Search results for: criminalisation

Authors: S. Tavuyanago

Abstract:

Cartels within the international competition law framework have been dubbed the most egregious of competition law violations; this is because they entail a concerted effort by two or more competitor firms to knowingly ‘rob’ consumers of their welfare through their cooperation instead of competition. The net effect of cartel conduct is that the market is distorted as the colluding firms gain enough market power to constrain the supply of goods or services, ultimately driving up prices. As a result, consumers end up paying inflated prices for goods and services, which eventually affects their welfare. It is against this backdrop that competition authorities worldwide have mounted a robust fight against the proliferation of cartels. In South Africa, the fight against cartels saw an amendment to the Competition Act to allow for criminal prosecution of individuals who cause their firms to take part in cartels. The Competition Amendment Act 1 of 2009 introduced section 73A into the principal Competition Act, making it a criminal offence to engage in cartel conduct. This paper assesses the rationale for criminalisation of cartel conduct, discusses the challenges or potential challenges associated with criminalisation, and provides an evaluation of the efficacy of criminalisation of cartel conduct. It questions whether criminal sanctions for cartel conduct as a competition enforcement tool aimed at deterring such conduct are generally effective and whether they have been effective in South Africa specifically. It concludes by offering recommendations on how to effectively root out cartels.

Keywords: cartels, criminalisation, competition, deterrence, South Africa

Procedia PDF Downloads 70

Authors: Esther Gumboh

Abstract:

While the definition of rape has evolved over the years and now differs from one jurisdiction to another, at the heart of the offence remains the absence of consent on the part of the victim. In simple terms, rape consists in non-consensual sexual intercourse. Therefore, the core issue is whether the accused acted with the consent of the victim. Once it is established that the act was consensual, a conviction of rape cannot be secured. Traditionally, rape within marriage was impossible because it was understood that a woman gave irrevocable consent to sex with her husband throughout the duration of the marriage. This position has since changed in most jurisdictions. Indeed, Malawian law now recognises the offence of marital rape. This is a victory for women’s rights and gender equality. Curiously, however, the definition of marital rape endorsed differs from the standard understanding of rape as non-consensual sex. Instead, the law has introduced the concept of unreasonableness of the refusal to engage in sex as a defence to an accused. This is an alarming position that undermines the protection sought to be derived from the criminalisation of rape within marriage. Moreover, in the Malawian context where rape remains an offence only men can commit against women, the current legal framework for marital rape perpetuates the societal misnomer that a married woman gives a once-off consent to sexual intercourse by virtue of marriage. This takes us back to the old common law position which many countries have moved away from. The present definition of marital rape under Malawian law also sits at odd with the nature of rape that is applicable to all other instances of non-consensual sexual intercourse. Consequently, the law fails to protect married women from unwanted sexual relations at the hands of their husbands. This paper critically examines the criminalisation of marital rape in Malawi. It commences with a historical account of the conceptualisation of rape and then looks at judgments that rejected the validity of marital rape. The discussion then moves to the debates that preceded the criminalisation of marital rape in Malawi and how the Law Commission reasoned to finally make a recommendation in its favour. Against this background, the paper analyses the legal framework for marital rape and what this means for the elements of the offence and defences that may be raised by an accused. In the final analysis, this contribution recommends that there is need to amend the definition of marital rape. Better still, the law should simply state that the fact of marriage is not a defence to a charge of rape, or, in other words, that there is no marital rape exemption. This would automatically mean that husbands are subjected to the same criminal law principles as their unmarried counterparts when it comes to non-consensual sexual intercourse with their wives.

Keywords: criminal law, gender, Malawi, marital rape, rape, sexual intercourse

Procedia PDF Downloads 291

Authors: Luci V. Hyett

Abstract:

The criminal law of England and Wales currently deems that a person cannot consent to the infliction of injury upon their own body, where the level of harm is considered to be Actual or Grevious. This renders the defence of consent of the victim as being unavailable to those persons carrying out an Alternative Body Modification procedure. However, the criminalization of consensual injury is more appropriately deemed as being categorized as an offense against public morality and not one against the person, which renders the State’s involvement in the autonomous choices of a consenting adult, when determining what can be done to one’s own body, an arbitrary one. Furthermore, to recognise in law that a person is capable of giving a valid consent to socially acceptable cosmetic interventions that largely consist of procedures designed to aesthetically please men and, not those of people who want to modify their bodies for other reasons means that patriarchal attitudes are continuing to underpin public repulsion and inhibit social acceptance of such practices. Theoretical analysis will begin with a juridical examination of R v M(B) [2019] QB 1 where the High Court determined that Alternative Body Modification was not a special category exempting a person so performing from liability for Grevious Bodily Harm using the defence of consent. It will draw from its reasoning which considered that ‘the removal of body parts were medical procedures being carried out for no medical reason by someone not qualified to carry them out’ which will form the basis of this enquiry. It will consider the philosophical work of Georgio Agamben when analysing whether the biopolitical climate in the UK, which places the optimization of the perfect, healthy body at the centre of political concern can explain why those persons who wish to engage in Alternative Body Modification are treated as the ‘Exception’ to that which is normal using the ‘no medical reason’ canon to justify criminalisation, rather than legitimising the industry through regulation. It will consider, through a feminist lens, the current conflict in law between traditional cosmetic interventions which alter one’s physical appearance for socially accepted aesthetic purposes such as those to the breast, lip and buttock and, modifications described as more outlandish such as earlobe stretching, tooth filing and transdermal implants to create horns and spikes under the skin. It will assert that ethical principles relating to the psychological impact of body modification described as ‘alternative’ is used as a means to exclude person’s seeking such a procedure from receiving safe and competent treatment via a registered cosmetic surgeon which leads to these increasingly popular surgery’s being performed in Tattoo parlours throughout the UK as an extension to other socially acceptable forms of self-modification such as piercings. It will contend that only by ‘inclusive exclusion’ will those ‘othered’ through ostracisation be welcomed into the fold of normality and this can only be achieved through recognition of alternative body modification as a legitimate cosmetic intervention, subject to the same regulatory framework as existing practice. This would assist in refocusing the political landscape by erring on the side of liberty rather than that of biology.

Keywords: biopolitics, body modification, consent, criminal law

Procedia PDF Downloads 82