual offences and 339: ‘la filiación y fijación de alimentos’.
222 However, Tolsada argues that this rule is never used in practice since the criminal lawyers regard this as a question of pure civil law: Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 21.
223 For a detailed treatment, see Sumalla, J Tamarit, La reparación de la víctima en Derecho Penal. Estudio de las nuevas tendencias político-criminales (Barcelona, Funació Jaume Callís, 1994) 61–79 Google Scholar.
224 This is then utilised in Arts 66(2) and 66(4) CP 1995. For case law, see, eg, STS 11 marzo 1987 [1987] RJ 2144; STS 30 septiembre 1987 [1987] RJ 6919 which seems to imply, against prevailing doctrine, that the mitigation is because early payment reduces culpability; STS 1 diciembre 1987 [1987] RJ 9518; STS 23 junio 1988 [1988] RJ 5307; STS 29 enero 1990 [1990] RJ 522. cf the restitution cases of eg, STS 28 mayo 1984 [1984] RJ 2689 and again STS 11 marzo 1987. See also Arts 253 and 340.
225 Eg, E Gómez Orbaneja, ‘Eficacia de la sentencia civil en el proceso penal’ (1945) Revista de Derecho Procesal 65, 189; Orbaneja, , Comentarios, above n 148, vol I, 362–7Google Scholar.
226 Torres, La reparación del daño, above n 122, 143, 145–6.
227 Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 23.
228 For a rare example, from 2006, see Querol, N Reynal, La prejudicialidad en el proceso civil (Barcelona, JM Bosch, 2006) 143–4Google Scholar. Sometimes it appears the claim is phrased as an application of the presumption of innocence, but this is typically not successful: eg, STS 11 septiembre 2007 [2007] RJ 5374.
229 Múgica, et al, La Responsabilidad Civil ‘Ex Delicto’ (Cizur Menor (Navarra), Editorial Aranzadi, 2002) 183 Google Scholar. Reservation becomes more complex in the rare case where there are multiple civil parties, and they do not all wish to take the same route. Some argue that despite Arts 113 and 112 LECrim, partial reservation should be possible; see eg, Múgica et al, La Responsabilidad Civil ‘Ex Delicto’, 184–5.
230 Paz, E Aguilera de, Comentarios a la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Madird, Reus, 1923) 623–4Google Scholar.
231 See eg, STS 25 enero 1974 [1974] RJ 261.
232 Tolsada, ‘La responsabilidad civil en el proceso penal’, 490–91. See also Gómez, El ejercicio, above n 183, 29–35.
233 Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 43.
234 There is a gentle trickle throughout the twentieth century: STS 12 febrero 1932 [1932] RJ 906; STS 8 abril 1936; STS 9 octubre 1971 [1971] RJ 3824; STS 22 marzo 1977 [1977] RJ 1509; STS 12 mayo 1981 [1981] RJ 2047.
235 Tolsada, Aspectos, above n 108, 21.
236 Alabart, ‘La responsabilidad’, above n 116, 801.
237 Sumalla, La reparación de la víctima, above n 223, 51–3.
238 Ripollés, , ‘Ilicitud civil y penal: el problema en su tipificación’, (1957) 56 Revista Jurídica de Catalunya 208 Google Scholar.
239 cf the not unusual STS 6 diciembre 1912 (1912) 125 Jurisprudencia Civil 582 no 95; 60 pages on one case. The Aranzadi reports begin in 1930 and became the leading source of case law in Spain from around that time.
240 This view has been supported by, eg, Mocholi, ‘La responsabilidad civil por culpa extracontractual, y la penal por el delito o falta de daños por imprudencia’, above n 199, 633; Calero, ‘La responsabilidad civil derivada de acto ilícito penal (II)’, above n 122, 604.
241 Monterreal, Acción y responsabilidad, above n 194, 30.
242 Torres, La reparación del daño, above n 122, 148.
243 See eg Art 380 LECrim.
244 On the involvement of some groups, see eg, Sánchez, La Responsabilidad Civil en el Proceso Penal, 277–85. The involvement of societies against corruption has been of particular recent interest.
245 For more detail on the role of the judge, see Zunzunegui, I Subijana, ‘Los derechos de las víctimas: su plasmación en el proceso penal’ (1998) 54 Poder Judicial 165, 184–210Google Scholar.
246 See eg, Liszt, Franz von, Tratado de Derecho Penal (Madrid, Hijos de Reus, 1914 (tr Quintiliano Saldaña))Google Scholar.