Acts/Omissions Flashcards
1
Q
R v Pittwood (1902)
A
- D was contracted to keep barriers closed when a train was coming
- he left barrier open and went for his lunch break
- a cart came over the track when the train came –> person died
- D convicted of manslaughter
- Court held that a contract can create a duty to act in criminal law
2
Q
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977]
A
- Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf and was of low intelligence
- lived with his housekeeper and mistress Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and inadequate
- S’s sister Fanny came to live with them -> She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa
- S & D took her in and agreed to look after her
- Fanny’s condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions
- S and D found liable for her death as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in
- Court held that the inappropriate behaviour to assume responsibility and then not act on it meant they were liable; they failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed
3
Q
R v Miller [1983]
A
- D was a vagrant & fell asleep in the property where he was squatting with a lit cigarette which started a fire on his mattress
- he woke up, took no steps to extinguish it, simply moving to another room and went back to sleep
- fire spread and caused £800 worth of damage -> D charged with arson
- Court held that if you create a dangerous situation, you have a duty to fix it or seek help -> since D did neither, he was liable
- objective test: A reasonable person must be aware of the risk posed by the dangerous situation e.g. the fire
- you only have a duty when you become aware of the dangeorus situation you have created
- you only have to do what is reasonably expected of you -> don’t have a duty to do superhuman things
4
Q
R v Evans [2009]
A
- D supplied heroin to her half-sister, V
- D realised that V was showing signs of suffering an overdose, but didn’t call for help; V died by the next day
- Court held that this was a case of gross negligence manslaughter
- In such cases:
1. if a person has created or contributed to a state of affairs which he knew or ought reasonably to know had become life-threatening
2. a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life
- some have argued that 1. has expanded Miller, as the individual need only have contributed, and that it is now an objective test as the individual ‘ought reasonably to know’ -> can argue that as this is a gnm case rather than one of criminal damage, it hasn’t expanded Miller -> a more serious crime requires more stringent punishment
