Criminal Law: Omissions Essay
‘Omissions should not be criminalised to a greater extent than they already are.’
Should I be labelled a murderer for a crime I did not commit? Should I also be forced to
serve strangers I have never met before? You might be thinking, “obviously not”.
Omissions is the failure to perform an act agreed to, where there is a duty to an
individual or the public to act. Generally, omissions are not criminalised in the English
law but when there is a special duty to act then there is an exemption. At present, there
is only liability when there is a duty to act such as a contractual duty, a statutory duty, an
assumed duty, etc. For example, a failure to perform an assumed duty involving a
parent-child relationship would lead to criminalisation as in the case of R v GIBBONS &
PROCTOR. The defendant was convicted of murder as a result of failing to feed his
child. In that kind of situation, it makes sense that the omission was criminalised
however attempting to extend liability for a failure to act for the general public is absurd
as here as we owe no duty to strangers. Liability for omissions should not be extended
further than it already is.
A general duty to act would breach our autonomy which is an essential principle in the
English Law. Autonomy allows people to make decisions they want and live freely
however creating a general duty to act would restrict people’s freedom and force
unwilling rescue missions. Picture this, you’re in a supermarket, you see someone enter
an epileptic shock, bump their head and retain damage. A general duty to act would
hold you liable for the harm the victim faced. That sounds completely unfair, why should
the law force you to save a stranger and penalise you for an action you’re in no control
of? Just as J. Paul McCutcheon said that the “function of the criminal law is to penalise
and deter the infliction of harm, not to compel or encourage the doing of good”. As
McCutcheon said society already teaches “good” with the use of religion and education;
and emergency services already exist therefore the law should focus on punishing
harm. McCutcheon states that no one has a right to be rescued and it seems
unreasonable that the law should require any person to endanger their lives for the
‘Omissions should not be criminalised to a greater extent than they already are.’
Should I be labelled a murderer for a crime I did not commit? Should I also be forced to
serve strangers I have never met before? You might be thinking, “obviously not”.
Omissions is the failure to perform an act agreed to, where there is a duty to an
individual or the public to act. Generally, omissions are not criminalised in the English
law but when there is a special duty to act then there is an exemption. At present, there
is only liability when there is a duty to act such as a contractual duty, a statutory duty, an
assumed duty, etc. For example, a failure to perform an assumed duty involving a
parent-child relationship would lead to criminalisation as in the case of R v GIBBONS &
PROCTOR. The defendant was convicted of murder as a result of failing to feed his
child. In that kind of situation, it makes sense that the omission was criminalised
however attempting to extend liability for a failure to act for the general public is absurd
as here as we owe no duty to strangers. Liability for omissions should not be extended
further than it already is.
A general duty to act would breach our autonomy which is an essential principle in the
English Law. Autonomy allows people to make decisions they want and live freely
however creating a general duty to act would restrict people’s freedom and force
unwilling rescue missions. Picture this, you’re in a supermarket, you see someone enter
an epileptic shock, bump their head and retain damage. A general duty to act would
hold you liable for the harm the victim faced. That sounds completely unfair, why should
the law force you to save a stranger and penalise you for an action you’re in no control
of? Just as J. Paul McCutcheon said that the “function of the criminal law is to penalise
and deter the infliction of harm, not to compel or encourage the doing of good”. As
McCutcheon said society already teaches “good” with the use of religion and education;
and emergency services already exist therefore the law should focus on punishing
harm. McCutcheon states that no one has a right to be rescued and it seems
unreasonable that the law should require any person to endanger their lives for the
