Omission

Question 1

Types of Omission liability

Answer 1

Direct liability: Crimes described as omissions within statute e.g. failing to look after a child under 16 under Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Derivative liability: Liability for a crime that can be committed by omission (not attempts etc) and where D had a duty to act which they breached

Question 2

Pittwood 1902

Answer 2

Omission
Duty to Act: Contractual
Facts: Job as a train gate keeper, failed to shut gate and someone went through an died
Convicted of manslaughter

Question 3

Dytham 1979

Answer 3

Omission
Duty to Act: Holding a Public Office
Facts: Off-duty police officer watched a bouncer beat a man to death with no intervention or attempt to call for help
Held: D was under a public duty to act

Question 4

Ruffell 2003

Answer 4

Omission
Duty to Act: Special Relationship
Facts: D and V took heroin together and when V began to overdose, D put a blanket on him to keep him warm but did not call for medical help
Held: Duty to act via special relationship, liable because he began to help, unclear whether friendship alone enough to satisfy duty to act
- compare with Lewin (friendship wasn’t enough to create duty)

Question 5

Instan 1893

Answer 5

Omission
Duty to Act: Voluntary assumption of care / Contractual duty to act (since she was being paid)
Facts: D cared for elderly aunt who developed gangrene and stopped eating, D did not feed V and did not call for medical help. Aunt Died.
D convicted of manslaughter - guilty

Question 6

Duties to Act

Answer 6

Duty arising from a contract 
Public Office 
Voluntary assumption of responsibility 
Creation of a dangerous situation 
Duty arising from a special relationship

Question 7

Miller 1983

Answer 7

Omission
Duty to Act: Creation of a dangerous situation
Facts: Asleep squatter awoke to fire caused by their cigarette, instead of calling emergency services or putting it out, D went to sleep in another room
QB found guilty for continuous act however HoL said this was a misuse and changed charge to guilty via omitting to remedy the danger and as part of a wider continuous act
Held: Lord Diplock: failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate danger created by ones self

Question 8

Evans 2009

Answer 8

Principle in Miller extended to manslaughter
Facts: D, the victims sister who knew V was addicted to heroin supplied victim with heroin and did nothing for victim when she became unconscious and died

Question 9

Lewin 2002

Answer 9

D and friends were out drinking on holiday in Spain, drove back to the hotel and left V in the car while comatose due to intoxication where V overheated and died
Tried for manslaughter
Held: Not guilty - Friendship not enough for duty to act, D was not medically trained enough to reasonably foresee consequences
Compare with Ruffell where friendship and trying to help was enough for the duty to act

Question 10

DPP v Santana-Bermudez 2003

Answer 10

Omission causing ABH
Facts: D was being searched by V (police officer) and despite being asked, failed to disclose needles were in their pocket, officer was injured by needle
Held: Assault and battery cannot normally be committed by omission however if a defendant creates a dangerous situation they can be liable
Convicted of ABH
Two contradicting divisional court decisions - use Fagan if can

Question 11

Stone and Dobinson 1977

Answer 11

Omission
Duty to act: Stone (brother): special relationship
Duty to act: Dobinson (mistress of Stone): Voluntary assumption of care
Facts: S, brother of V was of low intellegence, partially deaf and blind and his mistress/housekeeper D let V stay with them, she was dying of anorexia and they did not get medical help
- Criticised law because they were responsible despite low intelligence while others who were more capable knew and were not responsible

Question 12

Airdale v Bland 1993 A.C.

Answer 12

Discharge from duty
Parents of Hillsborough victim requested to turn off life support because their child wouldn’t have wanted to live with a low quality of life so they requested an allowance from House of Lords to discharge doctors from their duty to act which was granted

Question 13

Fagan v MPC 1969 QB

Answer 13

Facts: D drove onto police officers foot by mistake but once made aware, he refused to do anything to remove the car from his foot
Convicted of battery
Held: ‘ a mere omission cannot amount to an assault’
however if there is a continuing threat to use unlawful force the battery can amount to a continuing act which is what happened here - No omission - Positive continuous act of battery