Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate the impositions of liability without fault.

Authors Avatar

Jan Lewis

Law essay – fault

Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate the impositions of liability without fault.

Fault exists through our legal system and can be defined as “the responsibility for doing something wrong”. It can also refer to “a defect of failing” or “wrongdoing”.  

Within our legal system, there are many elements of criminal law that demands liability to be proved depending upon fault i.e. the defendant to blame, and in contrast to this, there can also be liability proved not depending upon fault i.e. the defendant is not necessarily to blame.

One issue is the causation in result crimes. This is where the defendant is usually liable if they actually cause the outcome. This then proves whether the defendant was at fault or not. For example, in R V White, the son’s act of putting the poison in his mother’s drunk didn’t kill her, but she actually died from a natural cause, therefore, this broke the chain of causation because he was not the factual cause of the outcome, thus resulting in him not being liable. In contrast to this, in R V Pagett, the defendant was proving to have caused the death of his girlfriend by using her as a human shield when openly firing at police, who then returned fire, thus killing the girlfriend. Therefore, but for Pagett using his girlfriend as a human shield, she would not have died. In addition to this, if the chain of causation is broken by a third party or the victim themselves, then the defendant will be proven to not be liable. In R V Jordan, medical treatment did break the chain of causation due to the fact the defendant’s actions were no longer the cause of the death due the fact the medical treatment was palpably  wrong. However, in Cheshire, the chain or causation was not broken, despite the bad medical treatment due to the fact the defendant’s actions were held to be of significant contribution to the death.

However, causation alone isn’t just needed to prove that the defendant caused the crime. The defendant must possess the actus reus and mens rea of the crime they committed. The actus reus must be voluntary and the mens rea is generally required. With regards to the actus reus, the defendant must be in control of her/his actions. 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. In respect of the mens rea, it needs to be proved that the defendant was either intending the crime, or was being subjectively reckless. Althoguh, crimes are graduated according to level of fault so more mens rea is required for more serious offences. For section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), this requires proof of intention to cause serious harm to prove that the defendant was at fault, whereas in section 20 of the OAPA (1861), this requires either intention or recklessness to cause some harm. In the case of R V Clarke, a shop-lifter blamed it on absentmindedness due to depression, showing that she lacked the sufficient mens rea for the crime.

Join now!

Nevertheless, these two elements aren’t always needed for the victim to be at fault. In crimes of Absolute liability the actus reus of the crime is not needed for the defendant to be guilty, and in crimes of Strict liability, the mens rea of the crime is not needed to prove that the defendant was to blame.  In repscted of Absolute liability, the defendant can be convicted of this type of offence, even if they have no control over their conduct. For example in Winzar V Chief constable of Kent, the D was drunk in hospital, so the police ...

This is a preview of the whole essay