1. Lecture 2: Liability for omission
CRIMINAL LAW
Lecture 2: Liability for omission

2. Liability for omission
Though it will usually be the case that the accused will have performed some ‘act’ there are certain situations where the accused can be liable for omitting / failing to act
There is no general duty to act…
…BUT D may be criminally liable for an omission where there is a legal duty to act

3. When might D be liable for a failure / omission to act?
The accused may be criminally liable for omitting to act provided:
(1) The crime is one which may be committed by omission; and
(2) The accused is in breach of some legal duty to act

4. When does a legal duty to act arise?
(i) Statutory duty:
Failure to provide breath specimen; RTA 1988
Wilful neglect of a child; Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Failure to keep a dangerous dog under control in a public place; Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
(ii) Duty owed by a Public Officer
Dytham (1979)

5. When does a legal duty to act arise?
(iii) Duty arising under Contract
Pittwood (1902)
(iv) Duty of Care Voluntarily Assumed
Instan (1893)
Gibbons and Proctor (1918)
Stone and Dobinson (1977)
A controversial decision?

6. When does a legal duty to act arise?
(v) Duty created by Special Relationship
Parents
Gibbons and Proctor
Note: Sheppard (1981) – parental duty ends at 18 years?
Other blood relations?
Stone and Dobinson – Did S’s duty arise because he was F’s brother?

7. When does a legal duty to act arise?
Spouses
Bonnyman (1942)
Smith (1979): A spouse may be released from the duty to act…provided the victim has the capacity to make rational decisions
Unmarried partners ??
People v Beardsley (1967)
Those who engage in hazardous activities ??
Those who supply drugs to another ??
Khan and Khan (1998)

8. When does a legal duty to act arise?
(vi) Creation of a Dangerous Situation
Where D has created a dangerous situation s/he may be guilty via 2 different routes…
(1) D becomes under a duty to act and omits to do so
Miller (1983) (HL) – the better analysis?
(2) D’s conduct can be construed as a ‘continuing act’
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
See also: DPP v. Santana-Bermudez (2003) (see Herring p.326), where the Administrative Court applied the Miller principle

9. Distinguishing acts from omissions
In medical cases it is critical to distinguish between acts and omissions
E.g. Is the switching off of a life support machine an act or an omission?
Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993)
Since all hope of B’s recovery had gone, the doctors’ duty to provide life prolonging treatment had disappeared
No duty = No liability for omission when feeding and treatment is withheld

10. Summary…
In order to be criminally liable for omitting / failing to act;
(1) The crime must be capable of being committed by omission; and
(2) The accused must be in breach of some legal duty to act
A legal duty to act can arise in numerous ways e.g. by statute, contract, voluntary assumption, relationship, the creation of a dangerous situation…
The distinction between acts and omissions is critical in medical cases

11. Reading & Tutorial Work
Liability for omission
Herring pp (basic principles)
See also p.326 (Santana Bermudez)
Causation (for next week’s lecture)
Herring pp
Tutorial (w/c 13th October)
See pg.5 of the Module Handbook (omissions)