Top-Rated Free Essay

Criminal liability for murder by omission

Good Essays
Currently the UK operates no general duty to aid someone in peril, only where there is a certain relationship established. Using case law and legal principles an attempt to justify such a duty in today’s society shall be considered. In considering its merits and drawbacks, with reasoned opinion, this essay shall conclude whether the UK criminal law should impose such a duty.
In UK law it is an offence to fail to take reasonable steps to assist another person in peril in certain situations. Such duties as those arising from contract (R.v Pitwood [1902]), special relationships (Gibbins and Proctor [1918]), creation of a dangerous situation, or one arising from the assumption of being a carer (R v. Stone and Dobinson [1977]).
In considering how such a duty could be imposed on society, one would have to consider if such an offence would be a conduct, circumstance or consequence crime (perhaps a combination). Would the offence of failing to take reasonable steps arise from simply not acting; would certain circumstances be a benchmark as to what was a reasonable step to take? Or would the death or severe harm that came to the person in peril define whether the bystander had failed to take reasonable steps.
Imposing criminal liability for offences of commission by omission is quite a modern approach to criminal justice. Such a law would hope to yield a socially conscientious society, whereby one did think of their neighbour and did not simply ‘look out for themselves’. Individual liberties within a democratic society are altered by such a duty;

however this could be said of all laws. Surely it is a necessity of a democratic society to have laws that act as guidelines for how the greater people want their country run.
There is an argument that Parliament does have a duty to impose moral guidelines upon society. The very reason we have a legislative body is to guide society in the way we behave, so why stop at guiding society in what we cannot do but also guide further in what we cannot omit to do.
To secure a criminal conviction usually three key components must be established, actus reus, mens rea and the absence of a valid defence.
An actus reus of an omission is such a wide criteria that to realistically be imposed it must detail narrower criteria, whereby assisting a person in peril is a reasonable task. Such categories as proximity and foreseeability greatly alter the parameters of whether someone is capable of taking reasonable steps.
Criminal liability must also display an element of mens rea, how this element would interplay with an actus reus of omission to act is questionable. Would an omission to help someone out of malice or some pecuniary interest hold a greater sentence than an omission to help due to simple idleness? Perhaps a test for the reasonableness of a person’s decision not to help is suitable.
This then begs the question of possible defences of omission. One person may have a general awareness of those around them while another may genuinely not see any danger or even take in their surroundings.

If the Legislator is to impose legal morality, whose morality is to set the standard? Different people have a different moral barometer; perhaps it is best to just let society find a natural hero in every crowd and not force someone who is just not inclined to be a Good Samaritan.
Equally some people are not inclined to step outside their comfort zone and may fear situations where many people would naturally jump to the rescue. The ‘flight verses fight’ instinct is a natural instinct everyone has, with one man’s urge to save the day prompting another to hide in a bush until all danger is gone. If someone takes five minutes to fight off their irrational fear of water to save a drowning child in knee high tides can they be condemned on their irrational fears if the child dies?
The concern for any liability if a rescuer does more harm than good is of course an issue. If a rescuer believes he sees another person in peril and interferes with a chain of events, the rescuer risks becoming a part of the causation, or a novus actus interveniens. In ‘Causation in the law’ (Unit 16, pp58), Professors Hart and Honoroe considered that the chain of causation might be broken by the ‘free, deliberate and informed intervention’ of a third person. Of course if it was the law to intervene then the intervention would no longer be ‘free’. Perhaps this gives more weight to the argument to create such an obligation.
A good Samaritan can in some circumstances feel like a criminal no matter how good their intentions. With the shoe on the other foot the rescuer himself may be injured because they were legally obliged to help another. Could the family of a man who

drowned trying to rescue a child sue the parent for being foolish enough to let their child go swimming in deep waters? Perhaps here statutory safeguards could play a hand in preventing the immoral from financially gaining from a moral act.
Lord Coleridge in R. v Instan [1893] stated ‘every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation’ although this case displays the duty arising from the assumption of care for the helpless, Coleridge places great emphasis on moral obligation. While morality lies at the backbone of the justice system it is still possible to let someone die while it poses no inconvenience to the bystander to help.
For there to be no criminal liability for murder by omission when proximity, foreseeability and danger are not an issue is quite simply wrong. It is taking liberalism too far and not holding people accountable for the part they play in society. The moral obligation to help someone is such a pure thing that it should be protected and anyone who chooses not to act with such good intention should be held accountable. Words: 1000
Bibliography
Allen, M. & Cooper, S. (2010) ‘Actus Reus’, in Allen, M. & Cooper, S. (10th Ed) (2010) Elliott and Wood’s Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Ashford Colour Press, Gosport.
R v. Pitwood [1902] 19 TLR 37
R v. Gibbins and Proctor [1918] 13 Cr App R 134
R v. Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354
R. v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450

Bibliography: Allen, M. & Cooper, S. (2010) ‘Actus Reus’, in Allen, M. & Cooper, S. (10th Ed) (2010) Elliott and Wood’s Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Ashford Colour Press, Gosport. R v. Pitwood [1902] 19 TLR 37 R v. Gibbins and Proctor [1918] 13 Cr App R 134 R v. Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 R. v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Good Samaritan

    • 347 Words
    • 2 Pages

    There are exceptions to the American bystander rule, however. If one’s child, spouse, or employee is in danger, then an individual has an obligation to provide assistance. This can include situations like the need to obtain medical treatment. Parents can be held responsible, for example, for the death of a child if it is clear that the child requires medical attention but the parents fail to procure such attention. A person also incurs a duty to act if that person causes another individual to be put in harm’s way. If someone voluntarily acts to assist another, then they also incur a duty and can be held responsible for what happens to the individual they are assisting. A duty to act may also be required by a contractual agreement between parties.…

    • 347 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The aim of this case is to present a contemporary criminal case. The case must have occurred in the last ten years. It must be an indictable offence, a more serious criminal charge where the defendant has the right to trial by jury and has been found guilty. The analysis of the case will be carried out through the extent which the law balances the rights of victims and offenders.…

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Traditionally the law of torts in Australia and many other common law countries (e.g. England, Canada) have been reluctant to impose upon bystanders a general duty to aid the proverbial ‘baby drowning in a puddle of water, ' though there have been several exceptions to the general rule which the courts have distinguished, usually where some sort of prior relationship exists between the parties. Protagonists of a ‘duty to rescue ' tend to base their arguments around the idea that contemporary morality demands the law impose some sort of co-ercive measure upon those who chance by others in dire straits, drawing comparisons with areas where law reflects morality, as well as examples of jurisdictions where legislation introducing a positive duty to rescue have been enforced. Antagonists to the idea of an affirmative duty to act to the benefit of others tend to stress the importance of individual liberties within democratic societies on the one hand, and highlight the problems present in setting criteria for when a duty should exist in the other. As Australian tort law attempts to adhere to the principle of restitutio and prevent the emergence of a ‘culture of blame ' simultaneously, the result is that there is not likely to be a single ‘correct ' answer, however this essay will attempt to justify the imposition of a limited duty in a manner which considers both sides of the argument.…

    • 1733 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legal Studies Crime Notes

    • 7112 Words
    • 29 Pages

    * The extent to which the law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society…

    • 7112 Words
    • 29 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Australian Criminal Law

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The codification of the Criminal Code has marked a watershed on Australian legal jurisprudence. In this essay I will discuss the problems that may occur when interpreting the Criminal Code (The Code), the creation of uniformity and the also accessibility that the Code creates.…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A duty of care is a requirement to exercise a ‘reasonable’ degree of attention and caution to avoid negligence which would lead to harm to other people.…

    • 1029 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lord Of The Flies Rules

    • 644 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In a functioning society, laws are necessary to govern behaviour and make equal opportunities for everyone. The movie Lord of the Flies clearly exemplifies the need for laws and how laws must be enforced t be effective. Without laws anarchy would surely ensue as explored through “Lord of the Flies”.…

    • 644 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hsc 024 Answers

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Duty of Care is the legal responsibility, to ensure the safety and well-being of others…

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    “A duty of care involves an obligation that a person in a specific role has to ensure that others are taken care of and not harmed during a particular task. This involves giving appropriate attention, watching out for potential hazards, preventing mistakes or accidents, and making wise choices about steps undertaken in a role. If a duty of care is not met in a role that requires it, then the responsible person can be held accountable for allowing negligence to occur” (Children and young people’s workforce, 2011, pg. 40)…

    • 2019 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Court Report

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages

    [ 3 ]. David Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Material and commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales, 5th Ed, Sydney, The Federation Press, 2011 p. 143…

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The law regarding non-fatal offences was described by the law commission as ‘inefficient as a vehicle for controlling justice where many aspects of the law are still obscure and its application erratic’. Furthermore professor J C smith described it as a ‘rag bag of offe3nces with no attempt to introduce consistency as to substance or form’.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    | |Duty of care can be defined as "an obligation, recognised by law, to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of danger |…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Federal Law on Homicide

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ousey, G. C. (2008). Murder. In V. N. Parrillo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Problems (Vol. 2, pp. 603-604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.itt-tech.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3074000376&v=2.1&u=itted&it=r&p=GVRL.Encyclopedias1106&sw=w…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Murder Manslaughter Facts

    • 2291 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Homicide is the term for killing a human being unlawfully. There are two types of homicide, Murder and manslaughter. The actus reus is the same in any homicide; an unlawful act or omission that causes the death of another human being. The mens rea for murder is known as malice aforethought, which can either be express malice (an intention to kill) or implied malice (an intention to cause really serious injury with or without the foresight of causing death).…

    • 2291 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    duty of care

    • 493 Words
    • 2 Pages

    1.1Duty of Care. The term ‘Duty of Care’ means that you are responsible for the welfare of yourself and for the welfare of others too. If you ignore this, you are breaking the responsibility for the well-being of others.…

    • 493 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays