Omissions in Law

‘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 fail to act to help someone who is need’. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this. (50)

An omission is defined as a failure to do something, which you should have done, or to phrase it another way, when a person voluntarily fails to act. In the United Kingdom, a person does not necessarily have a legal obligation to act, and therefore if they were to carry out an omission, they could not be found guilty of an offence. This principle was explained by Stephen J, a 19th century Judge, in the following way; ‘A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A has committed no offence’. This is because legally, person ‘A’ has no duty to help person ‘B’. There are exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. In some cases it is possible for a failure to act (an omission) to be the Actus Reus and in this case, the person who has carried out the omission can be found guilty of an offence.

In order for the omission to be sufficient enough to form the Actus Reus, there must be duty to act. There are 6 ways in which such a duty can exist, firstly as a statutory duty. An act of parliament can create liability for an omission, therefore making the person who carries out the omission guilty of an offence. An example of this is failing to stop to report a road traffic accident which was made an offence under Section 170 Road Traffic Act (1988), or failing to provide a specimen of breath, made an offence under Section 6 road traffic act (1988). These are examples of offences, which can only be committed by not actually committing them. Another example of where an Act of Parliament can create liability for an offence is in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act (1933). This...