The study is based upon an analysis of the general principles of criminal liability in English law and Shari 'ah. It is hoped that it may provide a valid basis for discussion of the future development of criminal law. The relationship between law and society is an organic one and this relationship in Shari'ah is based on revelatory text of precepts, law, and admonitions. Shari'ah is an essential part of faith of every Muslim; a sound knowledge of its principles not only gives him a sense of inner fulfilment but enables him to order his life according to the dictates of his religion. On the other hand, in English law, religious beliefs and private morality might be viewed as not a matter for law. Religion is in that context generally conceived as a spiritual sphere of supra-human connotation distinct from law, which is basically a secular concern. Both the systems of law under consideration are different in their sources and nature. English law, being a positive law, finds its source in legislation and other recognised sources. Shari 'ah is a divine ordinance imposed upon people without having a freedom of choice and it has its roots in its primary sources, the Holy Qur'an, and the Sunnah. However, the revelatory nature of Shari'ah does not render it entirely inflexible and immutable. The finality of authoritative legal texts is confined only to a limited number of injunctions in the primary sources. The secondary sources provide flexibility to meet the changing requirements of society. A legal system should strike a fair balance between flexibility and inflexibility of legal rules. A very flexible system of law may lead to inconsistencies, illogicalities and at the same time may be subject to abuse by judges while a rigid system, which leaves no room for judicial discretion is likely to lead to injustice in certain cases. It is submitted that the very flexible nature of English law has left it full of inconsistencies and illogicalities, despite the appropriate use of judicial discretion. The research offers a general view of modern thinking about the theoretical foundations and methodology of Shari'ah Shari 'ah recognises a variety of sources and methods from which a rule of law might be derived. Part-I of the thesis discusses the evolving principles of Islamic jurisprudence from their rudimentary sources. The specific relationship between socio-religious reality and the production of theoretical legal discourse is illustrated in Part-11 and III while dealing with the problem of intoxication and private defence in society. It suggests that Shari'ah provides a framework in which the complex and sometimes competing needs of an individual and society can be fairly apportioned. The research will demonstrate that there is a well developed system of criminal law in Shari'ah that can be compared with the most developed and civilised criminal law of the contemporary world, for example, English criminal law. In order to compare the compatibility of both the legal systems, the approaches of both towards the problems of intoxication and self-defence have been taken as a parameter. Though Shari 'ah provisions seem to be predominantly prescriptive as compared to English criminal law, the comparison will show that it can provide practical solutions to problems faced by human society of any age. Shari 'ah being a revealed law is proactive in its nature. It takes action to cause changes and not only react to a change when it happens. This particular feature can be felt while dealing with the problem of intoxication. English criminal law, on the other hand, being a positive law bears the characteristics of a reactive law. It reacts to events or changes rather than acting first to cause change or prevent something. Another major difference between the two legal systems might be that English criminal law has passed through many evolutionary phases and reached at the present stage through the efforts of the political power and the state; whereas, Muslim states and governments throughout the centuries neither had a hand in the development of Islamic jurisprudence nor in the training and certification of jurists or jurisconsults whose task it was to formulate the law. History suggests that using the combined forces of religion, morality and law Shari'ah has effectively eradicated social evils and created a peaceful environment for human coexistence, where every one can enjoy his rights without a fear of infringement by the others. In cases of infringement of such rights, the offender shall be liable to severe punishments. The principles of criminal liability are on a par with the corresponding principles of the English criminal law. While protecting the rights of the victim of the crime, Shari'ah does not ignore the rights of the offender for fair trail, impartial justice and liability for punishment proportional to the offence committed by him. At the same time it recognises excuse and justification defences under appropriate circumstances, as it will be evident while comparing the defences of intoxication and self-defence with the same in English criminal law. The study reveals that there are similarities and differences between English law and Shari'ah when considering the issue of crime and criminal liability. However, this may be considered as normal phenomenon of comparing any two different legal systems. The differences can be attributed to their sources, origin, history and nature of the social values to be protected. Similarities can be ascribed to zeal for social justice and stability. The study of differences and similarities will provide an opportunity to illuminate our understanding of law and the process of its development. As both the systems have their own methodology to tackle legal issues, a different approach to the similar problem will provide a fresh insight leading to revitalised solutions. It will also be helpful to understand the methodology and the legal reasoning of both the systems leading towards a better understanding of law in general and at the same time providing efficient means for improvement.

This thesis exammes the interaction of law and medico-psychology in homicide cases, where the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility in particular are raised. If the defendant's mental state is subject to scrutiny through the defences, then expert medico-psychological evidence is required, yet law and medico-psychology have very different understandings on the mind and very different roles with regard to assessing individuals. Expert medico-psychological evidence can be submitted in the consideration of criminal responsibility, when sentencing is concerned with whether prison or hospital is most appropriate, and for release decisions involving judgments about the defendant's potential risk and dangerousness. The examination of the interaction between law and medico-psychology incorporated three dimensions. First, an exposition of the respective theoretical positions of the two disciplines on the mind, detailing the pertinent legislative and common law rules. The second analysed the judicial interpretations of the medico-psychological terms and concepts contained in the substantive law, and in addition, the controls developed through judicial reasoning on the procedural role of the expert and the admission of expert testimony. Finally, the practitioners' perspective is explicated, which was obtained by conducting interviews with lawyers and medico-psychological expert witnesses. There are two facets to the research conclusions, which simplistically stated are: first, in terms of the interaction between law and medico-psychology, the law uses medico-psychological concepts and evidence in a symbolic manner to facilitate legal objectives. Secondly, the examination of the nature of the interaction through the three dimensions exposed the fundamental difference between the theoretical legal debates and the practitioners' perspective. Although the former normally informs legislative and reform discussions, it seems from this research that consideration needs to be given to all the dimensions in future reform debates.

Dans le cadre de cette thèse, nous optons pour une recherche de la responsabilité pénale du dirigeant d’entreprise s'articulant autour des deux plus grandes infractions du droit pénal de l'entreprise : l'abus de biens sociaux et la banqueroute. Au-delà de l'étude de ces deux infractions présentant de nombreux points communs, ces deux incriminations ont donné lieu à une jurisprudence abondante et critiquée, tant leurs éléments manquent encore cruellement de clarté. Nous mettons ainsi l’accent sur le fait que ces incriminations apparaissent d'une certaine complexité liées notamment aux notions d'intérêt social et d'intérêt personnel non définit par le législateur. Cette complexité a dès lors pour conséquence de nuire d'abord à l'information des dirigeants sociaux et ne les incite pas suffisamment à modifier leurs comportements. Elle perturbe ensuite l'office du juge pénal en le menant à une analyse trop extensive. Quant aux sanctions pénales, elles semblent, a priori, insuffisantes ou inadaptées puisque les statistiques judiciaires1 révèlent une augmentation conséquente et constante des condamnations. Les exigences de clarté, de prévisibilité, de dissuasion et de réparation dans leurs textes d’incriminations et la jurisprudence qui en découle sont remises en cause, une réflexion globale s’impose. / The two biggest criminal infragement : misuses of company assets and bankruptcy. Beyond the study of those two infragements having many common threads, those two incriminations resulted to a plentiful and criticized jurisprudence because they still lack of clarity. In that respect we highlight that those infragements appears with a certain complexity related to social interest and personal interest undefined by the legislator. In that respect we highlight that those infragements appears with a certain complexity related to social interest and personal interest undefined by the legislator. This complexity harms the information for company executive and do not motivate them to change their behaviour. It disrupts the penal justice, leading to a too extensive analysis. As for the criminal sanctions, they seem inadequate since judicial statistics shows a consistent and constant increase of criminal sentences. The clarity demand, the predictability, the dissuasion, and reparation in their criminalization texts and the resulting jurisprudence reconsideration are call into questions. A total reflexion appears revelant.