Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This question requires to break down and scrutinize where a person can be
found guilty of a crime in relation to the failure to act and to state ones opinion
address this issue one will firstly need to define what amounts to a crime and
A crime is a wrong against the state, which attracts the imposition of a state
penalty. In order to obtain a conviction the prosecution will have to prove the
existence and coincidence of the Actus Reus, which is the guilty Act, and the
Mens Rea, which is the guilty mind. The Actus Reus is generally proven by
way of a positive Act which is done voluntarily and which in the case of a
result crime caused that result. The need to prove the existence of a positive
act is based in the fact that a person should only be convicted in respect to
what they have actually done. There are exceptions to this in state of affairs
crime; being found responsible for the action of others and the omission
liability.
An omission is a failure to act and the general rule is that criminal liability
should only be imposed where there is a duty to act. This duty to act can arise
in several situations and the focus of the answer is on the fairness of these
situations.
The first instance of such a duty arises under a statute. A statute is an act,
respect to this failure. An example of this was in R-v-Firth, the defendant was
a doctor who failed to inform an NHS hospital that he was transferring a non-
NHS patient to it as required by law. As such his failure let to him being found
guilty in one of the old deception offences under Section 2 Theft Act 1978
(TA1978).
On the face of it, the imposition of such liability is fair because statutes
such liability becomes unfair. The issue would therefore arise as to whether
there exist any safeguards in relation to the enactment of criminal law, here
one can argue that criminal law were to be enacted in accordance with the
imposition must be fair, as only the action or omission with the most severe
represent the minimum standard required to protect the public and preserve
the peace.
Duty of law enforcement, under common law, is the next situation where one
can be criminally liable when law enforcement authority does not act. The
case of R-v-Dytham can be taken as an example. In this case the defendant
was a police officer who was almost at the end of his shift, saw a fight and did
not intervene to stop the fight even though it sounded violent. This resulted in
the death of the victim. The reason he gave for not intervening was that he
was nearly at the end of his duty and he didnt want to work past his shift. The
pervious case was about a police officer and the following involves a civilian
(R-v-Brown). In this case a Riot was about to start and the police asked the
defendant to help in stopping the riot. The defendant refused and he was
In the case of Dytham it is fair for him to be criminally liable for not acting.
Being a policeman he represents the law and when he heard and saw that
could have called for help and back up. His not acting resulted in the death of
a civilian. The reason he gave that him being nearly to the end of his shift and
didnt want to work overtime doesnt reflect a good image on the police force.
People will not feel safe if the entire police force behaved in the way that
Dytham did. The case of Brown is a completely different one where the police
asked a civilian for help. Though the civilian had the duty to help in with the
request of the police, Mr Brown was not a law enforcement officer and he
could have jeopardized his life if he intervened in this situation and therefore it
is not fair for him to have been charged under omission liability.
signs a contract must abide to the terms of the contract and any breach of the
contract would involve civil liability. In the case of R-v-Pittwood, the
gates. One day he went off for lunch and left the gate open, two people with a
hay cart crossed the railway and were hit by the train; this caused death of
one of them and the other one to be seriously injured. The defendant was
The railways employed Pittwood and the latter signed a contract to close the
gates when a train was passing and open them after the train had passed for
the road to be used again by the general public, PIttwood was in breach of his
contract and his omission to fulfil the terms of his contract found him being
liable. Question is whether the law is fair or not? For this category of omission
liability (contractual duty) the law was fair, as he owed his employers a duty
A person can also be held liable in the case where he had voluntarily
assumed the responsibility for another persons welfare and he has failed to
which there are 3 sub categories. The first one would be a parents duty to his
parent can be held criminally liable for any omission that causes harm to the
child. In the case of Gibbons and Proctor, the man gave the woman money
to buy grocery for the household but the woman being the second wife of the
man didnt like the mans youngest child from his previous marriage and
therefore she didnt feed him. The man knew about the situation and did
nothing to prevent the child from starving to death. Both of them were charged
and convicted of murder for their omission to act, the man since being the
father knew about the situation his child was in and did nothing and the
woman who took the money from the father of the child let her starve to death.
Though she wasnt the mother she filled in the mothers position and was
bound to feed the child. The second sub category would be labelled as any
other relationship under which the husband and wife (long term partner)
defendants were cohabitees who were below average intelligence who lived
on welfare. Mr Stones sister Fanny, the victim, was welcomed to stay under
their care. The victim suffered from anorexia and bulimia, they took care of
her but at some point they stopped because it was too much for them, even
with the neighbours request for taking the victim to the doctor, they didnt do
anything and the victim was found dead in her room in appalling conditions
(starved to death with her excrement around her). The couple was charged
with murder for their omission to act, but this was decreased to manslaughter
after their condition has been taken into account. The Evans (Gemma) case,
the older sister brought home some heroin and the younger sister overdosed
on it and when she was in a critical condition neither the mother nor the older
sister called for help. The mother was found to be guilty of murder for her
omission to act. The last sub category under assumed duties is when party
are jointly engaged in dangerous or hazardous activities. If parties participate
in dangerous activities together they owe each other a duty. In the case of
Lewin-v-CPS, a friend left his other drunken friend in the car during a hot day
and the combination of the heat and alcohol caused the other friend to die.
The defendant in this particular case was not found guilty, as this was not
agreement whether the law is fair or not. In Gibbons and proctor I would say
that the law is fair as it was the parents duty to care for the need of the child,
even though being a step child, the woman had no right id depriving him from
one of his basic needs, in this case food and the childs father should have
taken some actions when he learned that his wife was not feeding the young
child. Then comes the case of Stone and Dobinson where I would say that the
law is unfair, the reason why is that the two people was not themselves
properly equipped to welcome the Fanny and yet they did that, living on
welfare and being intellectually weak they could definitely not have taken the
best decision for the victim. They have tried to do what they could but then to
some extent it became a burden to them, but in this situation Fanny was not a
child, she was a fully grown adult and she still refused to take care of herself,
his host could not do much about it if she refused to eat her food or handle
her personal hygiene. Though the neighbours have informed the defendants
that they should do something about the condition of the sister they were
below average intelligence as mentioned earlier this didnt help them in taking
the best decision. For the case of Evans(Gemma) I find that yes in this
situation it is fair for the mother to be criminally charged under omission
liability for having not called for help when her younger daughter needed it.
Her being the mother put her in a position to assist her minor daughter when
her life was threatened but she failed to do so and this ended up with her
younger daughter dying. The elder sister on the other hand didnt get charged
for not helping as she didnt owe her younger sister a duty to call for help, this
is not fair as though under law she didnt owe her a duty to act, she was
should have called for help her failure to do so should have resulted in
morality and law. Even though morally she can be held liable, under law she
bears no such liability. The last case we looked at under this category was
Lewins and here we can see that he should have been liable under omission
liability though the act was not a dangerous activity. He locked his friend in his
car, in a state of intoxication, on a hot day without any window down. This was
not the most sensible thing to do, even though he meant no harm, he should
have been guilty for acting in a way that an ordinary man wouldnt.
held criminally liable under omission liability for not acting. An owner of a
property has the duty to either stop or ensure that a crime is not being
committed on his property, failure to do so can lead to the owner being found
liable for aiding and abetting. In the case of Tuck-v-Robson, a publican was
found liable under the licensing act for failing to prevent his customers from
drinking on his premises after hours. Under the same act he was found to
breach of the law while it is clearly stated in the licensing act that no persons
alcohol even though he was not the one serving them. In other words his
omission to ask them to leave his premises put him in a state of illegality. As
he completely went what was stated in statute it is but fair for him to be guilty.
accidentally places another person in harms way and fails to prevent/stop the
victim was a policeman who was guiding the defendant to park his car. The
victim and the defendant had a disagreement and the defendant ended up
parking his car on the victims foot. The defendant didnt realize what he had
done but when he came to the knowledge of this action and he was told to
remove his car so that the victim could free his foot he refused.
In Fagans case we can see that his omission to take the victim out of harms
way made him criminally liable. For this situation the law is fair as one cannot
cause harm, even if one didnt intend to do so, and then refuse to help the one
who is suffering from his action. The next situation we will look at is in the
same line as what we just discussed with the exception that this one starts out
creates a dangerous situation for another and fails to remove the latter from
that danger. Creation of danger is different from continuing act or the last sub-
good example as in this case, the defendant, was intoxicated and fell asleep
with a lit cigarette in his hand on a mattress. This caused a fire to start and
when the defendant saw the fire he simply woke up and changed room to
The reason that Miller was criminally liable was that upon seeing the fire he
did nothing to put it out and when the fire spread he did not call the fire
brigade. In his case and this category of omission liability it is fair for him to be
convicted. He became aware of the fire and yet he didnt take any necessary
step to prevent it from causing more harm that it did. This situation could have
got worse if there were other people in the house and this could even have
caused death.
The last situation where a person can be criminally liable under omission
liability is under novel situations. Novel situations are as such where the court
creates new circumstances under which there is a duty to act. Here it all
into accounts the landmark cases in each situations one can clearly see that
for omission liability there are cases where the law is not that clear as to how
person should act and when a person should not act. A person who goes
directly against what has been written in statute is in breach. The categories
of omission liability are so wide that one cannot say that it is entirely fair or
not. Some categories are fair others are not. In statutory duty we saw that it
was fair due to the position of the defendant as him being a policeman is
suppose to be the example for the people. In contractual duty we have seen
that when someone is in breach of contract it is also fair for that person to be
liable, as a contract has all the terms the person should has agreed to if he
goes against that its normal that he is in breach. Assumed duties has been
considering that that a parent should care and protect his/her child whether
the child is ones own (Evans) or a step-child (Gibbons and Proctor), in any
other relationship we saw that a sibling has no duty towards another sibling in
case of Evans the elder sister was not under duty to help the younger sister
and in the case of Stone and Dobinson, even though siblings do not owe each
other a duty they agreed to take the sister in and were responsible for her in
this case one can see that it was not fair as the sister was an adult woman
who could have fended for herself which she decided not to do. Parties who
negligence as his actions led to his friend dying. In Ownership and control of
property one can see that there has been breach in the law and it is fair for
the publican to have been found guilty for not acting. In continuing act the law
refused to amend it. Creation of danger a fair side of omission liability as this
has been acknowledged. Then the final situation is Novel situation, the only
fact that this category exists id proof that the law is not clear and that each
whether imposition of such liability is fair would most certainly leave one on
the fence.