The Joint Nature of Negligent Crime: Legal Classification and Significance

The paper examines the element of joint commission in offences involving negligent concurrent causation of harm. It considers approaches to defining joint commission, its possible external manifestations depending on the type of negligence involved, and its substantive and procedural significance. Analyzing courts' practice and scholarly positions, the author argues that a mere «coincidence of actions» or a «convergence of causal links» does not constitute genuine joint commission. Its defining element is conscious and volitional interaction between the relevant actors. Particular attention is given to the distinctions between joint commission under intentional and negligent forms of fault, including conscious negligence and criminal recklessness. The author observes that a distinctive feature of the joint nature of a negligent offence is that it manifests itself in fact as a pre-offence stage, which is not of criminal-law relevance if the consequences under criminal law do not occur. The paper also addresses the classification of negligent conduct as a jointly committed offence where concurrent contributors do not recognize a socially dangerous nature of their acts or omissions to act. To conclude, the study explains the significance of the joint nature of a negligent offence and its implications for the individualization of punishment for concurrent contributors, the conduct of uniform criminal proceedings in respect of all culpable persons, and the civil law procedure for compensating harm caused by the offence.

1. Bezborodov DA. Careless multisubject crimes: concept and qualifications. St. Petersburg; 2015. (In Russ.).

2. Dagel PS, Kotov DP. The subjective side of the crime and its establishment. Voronezh: Voronezh University Publ.; 1974. (In Russ.).

3. Esakov GA. Causation in difficult situations: careless crimes. Criminal Law. 2024;4:20-35. (In Russ.).

4. Grishaev PI, Krieger GA. Complicity in criminal law. Moscow; 1959. (In Russ.).

5. Kelina SG, Kudryavtsev VN. Principles of Soviet Criminal Law. Moscow; 1998. (In Russ.).

6. Khotinets VYu. The Man: The Conscious and Unconscious. Vestnik Udmurtskogo Universiteta. 1992;2:9-12. (In Russ.).

7. Kuznetsova NF. A Crime and Criminality. Moscow; 1969. (In Russ.).

8. Nersesyan VA. Responsibility for Careless Crimes. St. Petersburg; 2002. (In Russ.).

9. Nersesyan VA. Responsibility for Careless Criminal Acts in the light of the Scientific and Technological Revolution. Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss. Moscow; 1983. (In Russ.).

10. Rubinstein SL. Existence and Consciousness. Moscow; 1957. (In Russ.).

11. Shchepelkov VF. On the form of fault in a crime provided for in Part 3 of Art. 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Journal of Russian Law. 2017;6:89-97. (In Russ.).

12. Shesler A. The subjective side of a criminal violation of safety rules at explosive facilities. Criminal Law. 2014;3:98-102. (In Russ.).

13. Telnov PF. Responsibility for complicity in a crime. Moscow; 1974. (In Russ.).

14. Tyazhkova IM. Responsibility for careless crimes committed when using sources of increased danger. Dr. Sci. (Law) Diss. Moscow; 2003. (In Russ.).

15. Ugrekhelidze DN. The problem of careless fault in criminal law. Tbilisi; 1976. (In Russ.).

16. Zhiryaev A. On the confluence of several criminals in the same crime. Derpt; 1850. (In Russ.).