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

Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do the right thing(TM) in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need(TM). Consider to what extent the criminal law r

Extracts from this document...


'Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need'. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this view. Generally speaking, English law only punishes those who cause a prohibited act, although this may be a positive one. There is no general duty to act in order to do good deeds. There may well be a moral obligation on someone to be a 'good Samaritan' but there is not a legal one. However, Parliament and the courts find people criminally liable when they fail to act where responsibilities and duties of care are involved. It is not accepted that individuals should be criminally liable for failing to go to the assistance of those who find themselves in some kind of distress. Nevertheless, English law does punish those who fail to act under three situations. The first is where a statute actually imposes a duty. One example of this is the Road Traffic Act 1988, in which lays down situations where failing to act leads to an offence. This may be not stopping at a scene of an accident, found in s.170. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 also does this. ...read more.


The Public Office is relied upon to protect the public, and so it is expected that their job is to provide this service to the best of their abilities. A special relationship is another circumstance in which gives rise to a duty. In Instan (1893), the defendant went to live with an elderly aunt who became ill and for the last twelve days of her life, was unable to care for herself or summon help. The defendant did not give her any food or seek medical assistance, but continued to live in the house and eat the aunt's food. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. A further case that emphasises this is that of Gibbons and Proctor (1918). Gibbins was the father of several children. There was evidence that his partner, Proctor, hated his 7-year-old daughter and had hit her. They both kept her separate from the others and deliberately starved her to death. They were both convicted of murder as Gibbins owed her a duty as a father and Proctor was held to have undertaken a duty to her. Both of these cases ensure that family relationships do owe a duty of care. However in Khan and Khan (1998), the convictions of manslaughter were quashed. ...read more.


Both of these cases show that the law does in fact promote citizens to act morally, but only in situations whereby they have caused the danger. It is generally believed that non-fatal offences against the person cannot be caused by an omission. In Fagan V MPC (1969) the court had to be creative in order to find the defendant guilty of battery. He was directed to park a car by a police officer and drove onto his foot. The policeman insisted that he got off but the defendant refused and said "fuck you, you can wait". He switched off the engine but eventually reversed off slowly after the victim repeated his request. The prosecution were satisfied that he "knowingly, provocatively and unnecessarily allowed the wheel to remain on the foot", and so he was convicted. It is apparent that the English Legal System does encourage the public to act dutifully to some extent. It seems that an omission can only occur where a statute imposes a duty, there is a contractual duty to act and in certain situations where the law states that an omission is an offence. These situations, however, are limited and only really involve circumstances where there is an evident responsibility. The law does not expect citizens to intervene and help strangers as such who are need. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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 Criminal Law 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 Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    a legal obligation on a person to act in a certain situation. If they fail to act in such a case, they may be liable for a crime. Many of these involve vehicles or driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4

    3 star(s)

    However his conviction was reduced to manslaughter as there was evidence he was suffering from diminished responsibility. Both of these decisions have been critised, as many people who believe that a person who kills where he has an honest but unreasonable belief as to the degree of force needed is not as blameworthy as a true murderer.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in ...

    3 star(s)

    This is usually a parent and child relationship where the parent neglects to look after a child in their care. This occurred in the case of R V Gibbons and Proctor 1918 where a father of a young girl, along with his partner, deliberately kept the daughter separate from her

  2. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    He was convicted of constructive manslaughter but this was quashed because of misdirection. Lord Beldham held that a jury ought not to convict "unless they are satisfied that the degree of force used was plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as he believed them to be" and

  1. Liability in criminal law requires the prosecution to establish that the accused has caused ...

    The reference to a 'substantial cause' was not necessary, but 'more than a slight or trifling link' was. This may create more accurate and fair decisions because the test has been made simpler. There also seems to be an acceleration principle, so that the defendant's act will be considered a cause if it has accelerated the victim's death.

  2. Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.

    Involuntary manslaughter - This is where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury, however death is due to carelessness or criminal negligence. The differences between the others are that involuntary manslaughter is when someone unintentionally kills a human being without legal justification if their acts, whether

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    Despite the fact that some courts seem to have an apparent disregard for the doctrine of judicial precedent, Burgess remains one of the most important cases in developing the law on insanity, as it decided that a condition which affects 2% of the population is insanity, rather than non-insane automatism.

  2. Sources of the English Legal System and the Relationship between Legislation and Judicial ...

    Furthermore, there is a relation through the accepted rules for statutory interpretation. The rules of interpretation are; literal, golden and mischief rule. These rules are applied due to reasons as ambiguity, unforeseen situations, and even carelessness of the draftsman. Therefore, judges are supposed to interpret how the parliament intended to apply the law (Elliott & Quinn, 2011).

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