Examining the Relationship between Civil and Criminal Liability in Iranian and English Law
Subject Areas : Civil liability
1 - Master of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran.
Keywords: Fault-based liability, no-fault liability, intent, criminal liability policy, lack of liability,
Abstract :
Criminal policy is the most important characteristic of legal systems worldwide, and every legal system, in order to impose criminal responsibility on an individual, establishes certain conditions under the title of the elements of criminal responsibility within its laws and regulations, and undertakes policymaking in this regard. The legal systems of Iran and England, despite having fundamental differences, share both similarities and distinctions in this policymaking and do not follow uniform criteria. In general, in the law of both countries, the concepts of civil liability and criminal liability are defined separately; however, in some cases, these two concepts may be pursued simultaneously. In English civil liability law, the general rules of liability are categorized under three headings: liability arising from negligence, liability arising from intent, and strict liability. In contrast, the general rules of civil liability in Iran are classified into two main categories: fault-based liability and strict liability. Despite the apparent differences between the two systems, the general rules of civil liability in both countries are adaptable and strive to achieve the goal of administering justice and compensating unjust harm. In this article, by examining the criminal and civil liability policies in the legal systems of Iran and England, it was observed that the age of reason and criminal maturity, as well as the general civil rules, are accepted as principles in both systems, and the imposition of criminal responsibility on individuals is conditioned upon reaching a certain age and possessing reason and criminal maturity.
1. Darabpour, M. (2008). General principles of civil liability in the legal system of England. Judicial Legal Perspectives, 44-45, 67. [In Persian]
2. Dehkhoda, A. (1998). Dehkhoda Dictionary (Vols. 10, 11, & 13, 2nd ed.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
3. Habibzadeh, M., & Mir Majidi, S. (2012). A comparative study of diminished responsibility in Iranian and English criminal law: Concept, foundations, and manifestations. Comparative Legal Studies, 16(4), 31-52. [In Persian]
4. Johnson, M. (1998). The criminal capacity of children. Retrieved from http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au
5. Noei, E. (2012). Duty of care (and caution) in Iranian and English law (Master’s thesis). Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch.
6. Penal Affairs Consortium. (1995). The doctrine of “Doli Incapax”. London: Penal Affairs Consortium.
7. Sanders, J., et al. (1987). Doli Incapax review. Retrieved from http://www.theshopfrnt.org/documents/AgeofCriminalResponsibilty
8. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2007). General Comment No. 10: Children’s rights in juvenile justice (CRC/C/GC/10). Vienna: UNCRC.
9. Civil Procedure Code of the Public and Revolutionary Courts (2000).
10. Criminal Procedure Code (2013). [In Persian]
11. Islamic Penal Code (2013). [In Persian]
12. Mehrara, N., & Norouzi, B. (2019). Policy-making of the elements of criminal responsibility in Iranian and English law with reference to the views of Imam Khomeini and other jurists. Matin Scientific-Research Quarterly (Imam Khomeini and Islamic Revolution), 21(84). [In Persian]
