Statutes of Limitation

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.005

5 - Statutes of Limitation

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Carla Sepu´lveda Penna and

Samuel Beswick

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter explores legislative time limits on the prosecution of crime in civil and common law jurisdictions. It addresses the rationales for barring the prosecution of old crimes and undertakes a comparative analysis of three jurisdictional groupings: Continental Europe (with a focus on Germany and France), the Commonwealth (with a focus on England and Wales), and the United States (with a focus on federal law). The analysis identifies comparable features in limitation doctrine across jurisdictions while revealing how the theory and practice of statutes of limitation differs markedly in different legal systems. In broad terms, Continental systems codify general and categorical time limits on the prosecution of offences; Commonwealth systems tend not to have any statutory time bars on the prosecution of offences other than minor offences; and in the United States, most offences, other than the most serious, are subject to statutory limitation periods. The chapter concludes by drawing together the points of comparison between the three jurisdictional groupings, commenting on their distinctions and similarities.

Keywords

historic offences late prosecutions time limits time-bars limitation period civil limitation postponement (of limitation)waiving limitation imprescriptibility interruption (of limitation)

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 138 - 178

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abegg, J. F. H., Verjährung rechtskräftig erkannter Strafen, Maruschke & Berendt (1862).Google Scholar

Andrews, N. H., ‘Reform of Limitation of Actions: The Quest for Sound Policy’, Cambridge Law Journal, 57 (1998), 589–610.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anwart, H., ‘Strafprozess im stahlharten Gehäuse der Vergangenheit’, JuristenZeitung, 77 (2022), 715–22.Google Scholar

Asholt, M., Verjährung im Strafrecht, Mohr Siebeck (2016).CrossRef Google Scholar

Atkinson, T. E., ‘Some Procedural Aspects of the Statute of Limitations’, Columbia Law Review, 27 (1927), 157–76.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beccaria, C., ‘Crimes and Punishments’, in Farrer, J. A. (tr.), Crimes and Punishments: Including a New Translation of Beccaria’s ‘Dei delitti e delle pene’, Chatto & Windus (1880).Google Scholar

Beck, S., ‘Does Age Prevent Punishment? The Struggles of the German Juridical System with Alleged Nazi Criminals: Commentary on the Criminal Proceedings against John Demjanjuk and Heinrich Boere’, German Law Journal, 11 (2010), 347–65.10.1017/S2071832200018563CrossRef Google Scholar

Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, T. Payne & Son (1789).10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240CrossRef Google Scholar

Beswick, S. ‘Marching against Dicey’s Rule of Law’, UK Constitutional Law Blog, 19 October 2020, available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/10/19/samuel-beswick-marching-against-diceys-rule-of-law/.Google Scholar

Beswick, S., ‘Error of Law: An Exception to the Discoverability Principle?’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 57 (2021), 295–341.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bieber, M., ‘Meeting the Statute or Beating It: Using John Doe Indictments Based on DNA to Meet the Statute of Limitations’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150 (2002), 1079–98.10.2307/3312927CrossRef Google Scholar

Binding, K., Handbuch des Strafrechts, Duncker & Humblot (1885), Vol. 1.10.3790/978-3-428-56147-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Bloy, R., Die dogmatische Bedeutung der Strafausschließungs- und Strafaufhebungsgründe, Duncker & Humblot (1976).10.3790/978-3-428-43707-8CrossRef Google Scholar

Bock, D., ‘Die Strafrechtliche Verfolgungsverjährung’, Juristische Schulung (2006).Google Scholar

Boizard, M., Choquet, J. P. and Gautron, V., La crise des institutions de l’oubli, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar

Cabezas, C., Prescrizione del reato: tra antica eredità e moderne sfide politico-criminali, PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trento (2014).Google Scholar

Campagna, N., Strafrecht und unbestrafte Straftaten: philosophische Überlegungen zur strafenden Gerechtigkeit und ihren Grenzen, Steiner (2007).Google Scholar

Cerrada Moreno, M., Prescripción e imprescriptibilidad de los delitos: orígenes, fundamentos, naturaleza jurídica, J. M. Bosch (2018).CrossRef Google Scholar

Corman, C. W., Limitation of Actions, Little, Brown (1991), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Danet, J., ‘La préscription de l’action publique, un enjeu de politique criminelle’, Archives de politique criminelle, 28 (2006), 73–93.10.3917/apc.028.0073CrossRef Google Scholar

Danet, J., Grunvald, S., Herzog-Evans, M. et al., Prescription, amnistie et grâce en France, Université de Nantes (2006).Google Scholar

Difonzo, J. H., ‘In Praise of Statutes of Limitations in Sex Offense Cases’, Houston Law Review, 41 (2004), 1205–80.Google Scholar

Doyle, D., ‘Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview’, Congressional Research Service, RL31253 (2017).Google Scholar

du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Penal Desert and the Passage of Time’, in du Bois-Pedain, A. and Bottoms, A. (eds.), Penal Censure: Engagements within and beyond Desert Theory, Hart (2019).CrossRef Google Scholar

Eckhardt, S. I., Überlange Verfahrensdauer und Verhältnismäßigkeit, Nomos (2020).CrossRef Google Scholar

Eichmüller, A., ‘Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Bilanz und Weichenstellungen’, in Bainczyk, M. and Kubiak-Cyrul, A. (eds.), State’s Responsibility for International Crimes, Franz Steiner Verlag (2021).Google Scholar

Ernsdorff, G. M. and Loftus, E. F., ‘Let Sleeping Memories Lie? Words of Caution about Tolling the Statute of Limitations in Cases of Memory Repression’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84 (1993), 129–74.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fyfe, S. and Heinze, A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Gledhill, K., ‘Custody Time Limit Cases: Practical Problems and Unresolved Issues’, Judicial Review, 3 (1998), 171–3.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goldstein, S., ‘Criminal Statutes of Limitations: Time Limits for State Criminal Charges’, LawInfo, 2 June 2022, available at www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-statute-limitations-time-limits.html.Google Scholar

Gropp, W. and Sinn, A., ‘Landesbericht Deutschland’, in Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W. (eds.), Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).Google Scholar

Guzmán Dalbora, J., ‘Crímenes internacionales y prescripción’, in Ambos, K., Malarino, E. and Woischnik, J. (eds.), Temas actuales del derecho penal internacional, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2005).Google Scholar

Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Hendricks, A., ‘Tolling Justice’, Ohio State Law Journal, 85 (2024), 471–527.Google Scholar

Hochmayr, G., ‘A Comparative Analysis of Statutes of Limitation’, in Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W. (eds.), Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).10.5771/9783748926535CrossRef Google Scholar

Hochmayr, G. and Gropp, W., Die Verjährung als Herausforderung für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen: Entwicklung eines Harmonisierungsvorschlags, Nomos (2021).10.5771/9783748926535CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, T. ‘Sollen Verjährungsfristen für den sexuellen Missbrauch von Minderjährigen verlängert werden?’, Goltdammer’s Archiv, 157 (2010), 388–98.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Verfolgungsverjährung: Keine Selbstverständlichkeit’, in Festschrift für Werner Beulke zum 70. Geburtstag, C. F. Müller (2015).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., Klingbeil, S. and Rothbart, K., ‘Sexueller Missbrauch von Minderjährigen: Notwendige Reformen im Strafgesetzbuch’, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (2014), available at https://hoernle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Gutachten_Strafrecht-2.pdf.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. and Johnstone, J., ‘Statutes of Limitation in the United Kingdom’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3887–906.Google Scholar

Kok, R., Statutory Limitations in International Criminal Law, TMC Asser Press (2007).10.1007/978-90-6704-513-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Codification of the Criminal Law: Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (1977).Google Scholar

Law Commission of India, ‘Indian Penal Code’, Report No. 42 (1971).Google Scholar

Law Reform Commission of Canada, ‘Crimes against the State’, Working Paper 49 (1986).Google Scholar

Loening, R., ‘Die Verjährung’, in Birkmeyer, K., van Calker, F. and Frank, R. (eds.), Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts, Verlag von Otto Liebmann (1908).Google Scholar

Lonati, S., ‘A Comparative Study of the Relationship between Time and Criminal Justice: The New Face of Criminal Statutes of Limitations in Italy’, European Criminal Law Review, 9 (2019), 253–87.10.5771/2193-5505-2019-3-300CrossRef Google Scholar

Lonati, S., ‘To Know through Diversity: Statutes of Limitations in the Main Contemporary Legal Systems: An Introduction’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3659–68.Google Scholar

Loughlin, M., ‘Rechtsstaat, Rule of Law, l’Etat de Droit’, in Foundations of Public Law, Oxford University Press (2010).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256853.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Lourié, S., Die Kriminalverjährung, Schlettersche Buchhandlung (1914).Google Scholar

McCall Smith, A., ‘Time, Guilt and Forgiveness’, in Christodoulidis, E. and Veitch, S. (eds.), Lethe’s Law Justice Law and Ethics in Reconciliation, Hart (2001).Google Scholar

McGee, A., Limitation Periods, 8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell (2018).Google Scholar

McGee, A. and Scanlan, G., ‘Constructive Knowledge within the Limitation Act’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 22 (2003), 248–64.Google Scholar

Mew, G., The Law of Limitations, 3rd edn, LexisNexis (2016).Google Scholar

Michel, J., ‘La réforme de la prescription pénale: le débat parlementaire’, Les Cahiers de la Justice, 4 (2016), 629–38.Google Scholar

Mitsch, W., ‘§ 78’, in Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Monson, A., ‘The West German Statute of Limitations on Murder: A Political, Legal, and Historical Exposition’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 30 (1982), 605–25.10.2307/840011CrossRef Google Scholar

Note, ‘The Statute of Limitations in Criminal Law: A Penetrable Barrier to Prosecution’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 102 (1954), 630–53.Google Scholar

Note, ‘The Statute of Limitations in a Criminal Case: Can It Be Waived?’, William & Mary Law Review, 18 (1977), 823–40.Google Scholar

Note, ‘Waiver of the Statute of Limitations in Criminal Prosecutions: United States v. Wild’, Harvard Law Review, 90 (1977), 1550–7.Google Scholar

Note, ‘Time Limits for Charges: State Criminal Statutes of Limitations’, FindLaw (2020), available at www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html.Google Scholar

Pedreira, F. M., ‘Breve referencia a la historia de la prescripción de las infracciones penales: especial consideración de la problemática surgida en el Derecho Romano a través de dos aportaciones fundamentales’, Revista de Derecho de la UNED (2007), 435–44.10.5944/rduned.2.2007.10937CrossRef Google Scholar

Penney, S., Rondinelli, V. and Stribopoulos, J., Criminal Procedure in Canada, 2nd edn, LexisNexis (2018).Google Scholar

Powell, L., ‘Unraveling Criminal Statutes of Limitations’, American Criminal Law Review, 45 (2008), 115–55.Google Scholar

Ragués i Vallès, R., Prescripción Penal, Atelier (2004).Google Scholar

Ripstein, A., ‘The Rule of Law and Time’s Arrow’, in Austin, L. M. and Klimchuk, D. (eds.), Private Law and the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Dagan, N., ‘The Evolution of Retributive Punishment: From Static Desert to Responsive Penal Censure’, in du Bois-Pedain, A. and Bottoms, A. (eds.), Penal Censure: Engagements within and beyond Desert Theory, Hart (2019).Google Scholar

Saliger, S., ‘§ 78’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H. U. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar

Sambale, A., Die Verjährungsdiskussion im Deutschen Bundestag, Dr Kovac (2002).Google Scholar

Santhanam, L., ‘Why Do State Laws Put an Expiration Date on Sex Crimes?’, PBS NewsHour, 28 November 2017.Google Scholar

Satzger, H., ‘Die Verjährung im Strafrecht’, Juristische Ausbildung, 43 (2012), 433–43.Google Scholar

Savvidis, C., Court Delay and Human Rights Remedies: Enforcing the Right to a Fair Hearing ‘Within a Reasonable Time’, Routledge (2016).10.4324/9781315574493CrossRef Google Scholar

Shaw, J. and Porter, S., ‘Constructing Rich False Memories of Committing Crime’, Psychological Science, 1 (2015), 291–301.10.1177/0956797614562862CrossRef Google Scholar

Shuman, D. W. and McCall Smith, A., Justice and the Prosecution of Old Crimes, American Psychological Association (2000).Google Scholar

Sieber, U., Javers, K. and Silverman, E. (eds.), National Criminal Law in a Comparative Legal Context, Vols. 5.1 and 5.2: Grounds for Rejecting Criminal Liability, Duncker & Humblot (2016).Google Scholar

Sprack, J. and Engelhardt-Sprack, M. (eds.), A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure, 16th edn, Oxford University Press (2019).10.1093/oso/9780198843566.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Titus, D., Mittal, R., Manchanda, A. and Mulazzi, L., ‘Statute of Limitation for Criminal Prosecution in India’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 4129–49.Google Scholar

Tourret, A., ‘N° 3540 – Rapport sur la proposition de loi de MM. Alain Tourret et Georges Fenech portant réforme de la prescription en matière pénale (2931)’ (2016).Google Scholar

Turner, J. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vitiello, M., ‘Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes: Bad Public Policy’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2022), 4093–127.Google Scholar

Vogler, R., ‘Why Is There No Statute of Limitations for Criminal Cases in England and Wales?’, Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, 49 (2021), 3907–22.Google Scholar

von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, R. V., Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy, Hart (2009).Google Scholar

von Liszt, F., Lehrbuch des Deutschen Strafrechts, Guttentag Verlagsbuchhandlung (1900).CrossRef Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’, Ethics, 103 (1992), 4–28.10.1086/293468CrossRef Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Redressing Historic Injustice’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 52 (2002), 135–60.10.2307/825930CrossRef Google Scholar

Yue, X., The Role of the Statute of Limitations in the Harvey Weinstein Saga, JETLaw (2018).Google Scholar

Zedner, L. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Due Process’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Zimmermann, S., Strafrechtliche Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung und Verjährung, Iuscrim (1997).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.