unlawful or illegal defintions

[neilloffhagen]

Hi,

 

I've been wondering about some posts I've read that seem to imply there is a difference between what is lawful and what is illegal. Can someone explain what the difference is, or have I just mis-understood things?

 

In a web dictionary unlawful is given as:

Adj. 1. unlawful - not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention; "an unconventional marriage"; "improper banking practices"

improper, unconventional

irregular - contrary to rule or accepted order or general practice; "irregular hiring practices"

unlawful adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents (against the law).

 

Interesting that the above defintion includes "improper banking practices"

 

Whereas illegal is defined as:

illegal 1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal. 2) a person residing in a country of which he/she is not a citizen and who has no official permission to be there. (See: alien, illegal immigrant)

 

I just can't see the difference in relation to bank charges. I take it they are unlawful, but not illegal? Is that right? Can someone give me a way of getting my head round the difference. I just want to be better prepared in case I end up in court. Though still wating for the DPA stuff to arrive.

 

Thanks,

 

Neil

[Bookworm]

Unlawful:

1 : not lawful : not authorized or justified by law

2 : acting contrary to or in defiance of the law

 

Illegal:

Prohibited by law.

 

In real terms, these are pretty much synonyms, but in perception, the difference is an assumed willfulness.

 

It could be argued that the banks allegedly are not aware that they're going against the law by imposing penalty charges (not an acceptable defence in court, by the way!), and that they are therefore guilty of ignorance rather than intent. It doesn't deter from their guilt, it just might make it a bit morally more acceptable to some.

[richardc]

My perception is:

 

Illegal - can be prosectuted in a criminal court

 

Unlawful - you have to seek redress in a civil court

[Spiceskull]

My take is that if I was to charge you £100 for nothing, charging you £100 is not illegal.

 

However, if I tried to TAKE £100 from you (or as banks are doing, actually taking) then whilst the act may or may not be considered lawful at the time, to keep the £100 I would have to prove in court that the act of taking was lawful...and we all know that the banks cannot, and therefore will not, make this defence.

 

The only downside to the banks capitulation is that we will still be in the position whereby the charges have not been proved lawful.

[BankFodder]

It's only a term or art. They are actually synonymous. however, illegal sounds harsher and is more easliy asocuate with criminal wrongdoings. Unlawful is more easliy associated with wrongdoings which are less than criminal. However, it is up to you which you use.

[Robertxc]

I've always defined unlawfull as 'illegitimate', wheras illegal would be defined as 'forbidden'.

 

In other words, you can write up a contract which demands a payment of £50 if someone breaches your contract by bouncing a cheque, but you will not be able to enforce the contract, because it is unlawful. The thing to bear in mind of course, is that drawing up such a contract is not in itself 'illegal', or forbidden, it's just that the law will not support you if you try to enforce it.

 

If on the other hand you got your £50 by walking up the person and robbing them at gunpoint, then that would clearly be illegal, and therefore forbidden.

[Spiceskull]

This is pure semantics, and completely irrlevant. The fact remains that, legal or lawful, the banks cannot, and therefore will not, defend this argument in a court of law.

[John-JCs]

It's only a term or art. They are actually synonymous. however, illegal sounds harsher and is more easliy asocuate with criminal wrongdoings. Unlawful is more easliy associated with wrongdoings which are less than criminal. However, it is up to you which you use.

 

Breaking the law = Unlawful.

Breaking a legislative rule = Illegal.

 

Statutes and parliamentary acts are not laws. Next time you watch a debate in the house of commons, just listen carefully. Language is very important in law.

Although the magistrates (who have no oath, and as a result, no power unless consented to) who have a vested interest, would rather you "didn't bother learning such silly stuff".

 

I had hoped people "moderating" such a site would know the difference.

But, yet again, the autodidacts seem to have more passion for the subject -_-

 

 

Illegal:

Prohibited by law.

 

In real terms, these are pretty much synonyms, but in perception, the difference is an assumed willfulness.

 

It could be argued that the banks allegedly are not aware that they're going against the law by imposing penalty charges (not an acceptable defence in court, by the way!), and that they are therefore guilty of ignorance rather than intent. It doesn't deter from their guilt, it just might make it a bit morally more acceptable to some.

Where did you get that information?

"are pretty much synonyms" doesn't mean they are the same, does it?

Are you aware that the "penalty charges" of which you speak are termed as "notices" and therefore require consent to be acted upon.

 

 

 

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Suis juris.

Edited September 20, 2011 by John-JCs

[neilloffhagen]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group