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

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. The next area of omissions is the area of public duties and this is where the defendant had to fulfill their public duty by doing a task but then failed to do it. This counts for most public service members like police officers and firemen. The main case that shows public duties in omissions law is the case of Dytham and this is where a police officer watched a man being beaten up and failed to stop the man being attacked which ended in the man's death. The defendant was liable by misconduct as they had failed their public duty to protect the citizen. This is fair as it is the duty of the police officer to protect the public and they chose not to do it. Furthermore, the next area of omissions is the area of acceptance of care and this is where the defendant had accepted care over the victim and then