Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

An "Act" - Coggle Diagram

- - - - When an individual (D) voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person (V), they incur a legal duty to act, regardless of their formal relationship. This duty can arise from explicit promises of care, as seen in the case of Nicholls, or from implicit responsibilities, as demonstrated in R. v Instan. In Instan, D lived with her elderly aunt, V, who became unable to care for herself due to illness. D failed to provide food or seek medical help, leading to her conviction for manslaughter, as her inaction was deemed to have accelerated V's death.
      - The legal principle established is that a moral obligation can create a legal duty, and failing to fulfill this duty can have serious consequences. However, the extent of D's required actions to fulfill this duty is not always clear. In cases like Stone and Dobinson, minimal or ineffective care can still establish a duty, leading to convictions for gross negligence manslaughter.
      - In R. v Sinclair, the court found that D, who had a close relationship with V and was present during V's unconsciousness, had a legal duty to care for him. The court distinguished Sinclair's situation from that of a third party, Johnson, who had no established duty of care towards V. The court emphasized that the nature of the relationship and the circumstances can create a reliance that imposes a duty to act.
      - Overall, the determination of when a duty to act arises is complex and depends on the specifics of the relationship and the context in which the parties find themselves.
    - - An individual (D) may have a duty to act based on contractual obligations, particularly in roles such as caregivers, healthcare professionals, or employees. For instance, a lifeguard must intervene if a swimmer is drowning, as their job entails ensuring safety. In the case of Pittwood, a railway gatekeeper (D) was charged with manslaughter after failing to close a gate, leading to a fatal accident. The duty arises not solely from the contract but from the expectation that comes with it; the public relies on D to fulfill these responsibilities. This reliance creates a duty to act, similar to situations where someone voluntarily assumes responsibility, even without a formal contract.
    - - The concept of a "special relationship" that creates a duty to act can be either professional, such as the duty a doctor owes to their patients, or familial, where parents are obligated to care for their young children and married couples must support each other. In the case of Downes, a parent was convicted of manslaughter for failing to seek medical help for his sick child due to his religious beliefs.
      - However, the definition of which relationships entail this duty is not clear-cut. While there is some indication that the duty may extend to siblings, this has not been confirmed for half-siblings. Historically, it was thought that strong blood or marriage ties generated a legal duty to preserve life, as seen in the US case People v Beardsley, which distinguished between duties owed to a spouse versus a non-marital partner.
      - Currently, the rationale for imposing such duties is based on the interdependence that arises from shared family life rather than merely on blood or marriage ties. The duration and circumstances under which this duty exists remain ambiguous, as illustrated by the ruling in Shepherd, which stated that parents do not owe a duty to their fully emancipated children over 18. Additionally, the question of duty among relatives is more about dependence than familial ties, leading to complexities in determining the extent of these duties, which have not been fully addressed by the courts.
    - - A failure to act can constitute a criminal offence, as seen in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which penalizes the failure to provide for a child, regardless of whether further harm occurs. Similarly, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 mandates employers to maintain a safe working environment, with specific penalties for breaches. Recently, new statutory offences have emerged, categorized by Ashworth into three types: failure to report, failure to prevent, and failure to protect. These offences reflect a shift from the common law presumption against omissions liability, creating new responsibilities related to serious misconduct, such as money laundering and terrorism.
      - However, these new omissions offences are selectively applied and do not stem from a comprehensive evaluation of the need for such laws. Ashworth critiques the appropriateness of using criminal law to influence corporate culture and questions whether the severity of failing to act justifies criminalization over regulatory measures. Additionally, breaches of statutory duties do not always meet the criteria for further criminal liability if harm results, as illustrated in the case of Lowe, where an omission did not satisfy the requirements for manslaughter. The courts maintain a distinction between acts of omission and commission, suggesting that positive acts are viewed as more culpable than omissions.
    - - A duty to act arises when a person's previous conduct has created or contributed to a dangerous situation, obligating them to prevent harm to others. This principle is illustrated in the case of R. v Miller (1983), where the defendant, after inadvertently starting a fire by dropping a lit cigarette, failed to act upon realizing the danger. The court held that once he became aware of the smoldering mattress, he had a duty to take action to prevent further damage, leading to his conviction for arson.
      - Lord Diplock emphasized that individuals should be held criminally liable for failing to act against dangers they have created, regardless of when they become aware of the risk, as long as they have the ability to mitigate the damage. The court's reasoning suggests that a continuous course of conduct can constitute the actus reus for an offense if the defendant's state of mind at any point reflects recklessness regarding potential damage.
      - In R. v Evans (2009), the court ruled that a duty to act can arise even without a familial relationship if a person has created a life-threatening situation. The defendant, who supplied drugs to her half-sister, was found to have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure her safety once she recognized the risks associated with the drugs. The court clarified that the duty to act is contingent upon the defendant's awareness of the dangerous situation, reinforcing that negligence can establish both a duty to act and liability for resulting harm.
      - Overall, the duty to act is established when a person realizes their actions have created a dangerous situation, and they must take reasonable steps to prevent harm, regardless of their initial intent or awareness of the danger