The Importance Of Omission

Improved Essays
A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal thoughts. All crimes require actus reus and the mens rea which is the Latin term for the “guilty act” and “guilty mind”. But to prove whether a crime has been committed, it is usually necessary to show both the actus reus and the mens rea. However, some crimes do not require proof of mens rea; these are known as strict liability crimes. Within the actus reus, there must be both a voluntary act and a consequent result. There are, however, some exceptions to the voluntary act requirement known as omissions. A criminal act or an unlawful omission of an act must have occurred. The omission of an act can also constitute the basis for criminal liability. Omission is defined as failure to perform …show more content…
This duty of care means that if you create a dangerous situation, you are liable for any harm caused if you have not taken reasonable steps to prevent the harm occurring. The act may be done innocently, but there is still a duty to prevent harm. The case of R v Miller illustrates this. Miller was charged with arson, contrary to ss. 1 (1) and (3) Criminal Damage Act 1971. The trial judge ruled that, even though he started the fire unintentionally, Miller became under a duty to take some action to put it out once he became under a duty to act could be implied. The duty arises out of the creation (albeit unintentional) of a dangerous situation: that is, a situation likely to cause damage. Lord Diplock stated that the actus reus of criminal damage might legitimately include ‘conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created’. Another example of this principle is in DPP v Santana-Bermudez . The Divisional Court upheld the defendant’s conviction of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though he had done no act that directly caused an injury because he had exposed the police officer to a risk and failed to warn her of …show more content…
Applying the ‘but for’ test seems to imply that omissions cannot in law cause a result. ‘But for’ an omission it is by definition true that the result would still have happened in exactly the same way. One response is to redefine the question and suggest that ‘but for’ the failure of the defendant to act, the harm would not have occurred.
The second disadvantage relates to the burden of proof. This has been given topicality by the proposal in the Draft Code to replace the rule in Morby by a rule requiring it merely to prove that the omission “might” prevent the occurrence of the harm. This would be a change in the substantive law, which the commission normally eschews, and a retrogressive change at that. It is extraordinary to propose that the criminal liability of omissions should be made more stringent than the criminal liability of

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The perception of criminal intent in Criminal Liability is known as ‘mens rea’, which means to be wrongful or illegitimate desire. If a human being without having harmful intention causes harm, then that person lacks mens rea and, by this logic, should not be criminally sued. Despite the fact that the approach of mens rea is mostly accepted, complication takes place in implementing it to appropriate cases. Several crimes need a very huge degree for intention, while others need considerably less. Criminal law has tried to clear the intention necessity by making the perception of "specific intent" and "general intent."…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    • Why do you think a society would address liability for civil wrongs separately from criminal wrongs? First, it is very necessary to understand what “civil wrong and criminal wrong” is, so we can have a better climate to discuss what is at stake. Civil wrong is “An action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract”. (The law dictionary). On the other hand, a criminal wrong is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction.…

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Importance Of Mens Rea

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages

    not of sound mind. The actions of a person, who is not in control of his mind, are not guided by the rational thinking of his brain. He lacks the basic essence of rationality in human beings, such that fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea meaning an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention, comes to his help. Mens Rea is an essential element in every crime. There may be no crime of any nature without an evil mind.…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Offences of strict liability is an act of crime which does not require intention, recklessness or even negligence to one or more elements in the actus reus. In Malaysia, strict liability can be defined as a legal responsibility for damages or injury even if the person is found strictly liable without his fault or negligence. Under Common Law, there are an aversion to impose strict liability most likely because of the absence of mens rea in these offences. A person is not considered guilty of a crime if the act of crime is done without guilty mind. It is called strict liability because the defendant will be convicted even they are completely have no any knowledge of elements of the criminal offence they committed.…

    • 1367 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Strict Liability Offenses

    • 1271 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Criminal liability is based upon the coincidence of the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). To be liable, the defendant must have the guilty state of mind at the time he commits the guilty act. Some offenses, however, don’t require mens rea with regard to at least one element of the actus reus. These offenses are called strict liability offenses. When both the actus reus and the mens rea are established and coincide, or when the offense committed is one of strict liability, an absence of valid defence leads to criminal liability.…

    • 1271 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    General Rule Of Omissions

    • 1187 Words
    • 5 Pages

    An act is not enough to be liable for a crime; a voluntary act is also required. Lord Denning explained: ‘the requirement that it should be a voluntary act is essential ... in every criminal case. No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily.’ If the mens rea and the actus reus of a crime are not proved, the defendant is said to be acting as an automaton, a person that…

    • 1187 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Introduction Doctrine of promissory estoppel is deemed as an exception to the general principle that a promise may only be enforced if it is supported by good consideration. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was first established in the case of CLP v Trees. Even though promissory estoppel is seen an advantage, it does consist some flaws that can have repercussion due to its inconsistency. However it does help weaker parties in legal matters where the doctrine of consideration neglects those parties. This will be discussed into further details in the essay.…

    • 1898 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Feinberg put an emphasis on the major defect of Mill’s version of the Harm Principle and claims the ‘harm’ in the Harm Principle does not necessarily only mean physical harm. Psychological harm can also be included within the Harm Principle as “harm” that the State is legitimately entitled to criminalize. Similarly, harming and offending are sorts of things that cause setbacks in which harm can cause more serious setbacks than that of an offense. All and all, much of Joel Feinberg’s formulation is the same as that of JS Mill. Still the “setbacks” Feinberg mentions in his version of the Harm Principle need clarification, and accordingly, Nils Jareborg and Andrew von Hirsch follow from Feinberg’s formulation.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While cultural relativism looks back at the culture to decipher right and wrong, Hobbes’ viewpoint suggests that individuals are right until they commit a crime and then they are deemed wrong. The issue is in a state of nature, we cannot look back to a culture to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral in a state of war when there are individuals who are not bound by laws or a governing body to oversee them. Additionally, Hobbes would agree that the idea of cultural relativism itself can serve as its own governing body over a culture. It can serve as a set of invisible rules that are followed within cultures when the individuals within them question the morality of an act. Similar to the state of war, social contracts help to anchor the relationships and common interests of individuals.…

    • 2148 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Whereby “First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage, there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter,in which case a prima facie duty of care arises” (Wild and Weinstein 2013). More over the claimant and the defendants relationship must be well-established, it will then be judged wether the defendant’s actions is likely to cause problems in the future. Prima Facie is the latin word meaning at first sight.Once the first part has been answered affirmatively “it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise." (Wild and Weinstein 2013). Thus the courts must carefully consider the impacts of their final decision of the case as to whether the defendant is guilty of negligence and whether he owes the claimant…

    • 1814 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays