Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus
 | The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content may constitute a hoax. (June 2019) |
Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus (Latin: "No penalty for the crimes of Hell"), is a defunct English common law doctrine which prohibited a judge from taking into consideration criminal offences committed in a foreign jurisdiction whilst passing sentence for a crime committed in England.[1]
Origin[edit]
The doctrine of Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus was first promulgated by Judge Cochrain in the case of R. v. Huggins [1730] 17 St. Tr. 309 at 376. On 17 November 1730 a merchant mariner by the name of Jonathan Huggins appeared before Judge Cochrain at the Devon and Cornwall Winter Assizes having pleaded guilty to stealing one tod of apples (28 pounds or 12.7 kg). It was known that Huggins had spent many years abroad and had a reputation for theft in the ports of the Spanish colonies. Huggins argued that it would be unjust to consider his reputation when passing sentence because foreign-born men and English men living in foreign climes had a natural proclivity to steal.
Judge Cochrain agreed with Huggins' submission and his judgment was recorded thus:
With regard to the substantial question in the case - whether the sentence passed upon the prisoner should reflect not just the offence before this court but a considerable antecedent history of larceny committed outside of His Majesty’s realm - the law is that an Englishman’s conduct so far as it relates to his habits, persuasions and proclivities should at all points in time whilst domicile in any county of England conform to the highest standards of probity. It is accepted that men conceived and nurtured beyond these shores can rarely aspire to attain a comparable disposition but should contemplate a prolonged servitude to malicious malappropriation, wanton fornication and temporal degradation. It is in this case that I must give consideration to an English man who by his own volition has forsaken His Majesty’s aegis and committed himself to an extended sojourn amongst innate supplicants. I profess my disappointment that the prisoner was unable to inoculate himself against their conventions but do not profess surprise. It may be possible to speculate that the prisoner would have found himself in considerable danger had he not conformed to the prevailing iniquity of his surroundings. I am content to limit my speculation as to that possibility and to none other. This court is of the opinion that a sin committed past the gates of hell is no sin at all. Likewise, a crime committed beyond His Majesty’s writ is not a crime for which a court in England can assay a man’s repute. Consequently, I will confine the prisoner’s sentence to a term of imprisonment consummate with the gravity of the offence for which he has been arraigned and no more than the gravity of that offence.
Abolition[edit]
Parliament abolished the doctrine of Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus in the early 20th Century by enacting s.29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1929. By that time jurists and politicians considered the doctrine to be an anachronism and potentially contrary to the public good in view of the increased mobility of the population and the increasing affordability of foreign travel.
Notes[edit]
- ↑ Courtney Stanhope Kenny, A Selection of Cases Illustrative of English Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press, 1931),p.193.
This article "Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
