Advanced search

i'm trying to write a law essay with tonsilitus..........

(20 Posts)
TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:21:51

Its not going well. i think its because i'm running low on energy, i'm doing a fulltime course, being a mum & girlfriend, and working part time.

so i feel ill, i have work tonight and want to get this essay out of the way and the creative juices are not happening i feel i can't even get my intro done.

Tell me it will get done lol...

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:35:16

also my essay is on omissions (Actus reus) so any help grateful grin cheeky i know!

Tortington Fri 03-Oct-08 12:36:13

who is this "tonsilitus" and is this considered cheating ?

hmm hmm

Tortington Fri 03-Oct-08 12:38:44

all the other elements apart from the metal element mensa rea

Tortington Fri 03-Oct-08 12:40:38

oops mental

in itself actus reus can simply be the prohibitive act itself - like driving too fast and no consequences need to be proved

will stop now grin

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:42:09

i have notes but trying to write an intro out of it - its not going well.

And i don't like this tonsilitus hanging around.

I need to keep up my distinction record for my essays - its just not happening today arrgghh.

I did say it was cheeky

Saggarmakersbottomknocker Fri 03-Oct-08 12:42:16

Writing with tonsilitis? Use a pen love, you'll make much better progress wink


TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:45:03

i know an omission is a principle that a person will not be found guilty because they have failed to act, and there are 3 exceptions. but i need that all to go into an introduction and its not happening.

the rest i think i'll be okay on (ish)

keep going custy lol

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:46:09

SMBK - LOL grin

Tortington Fri 03-Oct-08 12:53:53

hay its me and an a-level law site. - i know nothing!

Tortington Fri 03-Oct-08 12:54:54


The general rule is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to act the defendant was under a legal duty to take positive action. The difference between positive acts and omissions was highlighted in the Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821, where the House of Lords held that euthanasia by means of positive steps to end a patient's life, such as administering a drug to bring about his death, is unlawful. However, withdrawing medical treatment, including artificial feeding, from an insensate patient with no hope of recovery when it was known that the result would be that the patient would soon die, is lawful if it was in the patient's best interests not to prolong his life.

A positive duty to act exists in the following circumstances:

thats a direct quote from here no plagerism please

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 12:59:50

thank you!

OrmIrian Fri 03-Oct-08 13:00:32

Try using a pen instead?

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 13:02:24

haha i'm using a pen and word 2007 at same time!

Lilymaid Fri 03-Oct-08 13:02:53

Halsbury's Laws any good to you?

6. Omissions.
Save in exceptional circumstances the criminal law imposes no obligation on persons to act so as to prevent the occurrence of harm or wrongdoing. There is no general duty to prevent the commission of crime1; nor does a person commit a crime or become a party to it solely because he might reasonably have prevented its commission. Omission to act in a particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty so to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute3. Such a duty is exceptional at common law and the criminal law does not ordinarily require a person to be his brother's keeper4. Nevertheless, if a person assumes that role, he may incur criminal liability not only for any subsequent acts but also for omissions5. In such circumstances there is no need to prove that the defendant had been obliged by law to undertake the particular duty, or that he was bound by contract to care for the other6; it is sufficient that he voluntarily undertook the care of another in circumstances in which that other was unable to fend for himself.

Where the defendant inadvertently creates a situation endangering a person or property (so that he lacks the necessary mens rea at that time) he is under a duty to take such steps as lie within his power to try to counteract the danger before it materialises; if he becomes aware of the train of events caused by his act before the resulting harm is complete (and has the necessary mens rea in consequence) but fails to take those steps he can be convicted of the crime which the resulting consequence entails8.

It is possible for the person owed the duty to release from it the person owing the duty, either before or at the time that the duty would otherwise require action, even if it is contrary to his best interests, provided that the subject is an adult capable of making a rational decision9.

A crime may be so defined that it is impossible or difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the actus reus could be constituted by an omission10; but it would seem that, in conjunction with the appropriate mens rea, most offences against the person and most offences against property, including theft11 and dishonest handling12, may be so constituted.

1 A constable has a duty to prevent crime: see R v Dytham [1979] QB 722, [1979] 3 All ER 641, CA (failure by uniformed police officer to intervene when he saw a man being kicked to death; it was held that he could be convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in public office (see para 536 post)); and it is an offence for a person to refuse without reasonable excuse to assist in quelling a breach of the peace when called upon by a constable (R v Brown (1841) Car & M 314; and see para 738 post).

2 Cf Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414, [1966] 2 All ER 649, DC (person refusing to answer questions is not 'wilfully obstructing' a police officer even though this may hamper inquiries). See also Swallow v LCC [1916] 1 KB 224, DC.

3 Where pursuant to an Act of Parliament an order is made requiring a corporation to effect certain works, an indictment lies for failure to comply: R v Birmingham and Gloucester Rly Co (1842) 3 QB 223.

4 At common law a parent has a duty to act for the welfare of his child and, if harm is caused to the child by his failure to act, he may be criminally liable for the resulting harm: R v Bubb, R v Hook (1850) 4 Cox CC 455; R v Gibbins, R v Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134, CCA. Cf R v Knights (1860) 2 F & F 46.

5 R v Smith (1826) 2 C & P 449. See also R v Stone, R v Dobinson [1977] QB 354, 64 Cr App Rep 186, CA (the occupier of a house and the woman with whom he was living were both convicted of manslaughter for failing to provide nursing care for the occupier's sister who lodged with them).

6 See eg R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 (a railway level-crossing keeper who forgot to close the gates was convicted of manslaughter). As to the extent of a medical practitioner's duty to maintain life-prolonging treatment see medical professions vol 30(1) (Reissue) para 202.

7 'In this case, as in most cases, the legal duty can be nothing else than the taking upon oneself the performance of a moral obligation': R v Instan (1893) as reported in 17 Cox CC 602 at 603, CCR, per Lord Coleridge. Thus a woman who assumes responsibility for the care of another's child may be liable in respect of a failure to provide food (R v Gibbins, R v Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134, CCA) or to provide medical aid (R v Lee, R v Parkes (1917) 13 Cr App Rep 39, CCA). See also R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450, CCR; the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s 1 (as amended); para 143 post; and children and young persons vol 5(3) (2008 Reissue) para 611.

8 See R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161, 77 Cr App Rep 17, HL (accidentally setting fire to mattress and, with knowledge of the fire, taking no steps to put it out; guilty of arson).

9 Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95, [1992] 4 All ER 649, CA; Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 All ER 819, [1994] 1 WLR 290; Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 at 857, [1993] 1 All ER 821 at 860, HL, per Lord Keith of Kinkel, at 864 and 866 per Lord Goff of Chieveley, at 883 and 882 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and at 891–892 and 889 per Lord Mustill; St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam 26, [1998] 3 All ER 673, CA; and medical professions vol 30(1) (Reissue) paras 199, 202. As to advance decisions to refuse treatment see the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ss 24–26; and mental health vol 30(2) (Reissue) paras 653–655.

10 Eg offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 Pt I (ss 1–13) (as amended): see para 346 et seq post.

11 An appropriation includes 'keeping . . . [property] as owner': see the Theft Act 1968 s 3(1); and para 284 post.

12 See R v Pitchley (1973) 57 Cr App Rep 30, CA; and para 302 post.

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 13:09:12

Thats fab Lily Thankyou. everything is helpful. Usually i have no problem but i'm having trouble this time. I think i'm putting pressure on myself to, as i want to keep my record of good work up!

ChopsTheDuck Fri 03-Oct-08 13:35:43

do you have to cover negligence too? Look at Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] where liability was imposed for an ommission to act.

I feel for you. I'm trying to reviuse for a law exam and feel like crap.

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 15:56:14

Chops - nope don't have to do negligence yet, my last essay was difference between crim & civil law. i got distinction for that, same as i did for contract law.

This one is based just on omissions.

Hugs for you too

ChopsTheDuck Fri 03-Oct-08 16:03:52

ooh lucky for you. My degree hasnt really covered much crim law at all, probably get that next year. neg is a nightmare.

well done on your achievements, I jsut muddle through best I can . grin

TheMuppetMuggle Fri 03-Oct-08 16:47:13

not sure how i've done it tho - as when i read it back to myself it looks pants.

I want to work in criminal law.

well done for muddling through lol

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: