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

Fault Essay

Extracts from this document...


Fault Essay English law is largely based on the idea that there should be no liability without proof of fault. Fault implies a sense of blameworthiness, the concept of which is evident in both the criminal and civil law. Fault is partially important in criminal law where it is accepted that a defendant must be responsible for his actions and be regarded as blameworthy. The notion of fault is inextricably linked to the idea of fairness and justice as it is the overriding aim of the law to only punish those who have broken it. The requirement of fault is clearly demonstrated in the actus reus (AR) of an offence where the defendants (D's) conduct must generally be carried out voluntarily in order for liability to be attached. With regards to coincidence for example, the courts have adopted a flexible approach in order to find fault and attach responsibility in the interests of justice even where strictly speaking the AR and MR don't co-inside. In Fagan, liability was attached to a continuing act and in Thabo Meli a sequence of events. Also, result crimes such as murder require proof that the D is both the factual and legal cause of the consequence if he is to be held responsible. ...read more.


The D cannot avoid liability if the V is particularly susceptible to injury. For example, by having the thin skull rile as according to the law, he must take his victim as he finds them. In Blaue, the V was a Jehovah's Witness and was stabbed by D. As a result of refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds they died. The rule demonstrates that fault can be attached by "fluke", as the D caused the injuries he is at fault and is therefore liable for the full consequences of his actions whether he foresaw the outcome or not. There are three distinct degrees of fault in criminal law, these are, intention, recklessness and negligence. The more at fault a defendant is, the highest degree being intention, then the more they will be held responsible for their crimes. All three parts reflect the differing levels of mens rea on the part of the defendant. It is easier to prove objective recklessness than subjective recklessness, as objective recklessness involves comparing the actions of the defendant to the reasonable man. Following the landmark case of R v G, the objective test is no longer valid in relation to criminal damage as it did not adequately reflect individual fault. ...read more.


With more serious offences there is a presumption of mens rea which clearly indicates the importance the judiciary attach to the requirement of proof of fault as confirmed in Sweet v Parsley. In this case, a land lady rented her house to a group of students. Unknown to her, they were growing cannabis which was later found by the police. She was held accountable for this; even know she had no knowledge of it. This does not adequately reflect mens rea. This was also confirmed in B v DPP where it was illustrated that the defendant must be at fault to be liable due to the seriousness of the consequences. Absolute liability offences contrast with the application of the actus reus here as when the absence of a voluntary act will not allow the defendant to avoid liability. Taking everything into account it is apparent that fault is an essential part of our legal system and is reflected through a range of offences, defences and sentences. Without the requirement of proof of fault, there is potential for injustice. However, there are areas of the law where the imposition of liability without proof of fault can be justified on the grounds of public policy, mostly in the form of strict liability offences. On the whole, the public expects and wants the law to identify who is at fault and punish them with the corresponding sentence. ...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. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    unfit for human consumption even though it had been inspected and approved by a qualified vet before hand. Similarly, in Smedley v Breed, the defendant was found guilty of selling unfit food even though only four tins out of three million tested were found to contain caterpillars.

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

    Therefore if parliament wishes for an offence to be classed as strict liability then they would have to say so explicitly in the relevant provision. Overall strict liability is a necessary commodity which helps to protect the environment and the public form certain injustices are some offences for which there is no excuse and no reasonable defence.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    3rd party stops the defendant from committing the attempt can that chain of causation be broken. A further illustration of causation exists in the cases of R. v Latif ; R. v Shahzad11 in which it is established that as long as there is intent (mens rea)

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

    The breach must have been fairly serious. An example is shown in R v. Adomako (1994) where a anaesthetist failed to notice that the supply of oxygen to the patient had stopped during an operation for almost five minutes. Only when the alarm went off was the problem noticed.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    The distinction between basic and specific intention is most peculiar - suffice it to say that in offences against the person, murder and GBH are crimes of specific intent whereas most other forms of assault are crimes of basic intent.

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

    For example, in Hill V Baxter, the driver was attacked by a swarm of bees and crash. There was held to be no act due to the fact any action the driver committed after the attack of the swarm of bees were involuntary, therefore, he was not at fault thus, no liability.

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    Branch manager wrongly marketed goods. Acts were that of "another person" rather than tesco itself who had exercised "all due diligence" in training staff. This may seem a little unfair, as it means it is far easier to convict a smaller company, and harder to convict a larger one, as

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

    A wiring fault in Bright Light causes a fire which escapes down to the ground floor causing damage to Chemi-Kaze. Some of the containers of chemicals outside the back door have become damaged in the fire causing rust to develop. Vandals rob some of the containers and unscrew the caps.

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