in E&amp;W, what is the &quot;pre-action protocol&quot;? In Statutes of limitations and the pre-action protocol (PAP) it is stated that the &quot;pre-action protocol (PAP) must be completed before a case is brought to court in England-and-Wales. Just what is the &quot;pre-action protocol&quot; in E&amp;W, when is it required, and how long does it typically take?
The pre-action protocols are part of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which governs proceedings in the County Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal (see Rule 2.1). They set out what the parties should do before initiating proceedings in court. Being practice directions, they are not rules, but you ignore them at your peril; failing to do so will not affect the outcome of your case but can have cost implications or, in the most severe cases, result in sanctions (see paragraphs 13 - 15 here). There is a general pre-action protocol and a set of specific pre-action protocols for particular types of cases. If there is a specific protocol for your case, you follow that, otherwise you follow the general one (see paragraph 2). The full list of specific pre-action protocols can be found here. Note that there is another list contained within the general pre-action protocol at paragraph 18 but this list is not complete. This is rather unfortunate because paragraph 18 contains the phrase &quot;the table sets out the protocols currently in force&quot; and, below the table, &quot;Updated: Wednesday, 6 April 2022&quot; (which implies, incorrectly, that any older protocols not appearing in the table are not currently in force). I suggest using the first list. &quot;How long does it typically take?&quot; This varies depending on the protocol being followed. See for example paragraph 6 of the general protocol which, without being prescriptive, suggests that a reasonable time for a defendant to respond to a pre-action letter is 14 days in a simple case and 3 months in a complex one. &quot;pre-action protocol (PAP) must be completed before a case is brought to court in England-and-Wales&quot; This is incorrect. Per paragraph 17 of the general pre-action protocol, if you are close to the limitation period, you can start proceedings and then apply for a stay to give you time to comply with the protocol.
As @DavidSupportsMonica says, you can't go back in time to fix the problem. As a rule regulators are more interested in obtaining compliance than throwing the book. There are no sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences, but most convictions lead to a fine. However HSE Policy is that enforcement should be proportionate to the degree of non-compliance and the level of risk created. 5.2 In our dealings with duty holders, we will ensure that our enforcement action is proportionate to the health and safety risks and to the seriousness of any breach of the law. This includes any actual or potential harm arising from any breach, and the economic impact of the action taken. 5.4 Applying the principle of proportionality means that our inspectors should take particular account of how far duty holders have fallen short of what the law requires and the extent of the risks created An annual inspection that was overdue by one day is a very minor failing, and the principle of proportionality means that you are most likely to get verbal advice not to let it happen again. You say &quot;if anything happens&quot;, presumably meaning if there is an actual incident or serious risk, such as a fire or CO poisoning. Its true that in such a case they will certainly want to look at your records, but the proportionality rule still applies. They would need to be able to make a causal link between your failing and the actual incident to make any more of it, which wouldn't be the case here.
canada The Crown's duty to disclose all materials and information, inculpatory or exculpatory, unless clearly irrelevant, does not extend to Crown &quot;work product.&quot; The &quot;work product&quot; privilege means that &quot;notes and materials that involve the thought process and strategic or tactical considerations of Crown counsel in the preparation and presentation of its case&quot; are not within the mandatory disclosure requirements. See Dudley v. British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 328. However, the Crown will present its case first. It will present an opening statement laying out the theory of the case and explain the relevance of the evidence it will be presenting. It will call all of its evidence first and then close its case before the defence presents its case. Also, [t]he Crown must not be allowed to change the case it has presented once the accused has begun to answer the Crown’s case R. v. G. (S.G.), [1997] 2 SCR 716, at para 38
There isn't an automatic exclusion rule for all forms of improperly acquired evidence in the UK. I can't find the exact quote but there was a judgement from a senior court that said in terms: &quot;it's not the court's job to discipline the police but to see that justice is done.&quot; However, judges have the discretion to disallow individual pieces of evidence if they think the interests of justice require it. Section 78 (1) of PACE (1984) has: In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Senior judges have been reluctant to lay down general guidelines, holding the trial judge best placed to make these decisions (although of course, subject to appeal). The foundational principle is the accused's right to a fair trial, so in principle one could appeal to the ECtHR under Article 6. However it generally takes a similar line to courts in the UK: It is not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence - for example, unlawfully obtained evidence - may be admissible or, indeed, whether the applicant was guilty or not. The question which must be answered is whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, were fair. PACE Section 78(2) is: Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence. The general principle in 78 (1) does not override specific prohibitions: for instance, intercept evidence is never admissable under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Here's what would likely happen in general: the plaintiff would seek a prejudgment attachment before they even get to trial (here's an example of Civil Procedure Rules outlining prejudgment attachment). Note: there must be a state statute existent in your jurisdiction to even seek this remedy. Generally, prejudgment attachments start in the form of a writ from the requesting plaintiff. That document must confirm (usually) that there is a suit for damages, ID the property to be attached, etc. Usually they are approved specifically in cases where the defendant is moving property out of the state or is fraudulently getting rid of property or hiding property in order to avoid paying a debt. Some states have different laws respecting if and how much notice a defendant is entitled to receive. Also, the enforcement of such writs must be in line with Due Process requirements - here, that in order to issue a prejudgment attachment while the defendant is unaware of the prejudgment attachment is only constitutional when there are "exigent circumstances." You tagged Massachusetts, so check here for the relevant Mass. Gen. Laws. Even better, check Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1 (Attachment) and 4.2 (Trustee Process).
england-and-wales In England and Wales, with the exception of private prosecutions, complainants don't 'press' (or drop) charges. There are several public authorities that can prosecute criminal offences but generally we talk about circumstances that involve the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). When a crime is reported to the police the police investigate. When the police complete their investigation they refer the case and send the evidence to the CPS. (A minor offence such as low value shoplifting can be handled by the police, although if the case goes to court it must be reviewed by the CPS before the first hearing.) Generally the CPS decides whether to prosecute based on 'the Full Code Test'. In short: &quot;Is there enough evidence against the suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?&quot; &quot;Is it in the public interest to prosecute?&quot; (In urgent situations the CPS might decide it's necessary to decide based on 'the Threshold Test'.) The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the Crown, not the complainant. A criminal case is named along the lines of Rex/Regina or R. v Alex, not Bob v Alex. Sometimes it may be difficult to proceed with prosecution if a complainant (or witness) decides not to cooperate or sometimes the CPS might decide not to prosecute because of the complainant's circumstances. But the CPS is allowed to prosecute without the complainant's approval or cooperation. Under the Victims' Right to Review Scheme, in some circumstances a complainant can seek a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute or decision to stop a prosecution.
The common law rule was that to inherit you have to outlive the decedent from whom you are inheriting, and that the inheritance would pass to your estate if you died before distribution was made. Statutes in some jurisdictions provide that someone must survive for a longer period than that to be eligible to inherit, often five days, in order to simplify the factual issues in the common situation of a joint accident. Pennsylvania is one such state. But a will or trust can deviate from the default rule, and in U.S. practice, driven by federal estate tax laws, it isn't uncommon to require someone to survive the decedent by at least six months to inherit from them under an instrument. In this case, where more than a year has passed since the death, the inheritance would not lapse for these reasons. It also isn't uncommon for a trust, either established during life, or established at death, to provide that distributions from the trust are made at the discretion of the trustee and to require in those cases that the person receiving the distribution also be living at the time of the distribution. These trusts also typically contain specific provisions that spell out the rights of a beneficiary who dies before the trust is fully distributed.
This appears to be covered by the Norway Criminal Procedures Code, of which an English version can be found here. Chapter 10 deals with witnesses. Here are some relevant sections: § 108. Unless otherwise provided by statute, every person summoned to attend as a witness is bound to do so and to give evidence before the court. There follow a number of exceptions (spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, state secrets, etc). None of them seem to apply to your example. § 115. The court may decide that a witness who fails to attend or who leaves the place of sitting without a valid reason shall be brought before the same or a subsequent sitting of the court. In special cases the court may decide that a witness shall be detained in custody until he can be examined. § 128. Before the examination the president of the court shall admonish the witnesses to tell the whole truth without concealing anything. He shall inform the witnesses of the liability consequent on giving false evidence or making a false affirmation. § 137. If a witness refuses to give evidence after being ordered to do so by a legally enforceable court order, the court may by a new order decide that the witness shall be kept in custody until he fulfils his obligation. Nevertheless a witness may not be kept in custody for more than three months altogether in the same case or in another case relating to the same matter. So effectively, if the witness fails to show up voluntarily, he can be brought in forcibly. He can be ordered to testify, and if he refuses, he can be held in custody (probably a jail) for up to three months. However, the authority to compel testimony is limited to courts; the police cannot compel statements from witnesses. § 230. The police may take statements from suspected persons, witnesses and experts but may not order any person to make a statement. So in your example, it appears that the witnesses would be free to refuse to speak to the police. However, if the case came to trial, they could be ordered to testify, and could be held in custody if they refused.