Omissions Flashcards
What is the general rule on criminal liability for omissions?
A. There is no liability for omissions unless a legal duty to act exists
B. All omissions are criminal if the harm is serious
C. A moral obligation is enough to create criminal liability
D. Omissions are only relevant in civil law
A. There is no liability for omissions unless a legal duty to act exists
Explanation: R v Smith (William) confirms that omissions only lead to criminal liability when a legal duty to act is breached.
Which of the following is an example of a duty arising from a contract?
A. R v Ruffell
B. R v Stone and Dobinson
C. R v Instan
D. R v Pittwood
D. R v Pittwood
Explanation: In R v Pittwood, the defendant failed to close a railway gate as required by his job contract, leading to a death.
In which situation might a statutory duty to act exist?
A. When caring for an elderly relative voluntarily
B. When refusing medical treatment on religious grounds
C. When failing to feed a neighbour’s child
D. When failing to provide a breath sample when lawfully required
D. When failing to provide a breath sample when lawfully required
Explanation: Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, failing to give a specimen when required is a statutory omission offence.
What principle was established in R v Miller regarding omissions?
A. You cannot be liable for acts you did not intend
B. You must warn others if they are at risk of danger
C. If you create a danger, you must take reasonable steps to prevent harm
D. Siblings always owe a duty of care to younger family members
C. If you create a danger, you must take reasonable steps to prevent harm
Explanation: R v Miller shows that failing to act after creating a dangerous situation can amount to actus reus.
Leon lives with his elderly aunt who becomes ill. He stops feeding her and refuses to seek help. She dies. What is the likely outcome?
A. Leon will only be liable if he inherited money
B. Leon can only be sued in civil court
C. Leon will not be liable, as he was not a medical professional
D. Leon may be liable due to voluntarily assuming a duty of care
D. Leon may be liable due to voluntarily assuming a duty of care
Explanation: Like R v Instan, where the niece failed to feed and help her aunt, voluntarily assuming care creates legal duty.
A police officer witnesses a violent assault while on duty and does nothing. What is the most accurate legal outcome?
A. The officer is not liable, as the duty is moral not legal
B. The officer may be liable due to his public office duty
C. The officer is only liable if he encouraged the attack
D. The officer cannot be prosecuted unless the victim dies
B. The officer may be liable due to his public office duty
Explanation: In R v Dytham, a police officer was liable for wilfully neglecting his duty by doing nothing during an assault.
Ava gives her friend heroin, sees her overdosing, and does nothing. The friend dies. What is the legal position?
A. Ava is not liable as the friend self-injected
B. Ava is liable only if she is a medical professional
C. Ava may be liable for creating a dangerous situation and failing to act
D. Ava is only liable if she made a profit from supplying the drug
C. Ava may be liable for creating a dangerous situation and failing to act
Explanation: Like in R v Evans, providing the drug and recognising the danger creates a duty to act.
A gatekeeper falls asleep and forgets to close a railway gate. A car is hit by a train. What does the law say?
A. He is not liable as he did not directly cause the crash
B. He is liable under the principle of voluntary assumption
C. He is liable due to a contractual duty to act
D. He is not liable if he did not intend harm
C. He is liable due to a contractual duty to act
Explanation: In R v Pittwood, the gatekeeper’s omission due to a contractual duty resulted in manslaughter liability.
Kai witnesses a stranger collapse in a park but walks away without helping. The stranger later dies. What is the correct legal outcome?
A. Kai is liable for causing death by omission
B. Kai is not liable, as there was no legal duty to help
C. Kai is liable under a public duty
D. Kai is liable because it was morally wrong
B. Kai is not liable, as there was no legal duty to help
Explanation: There is no general duty to rescue in English law. Without a specific legal duty, omissions are not punishable.
Tom’s partner, suffering from a broken hip, is left without help for three weeks and dies. Tom does not call a doctor. What factor could make him criminally liable?
A. The relationship of marriage creates a legal duty to act
B. There is no duty between spouses
C. He is only liable if she asked for help
D. He is not liable because the injury was accidental
A. The relationship of marriage creates a legal duty to act
Explanation: In R v Hood, the court recognised a duty to act within a spousal relationship when one person is in serious need.
Charlie takes in a friend who is weak and ill. After a few days, Charlie stops helping. The friend becomes bedridden and dies. Which case is most relevant?
A. R v Ruffell
B. R v Dytham
C. R v Lowe
D. R v Miller
A. R v Ruffell
Explanation: Like in R v Ruffell, the defendant accepted responsibility for a vulnerable person and breached the duty by later abandoning care.
A parent and child both take drugs. The child overdoses in front of the parent. The parent does not call an ambulance. What is the most likely result?
A. The parent has no duty as the child self-injected
B. The parent is liable because of a special relationship
C. The parent is only liable if they provided the drug
D. The parent is not liable unless they are the legal guardian
B. The parent is liable because of a special relationship
Explanation: In R v Evans, the mother was liable based on her parental duty to help her child once she realised the child was in danger.
