Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
relegate his acts to history
Polish translation:
jego czyny należą już do przeszłości
- The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2020-06-02 05:54:11 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
May 29, 2020 18:32
3 yrs ago
14 viewers *
English term
United Kingdom
Native in: Polish (Variants: Standard-Poland, Old Polish) 
Works in: English to Polish, Polish to English
relegate his acts to history
English to Polish
Law/Patents
Law (general)
justification of the sentence
... it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening act … of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
Proposed translations
7 hrs
Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D.
United States
United States
Native in English
&
Polish
Works in field
United States
On time, on target, on budget.
Native in: English , Polish
Works in: Polish to English, English to Polish, Russian to Polish, and 1 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
2095
Selected
jego czyny należą już do przeszłości
Based on the discussion here
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
Note from asker:
| dziekuje, myslalam rowniez o "degradacji czynu", ale mysle, ze dokladniejsze jest "czyny naleza do przeszlosci" pozdrawiam |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "dziekuje"
10 mins
Kamila Ołtarzewska
Poland
Poland
Native in Polish
Specializes in field
Poland
EN-PL translator interpreter since 2000s
Native in: Polish
Works in: Polish to English, English to Polish
Related KudoZ points
:
253
przypisać jego czyny okolicznościom
put sth down to sth
Znaczenie słowa put sth down to sth w języku angielskim
klasyfikować (coś), kierować (na odpowiednie miejsce) (diki)
put sth down to sth
— phrasal verb with put verb
UK /pʊt/ US /pʊt/
to think that a problem or situation is caused by a particular thing:
Znaczenie słowa put sth down to sth w języku angielskim
klasyfikować (coś), kierować (na odpowiednie miejsce) (diki)
put sth down to sth
— phrasal verb with put verb
UK /pʊt/ US /pʊt/
to think that a problem or situation is caused by a particular thing:
Example sentence:
I put the children's bad behaviour down to the fact that they were tired
19 hrs
Magdalena Kardys
Poland
Poland
Native in Polish
Specializes in field
Poland
Tłumacz przysięgły języka angielskiego
Native in: Polish
Works in: English to Polish, Polish to English
Related KudoZ points
:
8
jego czyny zostają unieważnione
taka trochę "wariacja" na temat
1 hr
odstąpić od ścigania go za jego czyny
odstąpić od ścigania go za jego czyny
Taka luźna propozycja
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs (2020-05-30 10:26:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Patrząc nieco szerzej, pewnie dochodzi do umorzenia postępowania z powodu przedawnienia karalności jego czynów. Nie wyobrażam sobie, aby można było o tym decydować arbitralnie, a nie zgodnie z literą prawa.
Opcja 2: umorzyć postępowanie wobec przedawnienia karalności jego czynów
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:40:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Patrząc na ten mało prawniczy zwrot "relegate his acts to history". Jeśli chcemy to ująć w prawnicze terminy, to do głowy przychodzi mi tylko przedawnienie karalności (=negatywna przesłanka procesowa) i umorzenie postępowania.
https://www.arslege.pl/negatywne-przeslanki-procesowe/k13/a2...
Natomiast jeśli to ma być literatura popularna, to pole mamy szeroko otwarte.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:55:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The qualification to this (recognised in Wesley Smith, Anderson and Morrisand Reid) is that it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening act by the perpetrator which nobody in the defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
...
In our judgment, whether there is an evidential basis for overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character as could relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative
...
40“...It is important not to abbreviate the test articulated above which postulates an act that "nobody in the defendant's shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history". In the context of this case, the question can be asked whether the judge was entitled to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to leave to the jury that if they concluded (as they must have) that, in the course of a confrontation sought by Tasand his friends leading to an ongoing and moving street fight (which had Tas driving his car following the chase to ensure that his friends could be taken from the scene), the production of a knife is a wholly supervening event rather than a simple escalation.
41” We repeat that in the light of the relegation of knowledge of the weapon as going to proof of intent, it cannot be that the law brings back that knowledge as a pre-requisite for manslaughter. In our judgment, whether there is an evidential basis for overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character as could relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative (or, indeed, withdrawal from a joint enterprise) rather than mere escalation which remained part of the joint enterprise is very much for the judge who has heard the evidence and is in a far better position than this court to reach a conclusion as to evidential sufficiency.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Crown-Co...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:57:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Supervening - Unforeseen, intervening, an additional event or cause.
A supervening cause is an event that operates independently of anything else and becomes the proximate cause of an accident.
For an event to fall within the doctrine of supervening Negligence, also known as Last Clear Chance, four conditions must be satisfied. These conditions are that the injured party has already come into a perilous position; the tortfeasor in the exercise of ordinary prudence becomes or ought to have become aware that the party in peril cannot safely avoid injury; the tortfeasor has the opportunity to save the other person from harm; and he or she fails to exercise such care.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supervening
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 13:12:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
relegate his acts to history
Opcja kolejna: oddalić/odrzucić zarzut(y) popełnienia przez niego (określonych) czynów
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2020-05-30 13:51:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Jeśli robi to sędzia, tak wynikałoby z cytowanych fragmentów.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 12 hrs (2020-06-02 07:03:16 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Z uzasadnienia Marka Robertsona w pytaniu en-en:
The key point is that the source text must rendered so as to make sense in its context, i.e. a Crown Court judgment.
The Crown Court is a court of criminal jurisdiction and the court of first instance for indictable (serious) criminal offences (felonies in US) in England and Wales.
The judgment concerns the circumstances in which a person charged jointly with the primary defendant, with a murder/manslaughter, as part of a joint enterprise, is not guilty because the primary defendant's murder/manslaughter was wholly unforeseeable by the co-defendant, i.e. there was no joint enterprise. For joint enterprise to exist the defendant must knowingly assist or encourage the crime and agree to act together with the primary offender for a common purpose.
The source text therefore means that the the co-defendant's acts, whatever they were, are irrelevant and can be disregarded, because they were not part of a joint enterprise to commit the murder/manslaughter and that the co-defendant is therefore not guilty of the primary offence.
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
Taka luźna propozycja
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs (2020-05-30 10:26:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Patrząc nieco szerzej, pewnie dochodzi do umorzenia postępowania z powodu przedawnienia karalności jego czynów. Nie wyobrażam sobie, aby można było o tym decydować arbitralnie, a nie zgodnie z literą prawa.
Opcja 2: umorzyć postępowanie wobec przedawnienia karalności jego czynów
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:40:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Patrząc na ten mało prawniczy zwrot "relegate his acts to history". Jeśli chcemy to ująć w prawnicze terminy, to do głowy przychodzi mi tylko przedawnienie karalności (=negatywna przesłanka procesowa) i umorzenie postępowania.
https://www.arslege.pl/negatywne-przeslanki-procesowe/k13/a2...
Natomiast jeśli to ma być literatura popularna, to pole mamy szeroko otwarte.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:55:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The qualification to this (recognised in Wesley Smith, Anderson and Morrisand Reid) is that it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening act by the perpetrator which nobody in the defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
...
In our judgment, whether there is an evidential basis for overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character as could relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative
...
40“...It is important not to abbreviate the test articulated above which postulates an act that "nobody in the defendant's shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history". In the context of this case, the question can be asked whether the judge was entitled to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to leave to the jury that if they concluded (as they must have) that, in the course of a confrontation sought by Tasand his friends leading to an ongoing and moving street fight (which had Tas driving his car following the chase to ensure that his friends could be taken from the scene), the production of a knife is a wholly supervening event rather than a simple escalation.
41” We repeat that in the light of the relegation of knowledge of the weapon as going to proof of intent, it cannot be that the law brings back that knowledge as a pre-requisite for manslaughter. In our judgment, whether there is an evidential basis for overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character as could relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative (or, indeed, withdrawal from a joint enterprise) rather than mere escalation which remained part of the joint enterprise is very much for the judge who has heard the evidence and is in a far better position than this court to reach a conclusion as to evidential sufficiency.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Crown-Co...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 12:57:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Supervening - Unforeseen, intervening, an additional event or cause.
A supervening cause is an event that operates independently of anything else and becomes the proximate cause of an accident.
For an event to fall within the doctrine of supervening Negligence, also known as Last Clear Chance, four conditions must be satisfied. These conditions are that the injured party has already come into a perilous position; the tortfeasor in the exercise of ordinary prudence becomes or ought to have become aware that the party in peril cannot safely avoid injury; the tortfeasor has the opportunity to save the other person from harm; and he or she fails to exercise such care.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supervening
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2020-05-30 13:12:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
relegate his acts to history
Opcja kolejna: oddalić/odrzucić zarzut(y) popełnienia przez niego (określonych) czynów
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2020-05-30 13:51:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Jeśli robi to sędzia, tak wynikałoby z cytowanych fragmentów.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 12 hrs (2020-06-02 07:03:16 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Z uzasadnienia Marka Robertsona w pytaniu en-en:
The key point is that the source text must rendered so as to make sense in its context, i.e. a Crown Court judgment.
The Crown Court is a court of criminal jurisdiction and the court of first instance for indictable (serious) criminal offences (felonies in US) in England and Wales.
The judgment concerns the circumstances in which a person charged jointly with the primary defendant, with a murder/manslaughter, as part of a joint enterprise, is not guilty because the primary defendant's murder/manslaughter was wholly unforeseeable by the co-defendant, i.e. there was no joint enterprise. For joint enterprise to exist the defendant must knowingly assist or encourage the crime and agree to act together with the primary offender for a common purpose.
The source text therefore means that the the co-defendant's acts, whatever they were, are irrelevant and can be disregarded, because they were not part of a joint enterprise to commit the murder/manslaughter and that the co-defendant is therefore not guilty of the primary offence.
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
Note from asker:
| Nie uwazam, ze chodzi o przedawnienie karalnosci. To raczej przyczyna jest lub sa, zdarzenie lub okolicznosci, ktore degraduje/releguja (relegate his acts to history) przyczynowosc czynu pierwotnie zagrozonego kara |
Reference comments
4 hrs
Reference:
R v Jogee
Accessorial Liability after Jogee - https://tinyurl.com/y8hwzko9
R v Jogee - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Jogee
======
JUDGMENT
R v Jogee (Appellant)
[x]
31. In Anderson and Morris, a fatal stabbing resulted in the conviction of Anderson for murder and Morris for manslaughter. The evidence of Morris’s role, if any, in the attack was unclear. The judge directed the jury that if there was a common design to attack the victim, but without any intent by Morris to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and if Anderson, acting outside the common design, produced a knife about which Morris had no knowledge and used it to kill the victim, Morris was liable to be convicted of manslaughter. The defendants’ appeal was heard by a Court of Criminal Appeal of five judges, presided over by Lord Parker CJ. Mr Geoffrey Lane, QC for Morris submitted that the authorities from about 1830 onwards established the principle that (see p 118):
“… where two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise, that that includes liability for unusual consequences if they arise from the execution of the agreed joint enterprise but (and this is the crux of the matter) that, if one of the adventurers goes beyond what has been tacitly agreed as part of the common enterprise, his co-adventurer is not liable for the consequences of that unauthorised act.” (Emphasis added)
32. It was submitted that the judge had therefore misdirected the jury in saying that Morris could be liable if Anderson had acted outside the common design. Accepting counsel’s proposition as set out above and allowing Morris’ appeal, Lord Parker said at p 120:
“It seems to this court that to say that adventurers are guilty of manslaughter when one of them has departed completely from the concerted action of the common design and has suddenly formed an intent to kill and has used a weapon and acted in a way which no party to that common design could suspect is something which would revolt the conscience of people today …
Considered as a matter of causation there may well be an overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character that it will relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative factors.”
[x]
96. If a person is a party to a violent attack on another, without an intent to assist in the causing of death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death, he will be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. So also if he participates by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another, and death in fact results: R v Church [1965] 1 QB 59, approved in Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury [1977] AC 500 and very recently re-affirmed in R v F (J) & E (N) [2015] EWCA Crim 351; [2015] 2 Cr App R 5. The test is objective. As the Court of Appeal held in Reid, if a person goes out with armed companions to cause harm to another, any reasonable person would recognise that there is not only a risk of harm, but a risk of the violence escalating to the point at which serious harm or death may result. Cases in which D2 intends some harm falling short of grievous bodily harm are a fortiori, but manslaughter is not limited to these.
97. The qualification to this (recognised in Wesley Smith, Anderson and Morris and Reid) is that it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening act by the perpetrator which nobody in the defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/8.html
R v Jogee - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Jogee
======
JUDGMENT
R v Jogee (Appellant)
[x]
31. In Anderson and Morris, a fatal stabbing resulted in the conviction of Anderson for murder and Morris for manslaughter. The evidence of Morris’s role, if any, in the attack was unclear. The judge directed the jury that if there was a common design to attack the victim, but without any intent by Morris to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and if Anderson, acting outside the common design, produced a knife about which Morris had no knowledge and used it to kill the victim, Morris was liable to be convicted of manslaughter. The defendants’ appeal was heard by a Court of Criminal Appeal of five judges, presided over by Lord Parker CJ. Mr Geoffrey Lane, QC for Morris submitted that the authorities from about 1830 onwards established the principle that (see p 118):
“… where two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise, that that includes liability for unusual consequences if they arise from the execution of the agreed joint enterprise but (and this is the crux of the matter) that, if one of the adventurers goes beyond what has been tacitly agreed as part of the common enterprise, his co-adventurer is not liable for the consequences of that unauthorised act.” (Emphasis added)
32. It was submitted that the judge had therefore misdirected the jury in saying that Morris could be liable if Anderson had acted outside the common design. Accepting counsel’s proposition as set out above and allowing Morris’ appeal, Lord Parker said at p 120:
“It seems to this court that to say that adventurers are guilty of manslaughter when one of them has departed completely from the concerted action of the common design and has suddenly formed an intent to kill and has used a weapon and acted in a way which no party to that common design could suspect is something which would revolt the conscience of people today …
Considered as a matter of causation there may well be an overwhelming supervening event which is of such a character that it will relegate into history matters which would otherwise be looked on as causative factors.”
[x]
96. If a person is a party to a violent attack on another, without an intent to assist in the causing of death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death, he will be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. So also if he participates by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another, and death in fact results: R v Church [1965] 1 QB 59, approved in Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury [1977] AC 500 and very recently re-affirmed in R v F (J) & E (N) [2015] EWCA Crim 351; [2015] 2 Cr App R 5. The test is objective. As the Court of Appeal held in Reid, if a person goes out with armed companions to cause harm to another, any reasonable person would recognise that there is not only a risk of harm, but a risk of the violence escalating to the point at which serious harm or death may result. Cases in which D2 intends some harm falling short of grievous bodily harm are a fortiori, but manslaughter is not limited to these.
97. The qualification to this (recognised in Wesley Smith, Anderson and Morris and Reid) is that it is possible for death to be caused by some overwhelming supervening act by the perpetrator which nobody in the defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such a character as to relegate his acts to history; in that case the defendant will bear no criminal responsibility for the death.
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/8.html
Discussion
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
https://www.wuw.pl/data/include/cms/Studia_Iuridica_76_2018....
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/law-general/6825151-releg...
You can check the discussion there.