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

Discuss the extent to which the law on omissions offers protection to those who need it whilst sending a strong deterrent message in the right circumstances

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Omissions is a type of crime where the law punishes the defendant for not acting in a situation where they should have. The first area of omissions is the area of contractual duties and this is where the defendant had not done something that was in their contract to do which means that they broke the law under omissions. THe first case that shows this is the case of Pittwood and this is where the defendant was in charge of a railway gate and left it open while they went for their break which resulted in the death of a victim. The defendant was liable by omission for manslaughter as it was their contractual duty to close the gate and make sure that nobody is hurt. This sends a strong deterrent message to other operators as it means that they are less likely to leave their post. The next case that shows omissions is the case of Adomako and this is where the defendant was meant to check the oxygen tube of the victim to make sure it stayed in place but the defendant forgot to check and the victim died. The defendant was liable by omission for gross negligence manslaughter as they failed their contractual duty to check the oxygen tube. This sends a strong deterrent message as it was grossly negligent for the defendant to not check the oxygen tube and means that other people like him will be more careful next time. ...read more.

Middle

The defendant was liable by omission for manslaughter as they created a danger and then failed to act to stop it. This offers a deterrent as the defendant should have tried to save the girl and this could act as a deterrent for other drug dealers in the future. The next case that shows creation of danger is the case of Miller and this is where the defendant had accidentally set a fire before sleeping and woke up, they failed to put out the fire and instead walked to a different room to sleep. The defendant was liable by omission for arson as they had created a danger and failed to act to stop it. This provides justice as the defendant should have put out the fire and their failure to do so resulted in damage to the property. The next case that in under creation of danger is the case of Evans and this is where the defendant had given their child heroin as a present. When she overdosed, they pretended she did it herself and placed her in bed. The defendant was liable by omission for manslaughter as they created the danger by giving the drugs and failed to try and stop it by calling 999. The final case that shows creation of danger is the case of Matthews and Alleyne and this is where the defendants had dropped someone in a river with the knowledge that they could not swim. ...read more.

Conclusion

This is shown in the cases of stone and dobinson and instan where both defendants were convicted and this means that people who carer for vulnerable people are more likely to carry out that care. FInally, the law of omissions offers protection to doctors as it means that they can do what they believe to be best without fear of a murder conviction. This was shown in the case of Bland where the doctors were not liable by omission for murder as they did what was considered the best for the patient. This offers protection to doctors as it means that they can carry out their responsibilities without being in fear of the law. In conclusion, omissions definitely offers a deterrent as it means that people with legal duties are more likely to complete them like in Dytham and Instan but it is dubious whether the current omission law helps to protect vulnerable people. The inclusion of Stone and Dobinson in the same category and crime as Instan is dubious considering the different mental profiles of the defendants. The law does succeed in ensuring that doctors are given protection when operating and can help to protect people by deterring possible crimes from occuring. However, I would make omissions more subjective to ensure that other cases like Stone and Dobinson are never brought to court ...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)

    sex discrimination from an economic perspective not an altruistic one, where you can make money by exploiting women. In the case of P v S (1996) which concerned a senior employee at Cornwall College where he was dismissed after informing his employers that he was to undergo "gender reassignment" to become female.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Finally in a sports game the referee may be held liable for claims in negligence. On the field of play the referee is responsible for the game and keeping the players within the rules of the game. The land mark case in this area which has concerned most match officials

  1. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    The Act covers not only trespassers but also persons using rights of way who fall outside the meaning of a 'visitor' under the 1957 Act. For several years prior to 1984 the occupier's duty to trespassers was to act with common sense and humanity.

  2. CRIMINAL LAW

    and substantially cause of the death at the time of Sara's death. See R v HOLLAND. The injury suffered by Sara was clearly the operating and substantially cause or at least provided a significant contribution to her (see R v CHESHIRE)

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    how probable the consequence was and (ii) if the defendant foresaw that consequence. He reasoned thus: that if the defendant did not foresee the consequence, it cannot be said that he intended it. If he did foresee it but thought the risk slight, the jury might easily infer that he did not intend it.

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

    put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act?. Therefore, Sam?s employer is not liable for his injury concerning to his health and safety. Conclusion: Anthony and Maria are liable for the injury of Sam and the death of Hugh.

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