Register to read the introduction…
The defendant himself is quoted as having said “I just left it”1 implying blatant carelessness in his conduct. This solidifies the fact that his direct actions were the cause of the fire, which would support the prosecutors approach to building the case based on this failure to act. However, the decision to apply case law and create a case on the basis of omission is questionable. Alternatively, the prosecutors could have opted for an alternative and less ambiguous route of recklessness and negligence. By doing so, they could argue based on a positive action, which was him recklessly lighting a cigarette indoors rather than his failure to act. That way, he is being prosecuted for actually doing something rather than
…show more content…
According to Ashworth, there are “three principals that have particular relevance to criminal liability for omissions”5 all three of which being applicable to this case as the situation was urgent, the preservation of life was necessary and the defendants have the opportunity and arguably the capacity to act. Despite all this, British law is often noted for not having a ‘good samaritan law’ that requires individuals to act in ways that would be considered to be morally right. Nonetheless, making individuals criminally liable for the failure to act in cases such as this contradicts that suggestion. It can be said that the defendants had assumed responsibility for the victim and Stone had a close/special relationship requiring him to act. Both these sisutatuons can be said to be deterministic. In this case, it is being assumed that because they lived together Stone had taken responsibility for Fanny however she was a fully grown adult with the capacity to make her own choices. Although she became immobilised, that was no fault of Stones. Secondly the law deterministically assumed that their sibling relationship suggests that they are close or that he felt any affection for her thus, it could be said to be unjust that he was prosecuted based on this. In the case of Mrs Dobinson it can be said that she simply was unlucky enough to have been the neighbour and the fact that she on one occasion helped to wash fanny, surely she should be praised rather than sanctioned. In this case Dobinson could be seen as being unfortunately bound to the incident on the basis that she was a
According to Ashworth, there are “three principals that have particular relevance to criminal liability for omissions”5 all three of which being applicable to this case as the situation was urgent, the preservation of life was necessary and the defendants have the opportunity and arguably the capacity to act. Despite all this, British law is often noted for not having a ‘good samaritan law’ that requires individuals to act in ways that would be considered to be morally right. Nonetheless, making individuals criminally liable for the failure to act in cases such as this contradicts that suggestion. It can be said that the defendants had assumed responsibility for the victim and Stone had a close/special relationship requiring him to act. Both these sisutatuons can be said to be deterministic. In this case, it is being assumed that because they lived together Stone had taken responsibility for Fanny however she was a fully grown adult with the capacity to make her own choices. Although she became immobilised, that was no fault of Stones. Secondly the law deterministically assumed that their sibling relationship suggests that they are close or that he felt any affection for her thus, it could be said to be unjust that he was prosecuted based on this. In the case of Mrs Dobinson it can be said that she simply was unlucky enough to have been the neighbour and the fact that she on one occasion helped to wash fanny, surely she should be praised rather than sanctioned. In this case Dobinson could be seen as being unfortunately bound to the incident on the basis that she was a