Ex Post Facto Law: Can It Apply To Objects?

Ex post facto laws are a form of legislation that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed or relationships that existed before the law was enacted. In criminal law, this can mean criminalizing actions that were previously legal, increasing the severity of a crime, altering the rules of evidence to make conviction more likely, or extending the statute of limitations. These laws are considered unfair and are prohibited by the US Constitution at both the federal and state levels. The US Constitution includes two ex post facto clauses to curb legislative overreach and protect individual liberties. While the US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, other countries such as India and Australia may allow them under certain circumstances. If charged under an ex post facto law, individuals can use several defense strategies, such as filing a motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Characteristics and Values of Ex Post Facto Laws

Ex post facto laws in the US and India

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). These laws are also prohibited by the Constitution of Turkey in Article 38. In India, while the expression "ex post facto law" is not used, the underlying principle has been adopted in Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution.

Ex Post Facto Laws in the US

The US Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the federal government and the states from enacting ex post facto laws. This clause ensures that legislative acts give fair warning of their effect and allow individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed. It also restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation. The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws do not apply to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against foreign laws. Additionally, the Court has clarified that while higher penalties cannot be applied retroactively, lower penalties can be applied to pre-Act conduct.

Ex Post Facto Laws in India

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution safeguards citizens from being punished for acts that were legal when committed but were later criminalized or had their punishments enhanced. This protection applies only to criminal laws, and retrospective consequences in fee or tax payments are not prohibited. The Indian judiciary has allowed the retrospective effect of laws when they serve the reformative and rehabilitative needs of the accused.

Ex post facto defences

In the United States, the Ex Post Facto Clause is found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, which states, "No...ex post facto law shall be passed," and in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, which applies to state laws: "No state shall... pass any... ex post facto law." These provisions ensure that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for actions that were legal when committed but later criminalised. They also protect defendants' defence options that existed prior to their alleged criminal act.

The Supreme Court, in Beazell v. Ohio (1925), defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto principle by outlining specific restrictions. According to the Court, ex post facto laws include any statute that criminalises an act after it has been committed, increases the burden of punishment for a crime after its commission, or deprives a defendant of a defence that was available at the time of the act. The Court clarified that amendments impacting currently imprisoned individuals do not violate ex post facto as long as they do not increase the punishment for the original crime.

Appellate courts, aiming to comply with ex post facto prohibitions, sometimes announce new rules of law without applying them to the case at hand. Additionally, some laws, such as sex offender registration or community notification laws, are generally accepted as they do not lead to retroactive additional incarceration. However, conduct credits awarded for good behaviour while in custody cannot be reduced retroactively without violating ex post facto laws.

In other legal systems, the approach to ex post facto defences varies. Some common-law jurisdictions prohibit retroactive criminal legislation, while new precedents can apply to past events. In nations following the Westminster system, ex post facto laws may be permissible due to parliamentary supremacy, but this is subject to legal constraints. In contrast, the European principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"), applies, where the version of the law most advantageous to the accused is used if the law has changed after the offence.

Overall, ex post facto defences serve as a critical safeguard against the retroactive application of criminal laws, ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

Ex post facto in Canada

Ex post facto laws are criminal statutes that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted. In other words, they punish actions that were legal when they were originally performed.

In Canada, ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section ensures that citizens are able to foresee the consequences of their actions and receive fair notice of what to avoid. Additionally, section 11(i) of the Charter states that if the punishment for a crime has changed between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing, the convicted person is entitled to the lesser punishment.

However, it is important to note that these rights are not absolute and may be overridden due to sections 1 and 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the federal Parliament has never attempted to enact an ex post facto law using section 33, changes to civil law in Canada can be, and sometimes are, enacted ex post facto.

For example, in the case of R v Dineley (2012), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against a legislative interpretation that would have allowed for a retrospective limitation of a defence, employing interpretive principles of temporal application. Another example is the Canada sex offender registry, which came into effect in 2004 and required all offenders on the Ontario sex offender registry (created in 2001) to register on the national registry.

Ex post facto in Australia

Ex post facto laws are laws that retroactively change the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed or relationships that existed before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, this may involve criminalising actions that were legal when committed, increasing the severity of a crime, changing the punishment prescribed for a crime, extending the statute of limitations, or altering the rules of evidence to make conviction more likely.

In Australia, there is no strong constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. However, narrowly retrospective laws may violate the constitutional separation of powers principle. While Australian courts generally interpret statutes with a strong presumption against retrospectivity, some cases have exposed the tenuous nature of protections against ex post facto laws. For example, in two landmark cases, the Court rejected a challenge to Queensland legislation authorising the continued detention of a prisoner deemed a danger to the community, and sanctioned New South Wales legislation limiting the parole prospects of certain offenders serving life imprisonment. These decisions highlight the need for a re-examination of the objection to ex post facto laws in Australia.

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia is bound by its express prohibition on the implementation of retrospective criminal laws. This is further supported by the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which enables individuals to file complaints with the UN Human Rights Committee for non-compliance. While the Covenant provides some protection against ex post facto laws, Australia's lack of a strong constitutional prohibition leaves room for potential violations of the separation of powers principle.

The concept of ex post facto laws is not limited to criminal law and can also apply to civil legislation. However, the creation of crimes ex post facto is generally considered more objectionable than retrospective civil legislation. This distinction may be due to the potential for ex post facto criminal laws to infringe on established human rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of arbitrary detention.

In summary, while Australia does not have a robust constitutional ban on ex post facto laws, its commitment to international covenants and the potential for retrospective laws to violate the separation of powers principle provide some constraints. Nonetheless, the existence of landmark cases involving ex post facto laws in Australia underscores the importance of ongoing vigilance and re-examination of this issue to ensure protections for individuals' rights.

Ex post facto in Finland and Indonesia

Ex post facto laws are a form of retroactive legislation that changes the legal consequences of actions committed or relationships formed before the law was enacted. In criminal law, ex post facto laws can criminalize previously legal actions, increase the severity of a crime, change the punishment for a crime, extend the statute of limitations, or alter the rules of evidence to make conviction more likely.

Ex Post Facto in Finland

Finland generally does not permit ex post facto laws, especially those that would expand criminal responsibility. After World War II, Finland was pressured by the Allied powers to convict political leaders they deemed responsible for Finnish involvement in the war. An ex post facto law was passed in the autumn of 1945 to allow prosecution for war responsibility, resulting in the conviction of eight politicians. In another post-war case, an ex post facto law was passed in 1947 to prosecute military personnel for unofficially preparing for guerrilla resistance in the event of Soviet occupation.

Ex Post Facto in Indonesia

The Indonesian Constitution prohibits trying citizens under retroactive laws in any circumstance. This was demonstrated in 2004 when the conviction of Masykur Abdul Kadir, one of the Bali bombers, under retroactive anti-terrorist legislation was overturned. Article 28I, paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution explicitly states that the right to not be prosecuted based on retroactive laws is a fundamental human right that cannot be diminished under any circumstances.

Frequently asked questions