Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
if the law is to keep pace with morality, criminal liability should be imposed for all omissions to act where the person or property of another is threatened
Member rating: No Rating | Words: 1700 | Submitted: Sun May 18 2008
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:
if the law is to keep pace with morality, criminal liability should be imposed for all omissions to act where the person or property of another is threatened In criminal law, an omission to act, only where a duty to act has been established, is considered a criminal act. It therefore, is not considered a criminal act when no duty to act has been established. Per Lord Diplock in Miler [1983] 2 A.C. 161,175, "The conduct of the parabolical priest and Levite on the road to Jericho may have been indeed deplorable, but English law has not so far developed to the stage of treating it as criminal" (Criminal Law, Text and Materials, CMV Clarkson & HM Keating, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, Fifth Edition, 2003, pg. 97) What then, does a duty to act consist of, and how is it established? Does this contravene morality? According to Graham Hughes in, "Criminal...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
