La 204 Actus Reus - Omissions Liability and Causation Notes

Intro to Actus Reus Omissions
= external (voluntary) element Offences capable of being committed x O
(Not pertain directly to D’s mental state)
a. Homicide (M + MS) offences
CONDUCT
= D’s physical A/O required for liab R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918)
Ds starved V (daughter of G) after cruilty +
Focus: what D did / failed to do
neglect
(required in all criminal offences)
Duty to feed + protect child was breached

Omissions
b. Non-fatal offences against person

Failed to satisfactorily discharge duty
• Reluctant to find omission liab
- Requires specific result as part of AR
HWVR
DPP v Santana Bermudez [2004]
Liability can arise in:
D misinformed PO that not have needles, V
a. absence of specific external
pricked during personal search
‘movement’
Normally A/B cannot be committed x O hwvr
b. failure to perform specific conduct
created dangerous situation
Possession Offences
c. Property offences
Criminalise possession of material considered (in rel to certain ones)
‘dangerous’
- A: steps to gain / dispose of R v Miller [1983]
- O: found themselves in poss Squatter slept holding cig, woke up to
• No req of specific conduct mattress burning + moved to adjoining room
Criminal damage based on omission to do
State of Affairs something abt/ matress / alert authorities
- Duty arose from inadvertent creation
‘Situational’ offences of dangerous situation
• Criminalise D for found in particular ‘Duty to avert danger from one’s own
situation dangerous acts gives rise to omissions
- Not req result
liability
Contribution to life threatening state of
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
D taken to hospital on stretcher, found drunk affairs = duty
+ told to leave
- Police took D to their car on highway • Where offence can be committed
outside hospital either x A/O, omission liability more
restrictive

, - Charged w/ being ‘found drunk’ on
highway -----------------------------------------------------------
‘being found’ = guilty
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1992]
• Creating a state of affairs +/ omission Brain damage, vegetative state
in falling to remove self from state - Doc applied to lawfully discontinue
life-sustaining treatment
----------------------------------------------------------- Withdrawal of treatment characterised as
omission
CIRCUMSTANCES Court: no duty to treat if not to act in best
= Specific conditions +/ facts surrounding D’s interests of patient
conduct that must exist for liability • Euthanasia valid bcs/ omission
- Discharging duty to Blond
- Not need be ‘performed’ / ‘caused’ x Hwvr: discontinuing = actively switch off
D’s A/O
-----------------------------------------------------------
- May be related to V, External
conditions, Specific objectives
LIABILITY
-----------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy conduct element:
CONSEQUENCE (RESULT)
= specific results/outcomes / effects of D’s 1. Recognized offence: in law capable of
conduct required for liability being committed x omission

• Establish causal link betw 2. Duty to act: legally recognized
a. D’s conduct requiring D to act in certain manner
b. Necessary result
3. Breach: D’s failure to act must fall
1. Causation in fact below the standard expected in the
= logical connection in fact that result would performance of duty
not have come about if not for D’s conduct

2. Causation in law
♦ Not always lack action
= legal principles finding conduct to have
substantial effect
- Blameworthy -----------------------------------------------------------
- Not superseded x subsequent events
DUTY TO ACT – OMISSION
(Causation ESSENTIAL part of AR)
♦ Legally recognized duty to act
♦ Not all offences require result - General terms: requires D to do what
is reasonable (not more)
-----------------------------------------------------------

, (q for jury)
RESULTS CRITICISM
No Good Samaritan Law
= no general duty to rescue
Tension between subjectivism (focus on D’s ONLY if specific duty to act in exceptional
indiv capacity) + objectivism (focus on harms circumstances
caused x D’s conduct)
1. Statutory duty
Objectivism:

Results central to liab bcs/ usually represent S170(4) Road Traffic Act 1988
harm caused x D Offence to fail to report motor accident that
D is involved in
Subjectivism:
2. Contractual duty
Almost redundant bcs/ not fully controlled x
D + therefore an imperfect reflection of (give rise to duties betw parties + 3rd)
culpability • Agreement determines duties
- Not need specifically highlight duty
Ex: D1 shoots V1 w/ intent to kill + dies
HWVR: expect D will act in certain circs
D2 shoots V2 w/ intent to kill + survives
• Luck not reflection of culpability (both
Dytham [1979]
equally + should be punished same)
PO on duty failed to intervene when V was
 Current law: uncomfortable kicked to death
compromise betw 2 - Misconduct in public office
- Clear duty for publ officials to act in
RESULTS REFORM reasonable manner

Subjectivist approach: Pittwood (1902)
Railway crossing gatekeeper forgot to close
• All result crimes could be remodelled cart gate when went to lunch, cart collided
into ‘acting w/ intent’ conduct crimes w/ train killing driver
- Focus liab on what D controls Gross Negl Manslaughter based on omission
(AR+MR) + not distorted x luck
- Contractual duty to close gate
Objectivist approach:
3. Assumption of responsibility
• Results matter
- Condemn D1 for acts + for causing = D voluntarily undertakes care of V /
death + Condemn D2 for acts but assumes duty towards V + V becomes
relieved death did not result dependent upon care
- Results perceived as additional harm
for which D is responsible