Posted By Ucan Criminal Law Rules of behaviour laid down by the Government or the State and normally enacted by Parliament through Acts of Parliament. Civil Law Concerned with the rights and duties of individuals (and organisations) towards each other. Violation of these established rights and duties are know as TORTS – (Legal Wrongs), the main one affecting Health and Safety being that of negligence. The individual sues another individual or company to address a wrong. Differences Between the Two Criminal The aim of criminal prosecutions is to punish the offender with financial penalties or imprisonment. An important point which distinguishes criminal prosecutions from civil cases is that the BURDEN OF PROOF – the means of demonstrating that the offence has, indeed been committed – has to be “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” Civil The remedies sough are to put right the wrong committed, i.e. compensation (damages) for loss incurred. The BURDEN OF PROOF in civil cases is different to that applied to determine the outcome in criminal cases. Here, the case may be decided “ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES”.

Posted By ScotsAM A civil court is there for an individual to claim compensation from a company or individual for a torte (a civil wrongdoing). A criminal court is there to punish a company or individual for a breach of their legal duties. The action is normally brought by an enforcing body (police, hse etc) and the case brought to court by the crown prosecution service (england) or procurator fiscal (scotland). In a civil court is must be shown that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty and by doing so caused loss or pain to the claimant. This must be proved "on the balance of probability" which means that it more than likely happened rather than definately happened. The award for a succesfal action is normally monetary compensation. In a criminal court, a breach of a legal duty must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. (HOWEVER the fact that somebody is injured is normally taken as fact that a legal duty was breached which then means the onus is on the defendant to prove they done everything possible to prevent the injury... but that's not the point here). A sucessful conviction leads to a punishment, either a monetary fine and/or a custodial sentance for individuals. Also note that compensation can be insured against, while a fine, as a punishment, cannot.

Posted By Colin Reeves None of the erudite responses have actually answered the original question posed of "UKBA, LEA and HMRC routinely use Civil methods to punish people". All responses refer to the compensation etc, but not any any "punishment" meted out by civil courts, unless compensation is being construed as punishment. I cannot answer the original question - I am awaiting a reply to the question ..... Colin

Posted By Raymond Rapp My previous post clearly stated that in the main civil law in the UK is not used to punish people, but rather for redress for some loss.

Posted By Colin Reeves Thanks Bob, first posting to "admit" that civil courts can punish .... Colin

Posted By AHS I wonder if that now makes the Attorney General a criminal.

Posted By TonyB AHS and the rest, NEBOSH come from a H&S point of view. In this sphere Criminal is about punishment and civil is about compensation. However, in the bigger world some civil 'laws' can impose punishment - but only fines. Just as the Attorney General (Ms Scotland!). All the best, TonyB