Fault in Crime

Question 1

Para 1 (definition)

Answer 1

Fault is defined in OED as responsibility for something wrong. Fault is a marker of blameworthiness that justifies the imposition of penalties and sanctions. It ius clear that there is a link between the law and fault as the legal systems deals with those who have done something wrong and are blameworthy.

Question 2

Para 2 - (fault shown in crim law)

Answer 2

Fault is shown in criminal law through the 1) Actus Reus, must be committed through a positive voluntary act, through own free will, no free will, no responsibility (Hill v Baxter). 2) Omissions, liability not imposed unless you’re under a duty to act, and you fail to act which makes you at fault. I.e (Gibbons v Proctor). 3) Mens Rea, direct intention illustrates fault, D has aim, objective, purpose to bring about consequence – highest level of fault. Lowest level of fault is recklessness (Cunningham), D sees a risk and takes it anyway - still at fault. 4) Defences, reduce level of fault, For example, LoC could reduce Murder to Manslaughter as whilst still at fault, court recognises that the fault is reduced because of the qualifying trigger than induced it. 5) Sentences are imposed by the court in proportion to the amount of fault involved in the crime. Also areas of criminal law that show a lack of fault, strict liability. AT THE END OF EACH SENTENCE – RECOGNISE DEGREE OF BLAMEWORTHINESS

Question 3

Para 3 - (fault in tort) pick whichever according to paper

Answer 3

Fault is also shown in Tort law through (only apply if on paper 2, also if paper 2 says examine in ENGLISH law, could use criminal examples), 1) Negligence, clearly based on fault as it requires the claimant to prove that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care reasonably expected of him (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). However, D will not be liable if the damage is too remote (Wagon Mound) as the defendant wouldn’t be blameworthy.

Question 4

para 4 - evidence of non-fault based liability (paper 1 and 2)

Answer 4

Evidence of non-fault based liability – crime - strict liability offenses do not require the mens rea, D can be liable without proving he is at fault as in the case of Alphacell v Woodward. OR Tort – Rylands v Fletcher is the main area of non-fault based liability in civil law. No need to prove fault, just show D brought something on land which is not naturally there (Giles v Walker) and how it escaped causing forseeable damage. If damage is forseeable, D is liable regardless of amount of care. This shows blameworthiness…

Question 5

para 5 - link to named factor in question

Answer 5

LINK NAMED PART IN QUESTION TO BLAMEWORTHINESS – DEFINE IT, WHAT IT IS, THEN LINK