The concept of continuing acts was used in Fragan V Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) to allow what seemed to be an omission to be treated as an act. The defendant was told by a police officer to park his car close to the kerb; he obeyed the order, but in doing so he accidentally drove his car on the constable’s foot. The constable shouted, ‘Get off, you are on my foot.’ The defendant replied, ‘Fuck you, you can wait’, and turned off the ignition. He was convinced of assaulting the constable in the execution of his duty. This offence requires an act; an omission is not sufficient. The defendant appealed on the grounds that at the time he committed the act of driving on to the officer’s foot, he lacked Mens Rea, and though he had mens rea when he refused to remove the car, this was an omission, and the Actus Reus required an act. The appeal was dismissed, on the basis that driving on to the officer’s foot and staying there was one single continuous act, rather than an act followed by an omission.
In a supervening act a person who is aware that he or she had done something which has endangered another’s life or property, and does nothing to prevent the relevant harm occurring, may be criminally liable, with the original act being treated as the Actus Reus of the crime. This was the case in R v Miller (1983). The defendant was squatting in a building. He lay on a mattress, lit a cigarette and fell asleep. Some time later he woke up to find the mattress on fire. Making no attempt to put the fire out, he simply moved into the next room and went back to sleep. The house caught fire leading to £800 worth of damage. Miller was convicted of arson.
Euthanasia is the name given to the practice of helping severely ill people die, either at their request, or by taking the decision that life support should be withdrawn when the person is no longer capable of making that decision. In some countries euthanasia is legal but, in this country, intentionally causing someone’s death can constitute murder, even if carried out for the most compassionate reasons.
The criticism
It will depend on the facts of each case whether the court is prepared to conclude that the relationship is sufficiently close to justify criminal liability for a failure to act to protect a victim. This approach has been heavily criticised by some academics, who argue that the moral basis of the law is undermined by a situation which allows people to ignore a drowning child whom they could have easily saved, and incur no criminal liability so long as they are strangers. In some countries, legislation has created special offences which impose liability on those who fail to take steps which could be taken without any personal risk to themselves in order to save another from death or serious personal injury.
