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

“Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need.” Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this view. An omission is when a person voluntarily fails to act. The general rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J in which he stated; “A sees B drowning and is able to save B by holding out his hand. A abstains in doing so in order that B drowns. A has committed no offence.” However, there are exceptions where the failure to act is the actus reus of a crime; an Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission because the defendant has a statutory duty. An example of this would be if a parent had neglected their child of food and clothing then they would be in breach of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Therefore the defendant could be prosecuted for not carrying out the duty made by this act. Another exception to the rule of omissions is if the person has a contractual duty, and fails to carry out their

This is a preview of the whole essay

responsibilities in their contract. This happened in the case of R V Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a railway-crossing keeper who failed to shut the gates when a train was approaching which resulted in the death of someone who was crossing the railway. The court ruled that Pittwood had a duty to close the gates, and by neglecting this duty his omission was a significant contribution to the victim’s death and so he was charged with gross negligent manslaughter. A duty because of a relationship is also an exception to the rule of omissions. 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 step-brothers and step-sisters and did not feed her so that she starved to death. The court ruled that not only did Gibbons and Proctor have legal responsibility to care for the young girl but their deliberate negligence and inhumane conduct of which caused the girl’s death resulted in them being guilty of manslaughter. Similarly, if someone voluntarily undertakes a duty to care for someone, then their omission can be the actus reus of a crime. In the case of R V Stone and Dobinson, Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the two defendants. She was frail and became bedridden and eventually died of malnutrition. Both defendants were found guilty of manslaughter because not only did they fail to care for her, but they also failed to summon help when she became ill. A duty can also arise through one’s official position such as the case of R V Dytham. The defendant was a police officer who watched a man get beaten to death. He failed to intervene or call for help which could have saved the man’s life, and instead he told another witness that he was going off duty and then left the scene. He was found guilty of neglecting to perform his duty as an officer. The final exception to the rule of omissions is when a duty arises because the defendant set in motion a chain of events. In the case of R V Miller the defendant fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette which caused his mattress to catch fire. Instead of attempting to put the fire out he went to sleep in another room and the whole house caught fire soon after. It was not the accidental fire he caused that made him guilty of arson it was the fact he failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire. There are many advantages for allowing an omission to be the actus reus of a crime, mainly because it allows justice to be delivered when someone may not have committed a crime in accordance to the law, but has gone against the morals of society by doing something deemed unacceptable. For example in the cases of R V Gibbons and Proctor and R V Stone and Dobinson the defendants could have easily called for outside help which would have relieved them of their responsibility, but instead they allowed innocent people to die. Another advantage is that it establishes a culture of concern and care for one another, where everyone helps each other to avoid foreseeable incidents. In the cases of R V Pittwood and R V Dytham both defendants did not have to put their own lives at risk but simply perform the duties that society has entrusted to them. This would have shown their concern for others and possibly save lives. On the other hand the idea that someone can be guilty of a crime because they have done nothing can be harsh and unreasonable in certain cases, even if they are exceptions to the rule regarding omissions. For instance, if a parent was genuinely unaware that their child was refusing to eat, they should not be found guilty of neglect because although it is their duty, they were not given the opportunity to act as they were unaware any action was needed. Some countries have legislation known as the ‘good Samaritan law’ where a person has a duty to help someone in an emergency situation, and failure to do so can lead to prosecution. Although it ensures morality is enforced and helps to eradicate selfishness from society this law can become controversial for certain circumstances. For example, according to the good Samaritan law, an aquaphobic person who fails to jump into a lake to save someone will be prosecuted for not helping. Although this example is an extreme case, the principle is clear that a person is not always able to fulfil this duty. In conclusion I believe that the law is well provisioned to ensure that people have a duty to help others in a range of circumstances and it has successfully incorporated society’s morals so that anyone who has deliberately done wrong by an omission can be found guilty for not carrying out the responsibility society expects of them.