Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
‘In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for omission to act’ Asses the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Jan 16 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
'In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for omission to act' Asses the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it. Criminal liability is rarely imposed for true omissions at common law, though there are situations where a non - lawyer would consider that there has been an omission but in law it will be treated as an act and liability will be imposed. There are also situations where the accused has a duty to act, and in these cases there may be liability for a true omission. Well it must be first being decided that whether in law they are dealing with an act or an omission. However, there are three situations where this question arises: continuing acts, supervening faults and euthanasia. The concept of continuing acts was used in Fragan V Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) to allow what seemed to...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,195 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
