Omissions
For the time being, we have been discussing the fundamental legal principles that are applicable in situations when defendants are found guilty of committing a criminal offence due to the fact that they have committed an act of wrongdoing, such as stealing a car, hitting someone, or setting fire to a structure. A positive act has been carried out by the accused in this instance. In this lecture, we will investigate the situations in which a defendant may be found guilty of the actus reus of an offence and be found guilty of the crime because they have failed to act or omitted to act while they were under a responsible obligation to do so.
In accordance with the statute, omission can be used to conduct an infinite number of offences that carry strict liability. The failure to stop and provide one's name and address to anybody who is properly entitled to demand it following an accident involving a motor vehicle, the failure to purchase a television licence, and the failure to file one's tax return are all examples of statutory offences.
This lecture, however, focusses on the situations where an accused person may be held accountable for a crime requiring mens rea only by virtue of their omission. Can someone be found guilty of homicide, for instance, if they witness a youngster drown in a public swimming pool or neglect to tend to an unwell relative? Or can someone be found guilty of arson even though they saw a tiny fire—which they could easily put out—grow to the point where the entire structure was affected?
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
. recognise that a failure to act will not normally constitute a criminal offence;
understand the conditions to be fulfilled in order to secure a conviction when an accused fails to act; and
appreciate the scope for reform and development in this area of law.
Key Cases
A legal duty to act
R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
Re A (Children) [2000] 4 All ER 961
Voluntary assumption of duty of care
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
Contractual Duties
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
When the accused causes dangerous situations
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978
Withholding life saving treatment
R v Arthur[1985] Crim LR 705
Airedale Health Authority v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
For the time being, we have been discussing the fundamental legal principles that are applicable in situations when defendants are found guilty of committing a criminal offence due to the fact that they have committed an act of wrongdoing, such as stealing a car, hitting someone, or setting fire to a structure. A positive act has been carried out by the accused in this instance. In this lecture, we will investigate the situations in which a defendant may be found guilty of the actus reus of an offence and be found guilty of the crime because they have failed to act or omitted to act while they were under a responsible obligation to do so.
In accordance with the statute, omission can be used to conduct an infinite number of offences that carry strict liability. The failure to stop and provide one's name and address to anybody who is properly entitled to demand it following an accident involving a motor vehicle, the failure to purchase a television licence, and the failure to file one's tax return are all examples of statutory offences.
This lecture, however, focusses on the situations where an accused person may be held accountable for a crime requiring mens rea only by virtue of their omission. Can someone be found guilty of homicide, for instance, if they witness a youngster drown in a public swimming pool or neglect to tend to an unwell relative? Or can someone be found guilty of arson even though they saw a tiny fire—which they could easily put out—grow to the point where the entire structure was affected?
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
. recognise that a failure to act will not normally constitute a criminal offence;
understand the conditions to be fulfilled in order to secure a conviction when an accused fails to act; and
appreciate the scope for reform and development in this area of law.
Key Cases
A legal duty to act
R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
Re A (Children) [2000] 4 All ER 961
Voluntary assumption of duty of care
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
Contractual Duties
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
When the accused causes dangerous situations
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978
Withholding life saving treatment
R v Arthur[1985] Crim LR 705
Airedale Health Authority v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821
For the time being, we have been discussing the fundamental legal principles that are applicable in situations when defendants are found guilty of committing a criminal offence due to the fact that they have committed an act of wrongdoing, such as stealing a car, hitting someone, or setting fire to a structure. A positive act has been carried out by the accused in this instance. In this lecture, we will investigate the situations in which a defendant may be found guilty of the actus reus of an offence and be found guilty of the crime because they have failed to act or omitted to act while they were under a responsible obligation to do so.
In accordance with the statute, omission can be used to conduct an infinite number of offences that carry strict liability. The failure to stop and provide one's name and address to anybody who is properly entitled to demand it following an accident involving a motor vehicle, the failure to purchase a television licence, and the failure to file one's tax return are all examples of statutory offences.
This lecture, however, focusses on the situations where an accused person may be held accountable for a crime requiring mens rea only by virtue of their omission. Can someone be found guilty of homicide, for instance, if they witness a youngster drown in a public swimming pool or neglect to tend to an unwell relative? Or can someone be found guilty of arson even though they saw a tiny fire—which they could easily put out—grow to the point where the entire structure was affected?
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture you should be able to:
. recognise that a failure to act will not normally constitute a criminal offence;
understand the conditions to be fulfilled in order to secure a conviction when an accused fails to act; and
appreciate the scope for reform and development in this area of law.
Key Cases
A legal duty to act
R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
Re A (Children) [2000] 4 All ER 961
Voluntary assumption of duty of care
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
Contractual Duties
R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
When the accused causes dangerous situations
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978
Withholding life saving treatment
R v Arthur[1985] Crim LR 705
Airedale Health Authority v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821