英语论文网

t of a continuing act. [8]

Where, as in the case cited above, the offences are an omission but the legality of criminalizing offence of omission sometimes should be something done with intent and not unintentional. Fagan action was not premeditated; it was not a voluntary action and morally could be argued in layman term not to be an omission but in English law as per Bridge J, it was held that the mens rea was present during the continuing act, and he was liable for a criminal offence. Glanville Williams [9] commented on the decision in Fagan's case [10] , as sensible on its facts but opposed the concurrence of act and intent on which the decision was founded.

'Problem arise when the offences requires proof of a result as for example, in homicide and other offences against the person. J.F Stephen stated the rule for these offences as follows: 'It is not a crime to cause death or bodily injury, even intentionally, by any omission'a€|. [11]

He gave the following famous illustration:

'A see 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 when on to state exceptional cases where the law imposes a duty to act; if A in the example were B's parent, A would have a duty to act and would be guilty of murder if he did not act and the child drowned'. However, if the child were drowning in a violent sea, it would be dangerous to act in such circumstances. The reasonable option is to look for help and when A refuses to look for help intentionally, he would be held liable for a criminal offence.

Liability for omissions could sometimes affect a duty to act and interferes with individual autonomy. Such was the House of Lords decision in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland. [12] The patient was suffering from brain damage and need to be kept alive by means of a naso- gastric feeding tube.

The House of Lord concluded that it was an omission. 'It was held that removal of the feeding tube to provide artificial feeding and the ceasing of the existing routine of artificial feeding constituted positive acts of commission: on the contrary it is by definition an omission to do what had previously been done'. [13] The major analytical headache is that the same course of conduct would be a positive act if undertaking by a stranger, but an omission if perpetrated by an appropriate medical officer. [14]

A crime can be committed by omission, but there can be no omission in law in the absence of a duty to act, if there is an act, someone acts; but if there is an omission, everyone [in a sense] omits. [15] For the purpose of justification, it could be argued that a duty to omit would be needed to establish an omission. Court approach to criminal liability needs to be viable, comparing the approach to the decision of the court in the case of R v Prince. [16] In this case the prisoner was indicted under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 55, now s. 20 of the sexual offence Act {1956} unlawfully taking an unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession and against the will of her father. And, according to the statement of the case, she told the prisoner she was eighteen.

In the case of Prince, he possessed the mens rea in relation to every element of the offence save that she was under 16 years. The Ho