Criminal Liability: Omissions Quiz

Criminal Liability: Omissions

• Omissions are instances of failing to act that can result in criminal liability under specific conditions.
• A crucial element is a "legal duty to act."

Types of Omissions Leading to Criminal Liability

• Statutory Duty: Laws (e.g., Children and Young Persons Act 1933) impose duties to act. Failing to uphold these duties can result in criminal liability. (e.g., neglect of children, a driver not providing a specimen of breath)
• Contractual Duty: A breach of a contractual obligation resulting in harm leads to liability. (e.g., R v Pittwood – railway gatekeeper)
• Special Relationship Duty: Certain close relationships (parent/child, spouses) create duties to act. Failing to care can result in criminal responsibility. (e.g., R v Gibbins and Proctor – failure to feed child)
• Voluntarily Taken Duty: Assuming responsibility for someone else's care generates a duty to act. Failure to provide adequate care may result in criminal charges. (e.g., R v Stone and Dobinson – failing to care for a sick relative)
• Duty Arising from a Dangerous Situation Created: If someone creates a hazardous condition, they have a duty to prevent harm. (e.g., R v Miller – accidental fire starter failing to extinguish it)
• Public Office/Position Duty: Official positions mandate a duty to act. (e.g., R v Dytham – police officer failing to intervene in a violent attack)

General Principles for Omissions

• The prosecution needs to prove both a duty to act and a breach of that duty.
• Broadly, omissions are not often liable criminally unless one of the stated exceptions applies.
• Courts are reluctant to impose omissions liability without clear legal/moral obligations.

Strict Liability in Criminal Law

• Strict liability offenses do not require proof of a "mens rea" (guilty mind) for certain elements of the actus reus (guilty act).
• Liability is imposed irrespective of the defendant's intent, knowledge, or recklessness.
• Usually associated with regulatory offenses designed for public welfare (e.g., health/safety, environmental protection, road traffic).
• The idea is that strict compliance is essential to safety versus the potential unfairness of the outcome.
• Examples Include (Food Safety Act 1990, Medicines Act, and related offenses)

Key Features of Strict Liability

• No Proof of Mens Rea Required: Only the actus reus needs proving.
• Often for Regulatory Offenses: Protecting society on public welfare.
• Encourages Caution/Safeguards: Discourages harmful actions.
• Limited Defense Options: Due diligence is not always a defence (unless expressly allowed by statue)

Strict Liability Case Examples

• Pharmaceuticals: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (forged prescription)
• Health and Safety: R v Howells (unregistered firearm)
• Environmental Protection: Alphacell v Woodward (factory pollution)
• Road Traffic: R v Taylor (defective brake light)

Arguments For and Against Strict Liability

• Arguments For: Protecting society from harm, easier enforcement, proactive compliance
• Arguments Against: Potential unjust punishments, moral stigma, unclear interpretation of statutes.

Key Case: Sweet v Parsley (1970)

• Landlord not aware of tenant's illicit drug activity on the property.
• The case highlights the necessity for clear statutory intent for strict liability regarding serious criminal activity (vs. general public welfare).

Section 47: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

• Actus Reus: Assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.
• Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness regarding the assault/battery, not necessarily the extent of harm.
• Case Example: R v Roberts – Defendant's actions causing the victim to jump from a moving car.

Section 20: Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) or Wounding

• Actus Reus: Causing GBH or wounding ( serious harm/wound)
• Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness regarding harm, not necessarily serious harm.
• Case Example: R v Burstow – Harassment causing severe psychological harm.

Section 18: Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent

• Actus Reus: Causing GBH or wounding.
• Mens Rea: Specific intent to cause serious harm.
• Case Example: R v Belfon – intent to cause severe harm.

Key Differences Between Offenses (Sections 47, 20, 18)

• Summarized distinctions based on harm, mens rea, and max penalty.

Transferred Malice

• Intent to harm one person transfers to another accidentally harmed.
• Applies if offenses are of a similar type.

Battery

• Actus Reus: Unlawful application of force, however slight.
• Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness regarding force.

Assault

• Actus Reus: Causing someone to fear immediate unlawful force.
• Mens Rea: Intention/recklessness about creating that apprehension.

Common Assault

• Covers both assault and battery.
• Summary offenses punishable up to a certain level (6 months or fine).

Civil Litigation

Civil Claim Tracks/

• Small Claims Track: Claims up to £10,000 (except for PI) handled informally, quickly, with minimal costs and heard by District Judges. Examples: faulty goods, small landlord and tenant disputes.
• Fast Track: Claims between £10,000 and £25,000, with structured timetable and quicker resolution (a day max). Examples: moderate PI, contract disputes.
• Multi-Track: Claims over £25,000 or complex under £25,000 cases need detailed preparation. Exemplary: medical negligence, big business disputes, cases heard in County or High Court.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• ADR methods (like Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration, Conciliation, ODR) to resolve disputes outside of court.
• Cour encourages use of ADR, and costs may be imposed on parties for refusing without good cause. Includes various methods suited to different types of disputes.