UK law: can laws be applied retroactively?

Suppose we live in a version of the UK which has no murder laws. Someday, a government passes a law prohibiting murder. Are any murders prior to the existence of that law punishable?

Is this the case for all laws? Is there any way for a government to bypass it?

My knowledge of the British legal system is limited, but I remember the outstanding importance of the Sovereignty of Parliament doctrine: The UK has, as you are certainly aware, no written constitution but a set of constitutionally important statutes and conventions instead. One of those unwritten rules says that every power is vested in Parliament - it can do whatever it wants to. Nowadays this has somewhat been reduced due to Britain’s membership in the European Union and the fact that (at least according to the European Court of Justice) communitary law supersedes national law; but it’s still the standard view on the powers of the House of Commons.

A well know example of this are the acts passed annually during WWII to prolong the legislative period of Parliament although the time for which it had originally been elected had expired. Not really retroactive, but something similar.

In England there are two ways to make the law:
(1) by statute enacted by Parliament
(2) by a binding decision of a superior court.

A case in which the second method was apparently used to make an act criminal retrospectively was Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, in which the House of Lords (acting as a superior court, not as a legislature), invented/discovered the criminal offense of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals”, a crime unknown to English law before that case.

It would certainly not be possible nowadays, as Human Rights legislation, drawing on the UN Declaration on Human Rights, prohibits retrospective criminalisation.

Wow, I had no idea. That’s actually pretty frightening.

Ahh, sorry. I missed this.

I would have to look it up, but, yes we have had retrospective legislation, which caused plenty of problems, one currently being reviewed would go back to pre-9/11 regarding anti hoaxer laws about bio-terrorism.

It seems such a specific law that it is designed to catch known persons who have been using a loophole, I’m not sure it will survive the European Courts should it be appealed that far.

Another is having suspects on US arrest warrant be liable for deportation for things that were not regarded as an offence in this country, normally if something is not an offence in the UK, then you cannot be extradited to another country to face criminal proceedings for it, and if it is an offence in the UK, then extradition can only take place if there is a prima facie case against the extraditee, this law proposes to extradite persons only on accusations and does not require an actual indictment by the US.
It appears to be a convenient way for the UK to get rid of individuals such as Abu Hamsa, who we don’t really want over here, but we don’t have any evidence of criminal activity to remove him.
In his particular case, if the US did indict him, we could not extradite him because the charges could potentially unravel out to terrorism charges which could attract a death penalty in the US, and under European Act we cannot do this as under Article 1’ Every person has the right to life’

Now if he is merely a suspect, but not indicted, for activity prior to the law being enacted, he is not technically under death penalty threat, so he could be sent to the US and we would have rid of him.

I notice the US does not see fit to do the same with Irish Terrorists historically.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/passport.html

I know that some legislation for Health and Safety issues have had the injury reporting times extended prior to when some laws were enacted.

…and to add to Giles comment, there are two other ways laws can be enacted in the UK, one is through legislation handed down through the European Executive, which requires a particular standard to be met in local national law within a certain period decided by the executive itself.

The other way laws can be enacted in the UK is through authority embodied in an agency for that purpose- and can include employment law too.
The best known to most people would be the Heath and Safety Commission, which has the power authorised by the Home Secretary to make laws affecting such matters and these do not have to be reviewed through Parliament.

Other agencies that can make law in this way are Environmental Agency, this is called secondary legislation, the primary legislation being the one that set up and authorised the agency in the first place.

Yes, but EU human rights law and and other treaties are only law in the UK because Parliament has passed a law saying so. Parliament could declare an act to apply not withstanding those or even repeal them altogether.

It’s worth differentiating the means by which the legislation is passed as well with regard to the applicability of the Human Rights Act.

If it is primary legislation, passed by Parliament that is found incompatible with Convention rights, then the courts are empowered to issue a Declaration of Incompatability under S3 of the HRA, which basically is to inform Parliament that the legislation is incompatible with Convention rights, but it does not invalidate or otherwise strike down the law.

The European Court of Human Rights has now repeatedly held, contrary to the Government’s submissions, that a Declaration of Incompatibility is not an effective remedy for the purposes of the Convention. This means that where the violation arises out of clear statutory language which cannot be read in a manner that would be compatible with a “Convention right” it is no longer necessary for the “victim” of the violation to apply to the domestic courts. The individual concerned can immediately apply to the European Court of Human Rights under the Convention to uphold his substantiative rights.

The HRA also contains in S3 a read down provision, which requires that all domestic legislation has to be construed insofar as it can be, to be read in light of what the Convention requires. This means that logical or common sense or obvious constructions of the provision could be discarded and the provision interpreted to mean anything that the words could be streached to mean and still be inside the bounds of the Convention. This would depend greatly on the drafting of the legislation, and the precise words used. It is always presumed as basic principles of statutory interpretation that Parliament intends to meet its international obligations, and usually unless express language is used, the courts will find a way for the legislation to be reconciled with these obligations.

Lastly, a common method of legislation in the UK now is through secondary or delegated legislation. This basically means Parliament will instruct a minister or a government department to fill the holes in a legislative scheme that will itself be drafted in the vaguest manner. Legislation passed in this manner can be struck down by superior courts.

If one assumes for the sake of the question that sufficient political will to pass a retrospective law no matter what exists, there are no legal impediments to the UK government doing so. All answers that suggest this is impossible ignore the UK government’s inability to effectively fetter itself.

Answers that suggest to the contrary are assuming that the UK government wouldn’t want to do this, which may be the correct answer politically speaking, but do not answer the question per se.