Understanding Omissions in Criminal Law

This study material provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of omissions in criminal law, detailing key cases, general rules, public duties, familial relationships, and the implications of contractual obligations.

General Rule of Omissions

An omission, or failure to act, does not typically lead to criminal liability.
To clarify, an omission does not constitute actionable conduct under criminal law.

Key Cases Regarding Acts vs. Omissions

Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)
Kaitamaki v. R [1985]
R v. Speck [1977]

Example Scenarios

Example 1: Sam, terminally ill, is given a lethal injection by his doctor upon his request. Should the doctor be considered guilty of murder?
Example 2: Sam, reliant on artificial means of nourishment, has these means withdrawn by the doctor and subsequently dies from starvation after a week. Is the doctor guilty of murder in this situation?

Withdrawing Life Support

“The doctor's conduct is to be differentiated from that of . . . an interloper who maliciously switches off a life support machine because . . . Whereas the doctor, in discontinuing life support, is simply allowing his patient to die of his pre-existing condition, the interloper is actively intervening to stop the doctor from prolonging the patient's life and such conduct cannot possibly be categorised as an omission.”
—Lord Goff, Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]

Legislative Context

Road Traffic Act 1994, s.12: Highlights duties related to omissions in the context of traffic regulations.

Public Duty

R v. Dytham [1979] 3 All ER 641 (CA): Explores the obligations of public officers.
DPP v. Bartley (1997, unreported): Further jurisprudence on public duties.

Misconduct in a Public Office

“It is an indictable offence at Common Law if a public officer willfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglects to perform a duty imposed on him either by Common Law or Statute.”
—Carney J, DPP v. Bartley (1997)

Familial Relationships and Omissions

Parents and Children

Key Cases:

R v. Senior (1899)
R v. Buub (1851)
R v. Chattaway [1922]
R v. Shepherd (1862)

Legal Duty: Parents are not obligated to place themselves in dangerous situations but must take reasonable steps to assist their children.

“Is not to say that parents have the legal duty to place themselves in danger of death or great bodily harm in coming to the aid of their children . . . But parents do have the duty to take every step reasonably possible in the circumstances.”
—The State v. Walden (1982)

Spouses

Legal Duty: Co-habiting spouses owe a duty of care to each other, especially regarding mutual dependencies.

“Where a husband and wife are co-habiting – that is to say living in the same house – perhaps living in the same room, and where they can be said to be dependent upon one another for some or all of the normal comforts associated with a marriage – where there is a relationship, even if it is a flawed relationship – then one spouse does owe a duty of care to the other.”
—Quirke J, DPP v O’Brien (1998)

Case References:

R v. Hood [2003]
People v. Beardsley (1907)

Contractual Obligations

“A man might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract.”
—Wright J, R v. Pittwood (1902)

This establishes that contractual duties can sometimes lead to criminal responsibility if neglected.

Omissions in Criminal Law: Key Concepts and Cases

Omissions in Criminal Law: Key Concepts and Cases