• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law Fault is regarded as blame, or responsibility for doing something wrong. The concept of fault is integral to the English legal system when it comes to deciding guilt of liability. In fact, in many areas of law if fault could not be assigned, the system would fall apart as liability can only be found if fault is established first. Fault is particularly important in cases which require mens rea. In these cases it will have to be proven that a certain state of mind was present in the defendant. In criminal law the requirement that mens rea or a guilty mind be established amounts to saying that criminal liability is imposed on blameworthy activity. This close connection between fault and mens rea results in punishment being based on the degree of moral blameworthiness that the defendant is believed to have possessed. The fact that this degree of blameworthiness not only determines whether the defendant will simply be found guilty or not guilty, but is concerned with the punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation of individuals whose conduct is considered by the law to be not only wrongs against other individuals, but also against society as a whole, suggests fault is clearly an essential element. ...read more.

Middle

Indeed, sometimes fault may be left out altogether from the equation, in crimes of strict liability. Fault can be further understood when looking at negligence. Negligence is carelessness, the defendant wasn't thinking like the ordinary reasonable person would have done, it's a lack of thought as oppose to actual thought, not taking enough care that the ordinary reasonable person would have done. In the case of Gibbons and Proctor, Proctor actually wanted the girl dead and so she was convicted of murder as she intended to kill, however Gibbons was merely negligent he wasn't taking enough care of the child thus he wasn't convicted of murder he was only convicted of GNM. It must be questioned as to the importance of fault here, negligence is a very low level of fault, it's not thinking of something you should have thought yet it can lead to a conviction of manslaughter, a homicide conviction. It would seem therefore that fault doesn't seem to be that important here because you can still convict someone of manslaughter however if you are convicted of manslaughter the judge in that case has complete discretion over sentencing. However still should fault not be more important in this instance, should there not be a higher level of fault than mere negligence. ...read more.

Conclusion

Similarly controversial is the use of fault in State of Affairs crimes, where the defendant may have involuntarily committed an offence, yet are still guilty. One such example is Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent in which a drunken man was taken from a hospital onto a road outside by the police, and then arrested for being drunk on the highway, even though he would never have made it onto the highway without the "help" of the police. As with Strict Liability crimes, the ordinary person would not see the defendant as being at fault here, and may view the use of fault in this area of the law as being unfair. The issue of fault is even present in defences, in that aggravating and mitigating factors can be used to lessen the amount of fault which the defendant is thought of having. For example someone on bail who plans an attack on an old lady will be seen as being more at fault than someone committing their first offence and entering an early plea of guilty. The concept of fault therefore is present in many areas of law, both civil and criminal. In many cases, without the need to prove fault, system would not work as it is necessary for one party to be blamed for the criminal offence in order to settle it. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    same sex couple to live together without discrimination and the Employment Equality (Age) Regs 2006. Each legislation framework distinguishes between different types of discrimination the first being direct discrimination which involved the individual being treated less favourably in the same circumstances than someone else purely because of their age and sex.

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    Another argument against strict liability is that it can be unfair as a person and company should only be liable if they have done something wrong yet those cases in which the defendants are completely unaware of the offence often get charged.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    causation leading to the commission of the offence thus he was guilty. The House of Lords decision in Empress Car Co v National Rivers Authority12 recently gave a more subjective view of causation. Lord Hoffman moved away from the common sense application of causation and said "The answer will depend upon the rule by which responsibility is being attributed."

  2. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    Another example is R v. Light (1857). The actus reus for murder is the same for both types of manslaughter, an unlawful act that causes the death of another human being who is under the Queen's Peace and anything which is not alive or where the body is kept maintained

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Now the general rule about drunkenness is that if you are so drunk so that you do not form the intent necessary, then you are entitled to be acquitted. However, the rule in Majewski (1976) goes on to say that this only applies to offences involving specific intent and not to those requiring basic intent.

  2. Fault as a concept in whichever area of law is a way of describing ...

    For instance, defence of mistake can eliminate fault so that D is not found guilty (Williams 1987). Some defences reduce liability only. The main examples of these are dismished responsibility, provocation a suicide pact set out in the Homicide Act 1957.

  1. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    The defendant must possess the actus reus and mens rea of the crime they committed. The actus reus must be voluntary and the mens rea is generally required. With regards to the actus reus, the defendant must be in control of her/his actions.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    To define who can sue in the case of tort it would entail the "injured party" and not only can they sue the seller but they can also sue the manufacturer of goods, the servicer and supplier. In the case of contractual liability, a contract is indeed involved.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work