Criminal Law Omissions

1
Criminal Law Omissions
2
Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

• Basic principle
• D must be shown to have relevant mental element
  at the time that act comprising offence is
  committed
• Problem
• What if D did not do anything?

3
Omissions and Commissions

• Pittwood 1902
• D is level crossing keeper on railway. Opened
  gate to let traffic pass - off to lunch and
  forgot to close it. Train hits hay cart and kills
  man
• Point A Act is opening gate (positive actus
  reus) but with no mens rea
• Point B Act is failing to close gate (no actus
  reus?) but with mens rea of recklessness

4
Omissions and Commissions

• In Pittwood, principle of coincidence of actus
  reus and mens rea provides problem
• Solution 1 aggregate Point A and Point B
• treat as continuing course of conduct
• Thabo Meli 1954, Church 1965, Le Brun 1991
• but are these really omissions? Initial
  injuries remain substantial and operating cause
  of death

5
Liability for Omissions

• Solution 2 impose liability for the omission at
  Point B
• common law does not recognise liability for
  omissions
• child drowning in shallow pool - callous
  bystander who merely watches does not commit
  offence
• no general duty to act as Good SamaritanBUT

6
Liability for Omissions

• While no general duty to act when others are in
  peril, common law does recognise liability for
  omissions in specific situations
• Responsibility under statute
• Duty imposed by law
• Responsibility under contract
• Duty created by special relationships
• Where D creates a dangerous situation

7
Omissions - Special Relationship

• Special relationships
• Instan 1893 niece fauiled to obtain help for
  aunt, with whom she was living. Gangrene in leg
  killed aunt. Guilty.
• Gibbins and Proctor 1918 failed to feed child
  who starved to death.
• Stone and Dobinson 1977 Elderly man and women
  friend failed to obtain proper medical help for
  bed-bound sister who refused to eat. Guilty.

8
Omissions - Assumption under Contract

• A duty might arise under contract
• Pittwood 1902 failure to close railway gate
• Dytham 1979 - PC on duty ignores violent assault
  taking place under his gaze - convicted of
  misfeasance in a public office

9
Omissions- Imposed by Statute

• A duty might arise under statute
• wilful neglect of child or spouse
• health and safety at work legislation
• failure to stop after an accident
• Lowe 1973 - manslaughter charges after wilful
  neglect of child. NB prosecution must prove gross
  negligence Adomako 1993

10
Omissions - D creates dangerous situation

• A duty might arise where D creates the danger
  initially
• Miller 1983 squatter falls asleep and
  cigarette causes mattress to set on fire. Upon
  waking Miller ignored fire and simply moved
  rooms. House badly damaged by blaze. D guilty of
  arson because D creates dangerous situation and
  then omits to remedy it