This document discusses the exceptions to the general principle in criminal law that an omission (failure to act) does not constitute an actus reus. It outlines six exceptions where an omission can be considered a criminal offense: 1) statutory duty, 2) contractual duty, 3) voluntary assumption of responsibility, 4) avert a danger of your own making, 5) public duty, and 6) special relationship. It provides examples of cases that fall under each exception and discusses potential confusions between some of the exceptions, such as contractual versus public duty, and voluntary assumption versus special relationship. It also addresses issues that can arise in medical cases regarding omissions.

1. OMISSIONS

2. ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY
PHYSICAL ELEMENT
MENTAL ELEMENT

3. ACTUS REUS
 GENERAL PRINCIPLE – AR MUST BE A
POSITIVE ACT, NOT A FAILURE TO ACT
(OMISSION)
 “A sees B drowning and is able to save
him by holding out his hand. A abstains
from doing so in order that B may be
drowned, and B is drowned. A has
committed no offence” Stephen, 1887

4. HOWEVER……THERE ARE
EXCEPTIONS!!!
1.STATUTORY 4.AVERT A DANGER
DUTY OF YOUR OWN
MAKING
2.CONTRACTUAL
DUTY 5.PUBLIC DUTY
3.VOLUNTARY
ASSUMPTION OF 6.SPECIAL
RESPONSIBILTY RELATIONSHIP

5. STATUTORY DUTY
 IMPOSED BY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT
 s6 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 – FAILING TO
PROVIDE A SPECIMEN OF BREATH/
URINE
 s170 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 – FAILING
TO STOP AT/REPORT AN ACCIDENT
 s1 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT
1933 – WILFUL NEGLECT OF A CHILD

6. CONTRACTUAL DUTY
R v. PITTWOOD (1902)
CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER

7. PUBLIC DUTY (OFFICIAL POSITION)
R v. DYTHAM (1979)
CONVICTED OF MISCONDUCT IN A
PUBLIC OFFICE

8. AVERT A DANGER OF YOUR OWN
MAKING (CONTINUING ACT)
R v. MILLER (1983)
CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL
DAMAGE

9. AVERT A DANGER OF YOUR OWN
MAKING (CONTINUING ACT)
 DPP v. SANTANA-BERMUDEZ (2003)
ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THAT AN OMISSION
COULD NOT AMOUNT TO ASSAULT OR
BATTERY
ON PROSECUTOR’S APPEAL, HELD THAT AN
OMISSION CAN CONSTITUTE AN ASSAULT OR
BATTERY

10. VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF
RESPONSIBILITY
R v. STONE AND DOBINSON
(1977)
CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER

11. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
R v. GIBBINS AND PROCTOR
(1918)
CONVICTED OF MURDER

12. POSSIBLE CONFUSIONS?
 CONTRACTUAL v. PUBLIC DUTY
 VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION v. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
R v. SMITH (1979) – DUTY OF CARE BETWEEN
HUSBAND AND WIFE
GIBBINS AND PROCTOR – DUTY TO CHILD BY ITS
PARENTS IS “SELF EVIDENT”
R v. SHEPHERD (1862) – NO DUTY OWED BY MOTHER
TO 18 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER
R v. CHATTAWAY (1922) – DUTY OWED BY PARENTS TO
25 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WHO WAS COMPLETELY
HELPLESS

13. MEDICAL ISSUES
 AIREDALE NHS TRUST v. BLAND (1993)
NOT PROVIDING TREATMENT v. POSITIVELY
KILLING – PATIENT’S BEST INTERESTS