Non-fault Liability Offences: A Comparative Analysis in the Sudanese and Libyan Laws

Abstract

This study examines the concept of non-fault liability offences through a comparative analysis of the Sudanese and Libyan legal systems. Employing a doctrinal qualitative legal research methodology, it relies on primary legal sources – including legislative texts and judicial precedents – as well as secondary sources such as scholarly writings and legal commentaries. The research seeks to interpret and critically assess how non-fault liability is addressed legislatively and jurisprudentially within each jurisdiction. The selection of Sudan and Libya is deliberate, as each represents a distinct legal tradition: the Sudanese law is primarily influenced by the common law system, which emphasizes judicial precedents, while the Libyan law follows the continental (civil law) system, grounded in codified statutes. This comparative framework provides insight into how these divergent legal heritages influence the interpretation and application of non-fault liability offences. Furthermore, the study explores the extent of legislative and jurisprudential acceptance of non-fault liability, as well as the specific areas of application of such offences within both legal systems. The research concludes with recommendations aimed at clarifying legislative definitions, ensuring constitutional consistency, and promoting balanced application of non-fault liability in contemporary criminal law.