Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
As a general rule, the law does not hold individuals criminally liable for what they do not do. However, under certain circumstances, a legal duty will be imposed and failure to act as a result in the prosecution of the accused. Using relevant case law
Member rating:
(4 votes)
| Words:
| Submitted: Thu Jul 11 2002
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:
As a general rule, the law does not hold individuals criminally liable for what they do not do. However, under certain circumstances, a legal duty will be imposed and failure to act as a result in the prosecution of the accused. Using relevant case law to illustrate your point, critically examine the law of omission in both its legal and moral context. For an offence to be committed, there generally has to be an actus reus, or a guilty act. In some cases however, failing to act makes the defendant liable. This is what we usually call an omission. For common law crimes, an omission will only be enough for the actus reus if the defendant is under a duty to act. Such a duty can exist in several different circumstances. One situation that a duty to act can occur is under a contract. If failure to comply with a contractual agreement leads...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
