Criminal Law: Defintion

Criminal court cases have their own procedures that are distinct from civil law cases and have different outcomes. Melling v Mathghamhna [1962] identifies the indicia that distinguish criminal wrongdoing from other types of wrongdoing as follows: 


  1. A Public Wrongdoing: The Court noted that a crime is not only a wrongdoing against the victim but also a wrongdoing against the community at large. The DPP prosecutes crimes in the public interest on behalf of the State. The role of the victim is limited to being a witness. Conversely, civil wrongdoing such as a breach of contract is prosecuted by the victims themselves and concerns private rights only.

  2. A Wrongdoing That Requires Proof Of Mens Rea: The court also identified that the accused engaged in certain conduct with a mens rea, ie a guilty mind. The two most common types are intention and recklessness. For example, to secure a conviction for causing serious harm contrary to s 4(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, it must be proved that the accused caused serious harm to the victim, coupled with the intention to do so or recklessness.  

  3. Prosecution Of A Crime Follows Criminal Procedure: The Court also identified that wrongdoing is criminal if the criminal procedure is followed in its prosecution. If an alleged wrongdoer may be detained, questioned, searched by the guards and ultimately imprisoned, the wrongdoing alleged against him is a crime.

  4. Crime Is A Wrongdoing That Is Described In The Vocabulary Of The Criminal Law: The court noted that if the legislative provision governing the wrongdoing contains the vocabulary of the Criminal Law, the wrongdoing is a crime. In DPP v Boyle [1994] the High Court held that the wrongdoing of the accused was a crime given that s 24 of the Finance Act 1926 described the wrongdoing of failing to pay taxes as an “offence” and made provision of a £500 penalty upon “summary conviction.”

  5. A Crime Is A Wrongdoing That Attracts Punishment: Distinguishing from civil law, which is concerned with remedies, criminal law is concerned with punishing offenders by way of imprisonment, fines, community service or probation. In McLoughlin v Tuite & Ors [1986] it was noted that while in general a wrongdoing will be regarded as a crime if it attracts punishment, some wrongdoings which attract punishment will not be regarded as crimes. Per McLoughlin, in determining this, the court will consider if: 

    1. The prosecution did not follow criminal procedure;

    2. The wrongdoing was not described in the vocabulary of the criminal law;

    3. There was no requirement of mens rea;

    4. The penalty, like any civil debt, but unlike a fine, could be recovered from the deceased taxpayer.


  1. Administrative V Punitive Sanctions: The Supreme Court in The Registrar of Companies v District Judge David Anderson and System Partners Ltd [2005], noted the significance of distinguishing administrative and punitive sanctions, holding that an “administrative sanction,” is not “punishment.” They held that the purpose of the sanction was to ensure that companies filed their returns punctually, which was a legitimate administrative objective. In Gilligan v CBA [2001] the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996  permitted the confiscation of property valued in excess of £10,000 if the High Court was satisfied that such property represented the proceeds of a crime, and Gilligan sought constitutional protection arguing proceedings were criminal in nature. The Supreme Court held that they were not criminal, noting: 

    1. The proceedings were in rem as opposed in personam 

    2. The forfeiture of property amounted to reparation, not punishment – the court was merely taking what was not theirs in the first place. 

    3. The procedure applicable under the legislation is not criminal in nature. 

Similarly, in Criminal Assets Bureau v Patrick Casey and Ellen Cawley Casey [2020] the Court held in favour of the CBA regarding the purchase of property being funded by proceeds of organised crime. 


In Bendenoun v France (1994), the ECtHR held that although the penalties of fines for tax evasion had some characteristics of a criminal charge, States were free to empower tax authorities/administrative bodies to prosecute and impose penalties for tax offences having the nature of a criminal law penalty.