• 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. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Phrases such as 'foreseeability', 'proximity', 'neighbourhood', 'just and reasonable', 'fairness', 'voluntary acceptance of risk' will be found in several different cases. But such phrases are not precise definitions. At best they are but labels or phrases descriptive of very different factual situations that arise in different cases, and they must

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

    for example in the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986 where an unaware pharmacist was selling drugs to patients with forged prescriptions. It would be reasonable in this case to say that it was negligent behaviour giving an innocent defence.

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Where a defendant accused of assault seeks to show that he was drunk and had no intention, he cannot adduce evidence of drunkenness. If recklessness is a variety of subjective foresight, then under Majewski the defendant should be acquitted, as the intoxication raised a doubt as to whether the accused foresaw any risk to life.

  1. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    As you will see, the tort of nuisance is not so involved as the tort of negligence, but it is an important, and a difficult tort, not from the point of view of the difficulty in learning about it, but from a practice point of view: that it usually involves

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    The first of which is the case of R. v White9, this case is crucial when considering the principle of causation. In this case, the defendant attempted to poison his mother by putting cyanide in her drink. She died of a heart attack before she drank the poison. Nevertheless, the defendant was held to be guilty of attempted murder

  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 ...

    Tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law and is owed to the community at large. In case of a contract, liability exists when there is a contract that voluntarily binds parties together and the duty is fixed by the will and consent of the

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