Criminal Law: Omissions and Causation

Criminal Law: Omissions

• An omission is a failure to act.

• General rule: a defendant is generally not guilty of a crime for failing to act.

  • Reasons:

    • Problems requiring people to risk their own lives.

    • Practical difficulties in determining who should act and to what extent.

• Six exceptions to the general rule where a person is under a duty to act:

  • Contractual duty: Failure to fulfill a contract endangers lives.

    • R v Pittwood: Defendant guilty of manslaughter for failing to fulfill his employment contract at a railway crossing where a man was killed.

    • Justification: Defendant was paid to perform a duty.

    • Counterpoint: Unfair to expect action if it involves personal risk (e.g., teacher during a school fire).

  • Special relationship: Duty to act arises through a special relationship.

    • R v Gibbins and Proctor: Parents owe a duty to their children; defendants were guilty of murder for failing to feed their daughter.

    • Importance: Enforces behavior standards.

  • Voluntary assumption of care: Duty arises through voluntarily assuming care for another.

    • R v Stone and Dobinson: Defendants volunteered to look after their sick aunt but failed to feed her or seek help; she died.

    • Reinforces behavior standards; fair to impose liability on those who promised to act.

  • Official position: Duty arises when the defendant holds an official position.

    • R v Dytham: Police officer liable for misconduct for failing to act during a violent attack.

    • Justification: Defendant in a position of public trust and has received special training.

    • Counterpoint: Some argue it's unfair to expect more from those in public office.

  • Creating a dangerous situation: Duty arises when the defendant creates a dangerous situation.

    • R v Miller: Defendant failed to act when his mattress was on fire, allowing the fire to spread.

    • Fair for the law to expect people to minimize harm from situations they created.

  • Duty imposed by an Act of Parliament:

    • Example: Road Traffic Act 1988 requires people to report accidents and provide a breath specimen.

    • Parliament requiring positive action to protect society.

• Balancing legal principle and public policy in creating duty situations leads to problems.

  • Inconsistency: Unfair that someone of low intelligence might be liable for failing to act under their voluntary assumption of care, but a person who watches a child drown would not be.

  • Problems in deciding liability for manslaughter for failure to summon medical help (e.g., R v Khan and Khan, R v Evans).

  • Unclear how many people would have to act in a large-scale situation.

  • Rescue can put the rescuer at great risk; safety should be ensured first.

• Problems determining when a duty ends.

  • Airedale Trust v Bland: Doctor's duty to feed Tony Bland ended when treatment was no longer in his 'best interests'.

  • Defining 'best interests' is not always clear.

  • NHS Trust v Evans (2017): Father disagreed with withdrawing treatment, viewing it as murder.

• Moral difference between positive act and omission is debated.

  • Removing feeding from Tony Bland seen as failure to act.

  • Assisting Diane Pretty to end her life in Pretty v UK would be murder.

  • William Wilson: Sometimes worse to fail to act and watch suffering than with one simple positive act.

• Omissions are treated differently in other legal systems.

  • France has a Good Samaritan law, making it an offense not to act in some situations.

  • Justification: Reflects morals and encourages care for each other.

  • Counterpoint: May impose too high a duty on people with no training/experience; they might worsen situations.

  • 'Compensation culture' discourages helping for fear of being sued, leading to minimal action.

  • Lord Young's report, Common Sense, Common Safety, suggested Good Samaritan legislation to protect well-intentioned voluntary acts.

• Conclusion: Problems with the law on omissions.

  • Developed on a case-by-case basis without order or plan.

  • Some exceptions justifiable (e.g., parent to child).

  • Need to review systematically based on legal grounds, not solely moral ones.

  • Parliament, not judges, should shape moral boundaries.

• The Law Commission suggests limiting liability for omissions to serious offenses and clear laws explaining the duty to act.

Causation

• Proving the defendant caused the consequence is essential to establish actus reus in result crimes.

• Simplest terms: remoteness of the act from the crime.