The Full Wiki

Ex post facto law: Wikis



Did you know ...

More interesting facts on Ex post facto law

Include this on your site/blog:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitu lick my dick motherfucka tion. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited. cock sucka


Ex post facto laws by country







According to the 5th Article, section XXXVI of Brazilian Constitution, laws cannot have "ex post facto" effects that affect acquired rights, accomplished juridical acts and res judicata.

The same article, in section XL prohibits ex post facto criminal laws. Like France, there is an exception, when retroactive criminal laws benefits the accused person.


In Canada, ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, under section 11(i) of the Charter, if the punishment for a crime has varied between the time the crime was committed and the time of a conviction, the convicted person is entitled to the lesser punishment.


Finland used ex post facto legislation in 1945, after the World War Two in trials of the war responsibilities in Finland. A law which made the pre-war politics criminal was passed in order to get the leaders nominated by Stalin sentenced. Generally ex post facto jurisprudence is considered violating the Romano-German judicial system, and are banned by the Constitution of Finland. Still, ex post facto laws may be used in civil cases, especially concerning vehicle taxes.




Article 103 of the German basic law requires that an act may only be punished if it has already been punishable by law at the time it was committed (specifically: by written law, Germany following civil law).


The problem of ex post facto law was also relevant in the 1990s as there was a discussion about the trials against East German soldiers who killed fugitives on the Inner-German border ( Mauerschützen-Prozesse (Wall-shooter's trial)).


In India without using the expression "Ex post facto law" the underlying principle has been adopted in the Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution in the following words:











Article 39 of the constitution of Japan prohibits the retroactive application of laws. Article 6 of Criminal Code of Japan further state that if a new law comes into force after the deed was committed, the lighter punishment must be given.

New Zealand

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1999 stipulates that enactments do not have retrospective effect. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also affirms New Zealand's commitment to the ICCPR and UNDHR with s 26 preventing the application of retroactive penalties. This is further reinforced under s 6(1) of the current Sentencing Act 2002 which provides, "[p]enal enactments not to have retrospective effect to disadvantage of offender" irrespective of any provision to the contrary. Section 26 of the Bill of Rights and the previous sentencing legislation the Criminal Justice Act 1985 caused significant digression among judges when the New Zealand Parliament introduced legislation that had the effect of enacting a retrospective penalty for crimes involving an element of home invasion. Ultimately the discrepancy was restricted with what some labelled artificial logic in the cases of R v Pora and R v Poumako.




Article 12 of the constitution of Pakistan prohibits any law to be given retroactive effect by stating:[2]





Ex post facto punishment in criminal and administrative law is prohibited by art.54 of Constitution; Ex post facto tax laws by art.57 of Constitution.



South Africa

Prohibited in criminal law by clause 35.(3)(l) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; an exception exists for offenses which were illegal under international law at the time of commission.







United Kingdom


Ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but parliamentary sovereignty, in theory, takes priority even over this.[citation needed]

In recent years, the HM Revenue & Customs office in the United Kingdom has used ex post facto laws to prosecute alleged tax evaders [3].

United States

In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the United States Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[4] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute any kind of punishment.[5]


Finally, Calder v. Bull expressly stated that a law that "mollifies" a criminal act was merely retrospective and not an ex post facto law.

A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[6] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject.

In the 1994 opinion United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation, provided their retroactive application was "supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means".[7]

Treatment by international organizations and treaties

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related treaties



African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights


American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man


Arab Charter on Human Rights


European Convention on Human Rights




Grammatical form and usage




See also

  • Nulla poena sine lege - the principle that no one may be punished for an act which is not against the law.


  1. ^ Norwegian Supreme Court case 2009/1575
  2. ^ The Constitution of Pakistan
  3. ^
  4. ^ "Library of Congress text of H.R.4472". 
  5. ^ "Ex Post Facto Laws". 
  6. ^ "Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital". 
  7. ^ "United States v. Carlton". Retrieved 2009-03-23. 
  8. ^ Mattila, Heikki E. S.; Christopher Goddard (2006). Comparative Legal Linguistics. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 154. ISBN 9780754648741. 


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address