Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Criminal Liability and the Failure to Act. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 7 page UK law paper critically examines the situations in which a person can be liable in criminal law for an omission to act. The paper looks at different types of omission, where a duty to act is express or may be implied and the way the courts deal with omission to act where there may be a moral if not legal duty. The paper also makes a brief comparison with France where there is a positive duty to act. The bibliography cites 6 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEfailact.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
UK it is possible to see a crime or dangerous situation occurring and fail to do anything about it without being seen liable for failing to act, even if
this failure results in the death or injury of another. This is a omission or failure to act and as such, can be argued this course of action is
immoral, but with the omission of action it is highly unlikely that there will be the satisfaction of the requirements under UK law to determine criminal liability. In order
to asses how this may occur we need to review quickly the elements required for criminal liability to exist. These are the absence of a suitable defence as well
as actus reus and mens rea according to the Woolmington1 rule from the case of Woolmington v DPP (1935). With actus reus
we can consult with the case of Haughton v Smith [1973] All ER 1109 where Lord Hailsham stated "an act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless
his mind also be guilty" (Ivamy, 2000). Actus reus will usual consist of three different elements, conduct, consequences and circumstances. However, some
crimes may be purely seen as a result of the conduct, other will need the conduct to create specific consequences. For criminal liability to exist there needs to a
proven actus reus, as shown in the case of R v Deller (1952). Here it was found that an ignorance of the fact meant that this did not exist. We
can compare this with the case of R v Dadson (1850) 4 Cox CC 358, where a defence was used that when the policemen shot a man, the man was
...