Consider what offences, if any, have been committed.

Authors Avatar

(5) Clarence, who keeps Dash, an Alsatian dog, as a pet, has
frequently been irritated by the rude behaviour of Ellen, the
six-year old daughter of his neighbours, who make little attempt
to control her. One morning he sees her teasing Dash, but does
nothing. After some while he sees Dash turn on Ellen and attack
her, but he still does nothing, because he thinks the child must
be taught a lesson. Dash seriously injures Ellen before Frank, her
father, is able to rescue her.

Consider what offences, if any, have been committed.

This is a case of omissions liability, and omissions do not generally attract liability, unless there is some duty between the defendant and victim, which can arise, through statutory, contractual, or voluntary obligations. Whilst none of these apply here, another category of duty can arise through the victim’s creation of a dangerous situation (Miller). Clearly this is satisfied here as seeing as Dash is his dog, it can be argued that he is responsible for it, and as he sees the event taking place, but leaves it to Frank to rescue Ellen, has not taken any steps to correct this mistake and thus his omission can constitute an act.

Join now!

Frank could be charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The actus reus is that the defendant caused the grievous bodily harm, and as following Janjua;Choudhury, this was held to mean ‘serious’ bodily harm , Ellen’s ‘serious injury’ will suffice and following C vs Eisenhower, if the epidermis of the skin is broken(likely if bitten by a dog), it would also qualify under the wounding section. Factual causation can be established as ‘but for’ him failing to control his dog/help Ellen, no harm would have been caused. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay