Department of Law
Summative Coursework Cover Sheet
This form MUST be completed and submitted as the front page of any assessed coursework
submitted to the Department of Law (unless your module convenor has assigned another cover
sheet) – coursework without a suitable coursework cover may not be passed on to the correct
member of staff for marking.
Student ID: LAW5005
Module: Criminal law
Coursework Title: LAW5005
Word count 4511
By submitting this work you are agreeing to the statement below:
I hereby confirm that the submitted document represents my own work in all respects, except in
so far as is indicated either in the text or in the footnotes; and that I have acknowledged by
express reference any use of material derived in whole or in part from any other published
source.
Table of content
Q1 Omission liability and Duty to Act..............................................................2
Solution............................................................................................................2
The Evolution of Omissions Liability..............................................................3
Accountability for Omissions in Special Relations.........................................3
The legal barrier to establishing a General Duty to act................................4
Drawbacks of imposing General Duty to Act.................................................4
Relevant Case Laws......................................................................................4
Conclusion.....................................................................................................5
Q2 Fraud Act 2006...........................................................................................6
Solution............................................................................................................6
Fraud Act 2006..............................................................................................6
Possessing or making articles for use in fraud..............................................7
Strength and Limitation of this Act...............................................................7
Conclusion.....................................................................................................8
Q3....................................................................................................................8
Issue:.............................................................................................................8
Rules:............................................................................................................9
Application..................................................................................................10
Analysis:......................................................................................................10
Conclusion...................................................................................................11
Q4:.................................................................................................................12
Issue............................................................................................................12
Rule.............................................................................................................12
Application..................................................................................................13
Conclusion...................................................................................................15
References.....................................................................................................15
Q1 Omission liability and Duty to Act
“While the courts have gradually extended omissions liability, the law stops far short of imposing a general
duty to act. The prevailing approach is inadequate.”
Solution
Criminal omission can be explained by the argument that, where the two are equally damaging,
failure to perform a legal obligation which one can is it as if he is performing the conduct that he
cannot. Thus, there should be cause for the criminal omission.
On the topic of omissions responsibility around legal jurisprudence there has been much
discussion and furtherance made in defining the legal duty to act. For instance, it has been a
matter of great debate in the UK courts as to whether certain ‘duties to act’ are owed by
individuals to other individuals. Judicial interpretation has contributed to an ever-widening
inclusion of liability for omissions but there is no single standard or code of statutory measures
that prescribe an extensive responsibility to act. A lot of legal academics and practitioners have
defined this widely used strategy as being incomplete. We will look at what the current legal
position is and look at how omissions liability has evolved in the UK legal landscape, as well as
the advantages and disadvantages of a innovative Sens-house broad duty to act.
The Evolution of Omissions Liability
To understand how omissions liability developed in the UK, one must have a solid understanding
of both criminal and civil law principles. Historically, the law has placed a strong emphasis on
actions that cause harm or violate the rights of others. However, as society has become more
complex, so too has our grasp of the significance of omissions—the instances in which people
decide not to act when they are required to do so by law or morality. In the past, common law
concepts have established situations when omissions may lead to responsibility, such as the duty
of care due by professionals, caregivers, and people in positions of authority.
Accountability for Omissions in Special Relations
For example, there has been a raising of the stakes significantly in the case of omissions liability
within the sphere of special relations. The case of R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) is one of those
in which the courts decided that neglecting to feed a person to whom one is supposed to provide
such needs is a criminal act. This, later decisions support for; this basic principle asserts the
obligations on parents, guardians, or other caretakers for the welfare of the child or person in
their charge.
The legal barrier to establishing a General Duty to act
It is thus usual to complain about the current law of omissions liability as being based too
heavily on subjective decision as to the duties breached. It may be noted that unlike countries
such as France or Germany, the United Kingdom has not passed laws which article general
duties to intervene and provides aid; instead, the spending on omissions liability deviations has
been largely left to the courts to determine. This is because the law is now under enforcement in
a haphazard and capricious manner, it becomes complicated for the public to know their rights
and wrongs, when it is not easy for the court to maintain legal harmony.
In my opinion, the current approach to solving conflicts does not offer sufficient encouragement
for the sensible interpretation of justice regarding social justice and safeguarding the vulnerable.
There may be situations where individuals are legally allowed not to get involved or act, but this
does not mean they are meeting their moral requirements. This is so because in cases, several
people may be around, observing an incident that requires immediate assistance and everybody
expects the other person to act.
Drawbacks of imposing General Duty to Act
It is also desirable to note that the concept of general duty to act is not without controversies and
possible adverse effects. Legal duties are defended by such people who should not be forced into
anything that will impose on their discretion, time, or resources where they may lack the means,
knowledge, or experience to get things right. The other problem is relevant to such matters as a
culture of over policing and surveillance, which means individuals tend to report any
circumstances in question since they fear possible legal consequences.
Relevant Case Laws
1. R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918): This criminal court case set the benchmark for our
negligence and omission as criminally actionable. The two defendants were named as Proctor
and Gibbins whereby the latter was accused of starving his daughter who died due to lack of
feeds. They were convicted of murder when the court determined that a parent’s duty of care to a
child is mandatory, and refusal to perform this duty is criminal.
2. R v. Miller (1983): In this case the defendant was charged with the offense of arson after he
was unable to put out the cigarette which led to the mattress catching fire. Even though the
defendant must have realized the possibility of the car catching fire, he made no effort to douse
or extinguish the fire nor seek assistance. The reason why 1 the defendant was convicted of arson
was because the court stated that the defendant failed to take appropriate measures to extinguish
the fire, hence it was an act of omission.
3. Stone & Dobinson (1977): Her sister and her husband, and it is within the framework of this
case, were taking care of an old and sick woman. More to the point, although the woman suffers
from several illnesses and lives in squalor, the defendants never took her to receive adequate
medical care or even to see a doctor. Since they had violated their do uti in Manu when they
were supposed to be caregivers, the court found them of gross negligence manslaughter.
Conclusion
In the end, I would like to state that it can be stated that derivatives liability, notably, omissions
responsibility, are still being discussed and developed in the legal system of the United
Kingdom. However, courts have slowly been ascending culpability in specifi categories while
the law is not compelling interference in every case. Critics have alleged that the current
1
1. R v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
2. R v. Miller (1983)
3. Stone & Dobinson (1977)
approach lacks adequate measures, and thus they support a more affirmative and holistic model
that safeguards individuals and promotes equity. Besides implementing such concepts is always
advisable to evaluate the risks that come with it and the outcomes that may be expected. Finally,
maintaining the right balance of the social obligations of citizens and their civil liberties will
require constant conversation and engagement of the future from legal scholars, the legislative
and policy making body, and the population.
Q2 Fraud Act 2006
Initial concerns about the ambit and interpretation of the Fraud Act 2006 have largely proved unfounded. It
remains a model of criminal legislation which is fit for purpose.”
Solution
Fraud Act 2006
A key piece of legislation in the United Kingdom and encompasses a comprehensive approach of
fraud prevention. Ever since it was enacted there has been talk of where it applies, its proper use
and how efficient it is in its operation. I will argue whether the Fraud Act 2006 has been
effective within the UK legal system in achieving the purpose it was intended for through
analyzing changes in perception towards what this Act means and entails while in use.
The ambiguity lies within
Before implementing the Fraud Act of 2006, commentators expressed worries in the aspect of
the scope and practical definition of the legislation. Concerns with the Act’s language have been
raised as it is argued to be potentially sweeping far and wide and involve practices that are not
technical fraud. However, upon learning more, it has become apparent that these arguments are
without much merit. There has also been clarification of how the Act must be implemented and
used in various legal situations, and lighter judicial versions have helped to improve the
understanding of the Act and its parameters.
(Section 1)
The second aspect of assessment of the Fraud Act of 2006 is the definition of fraud contained
within it. Under the Section 1 of the Act, this type of fraud can be explained as a situation where
a person makes a false statement in the hope to deceive the other person or someone somewhere
else with the intention of gaining a benefit. This section focuses on acts that are designed to
solely bring in revenues and offers sufficient legal foundation for sanctioning such activities.
The Act also covers other species of fraud which in nature comprises of fraud by concealment of
relevant information (Section 3) and fraud which arises out of misuse of position of authority
(Section 4). These provisions relate to cases of fraud where the individuals concerned misuse
their standing or fail to disclose important information with an intention of benefiting
themselves, thus making the Act more potent in preventing fraud in various settings.
Possessing or making articles for use in fraud
Moreover, “possessing or making articles for use in fraud” is one of the new crimes under the act
added in Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006. This crime focuses anyone who deals in tools or
materials meant in the commission of fraudulent activities. This is because the Act has the
intention of discouraging people from indulging in such acts as well as preventing people from
promoting fraudulent practices by making it unlawful to have such products.
The Act also contains provisions regarding previous jurisdiction concerning fraud such as
scenarios of having more than one SCI. Section 12 explicitly establishes that offenses under the
Act do not matter whether the fraud occurred and profit or loss from it happened in UK or
elsewhere. Since fraud has become more prevalent in the contemporary world this section makes
it impossible for those involved in fraud or fraudsters to escape the law by betwixt and between
different international borders. Since its enactment, the Fraud Act of 2006 has been applied in
different types of fraudulent conduct ranging from common types of fraudulent behaviors in
financial contexts through complex fraud identities and frauds via computer systems.
Strength and Limitation of this Act
Like any other legislation, the Fraud Act of 2006 has its strengths and limitations though the
latter may be seen as a disadvantage. The obscurity of the Act and the difficulties surrounding
the burden of identifying whether the defendant had a fraudulent intention or not, especially for
those who may be unwell. Furthermore, there have been debates on whether the current system
of the sentencing range for the fraud offenses is suitable, and some have proposed that increased
sentencing should be an appropriate measure for the future offenders.
Thus, it is an unfortunate fact that the nature of technological and communication progression
itself becomes a perennial stumbling block for chasing and preventing frauds which makes
continuous learning and innovation contests in the legal sphere. Computer and Internet fraud
remains a complex risk that emerged as a threat in the age of digitalization and that requires
continued preventive actions to address new threats and weaknesses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been the research findings that subsequent events prove reasons for critics to
be apprehensive about the scope and interpretation of the Fraud Act of 2006 but far from proving
that it is a model of criminal law on the inept to achieve its intended purpose. Several sections of
the Act have been ascertained and implemented in various legal scenarios in defending and
untangling people and companies’ finance-related issues and supporting the charge of scams.
Despite the above stated complications and existing problems, the Fraud Act 2006 continues to
be a strong foundation of the UK legal system of curbing fraud mimicking the governments
standing on a perennial and adaptable unlawful malaise.
Q3
Case Involving Danielle and Barry
Before using IRAC I would like to mention the parties Involved in this case:
Danielle: The accused is a student who is going through a lot of financial pressure, and she can
go to any extent to pay his loans.
Barry: She is Daniel’s class fellow from whom she borrowed a lot of money and now she is
threatening and blackmailing her to kill her enemy to get rid of debts.
Issue:
The matter at issue relates to criminal proceedings against Danielle for restraining her from
further execution of the plot hatched together with Barry to harm Tom, her competitor-rival, and
Danielle coming to the site with a real-looking toy gun to shoot Tom.
Rules:
In the context of the UK criminal law, the defendants incur criminal responsibility through the
notion of actus reus, guilty behavior, and the guilty mentality, often referred as mens rea. Related
offenses are comparable also and as provided under the Criminal Attempts Act of 1981.
Actus Reus:
The actus reus is the physical act or behavior that has met some prescribed standard of jeopardy
to qualify as criminal conduct. Danielle engages in the following activities: 1. All Through
departments are to be established in accordance with this procedure, and the annual cumulative
organizational cost is projected to be 15,000 €, meaning that the total yearly cost of Through
departments will be 15,000 €. Barry: Tom’s time is up. Blaire created an excellent plan to get
back at Tom for destroying her portfolio.
2. Taking to the café where Tom was working, she was carrying what she thought was an actual
pistol.
3. She tripped and dropped the gun allowing her to be apprehended when she creates a scene.
Mens Rea:
Mens rea is a Latin term that refers to the accused’s state of mind when he committed the crime.
It might depend on the extent of the violation being committed. In Danielle's case, the relevant
mental elements are: In Danielle's case, the relevant mental elements are:
1. Intention: From the tone and the attitude that Danielle takes towards the plan Barry has
proposed, she has every intention of going through with the deed as prescribed in this plan by
harming Tom.
2. Knowledge: Here it is important to note that Danielle knowingly endorses the intended plan,
suggesting that she knows the dangers of the situation, be it in the form of Barry’s threats or
posing threat to Tom, and willingly agrees to take a gun.
Criminal Attempts:
As envisaged by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 on English law, if one possesses the individual
intention and takes a step more than preparing to perform the criminal act, the said person can be
prosecuted for the attempted criminal act. This also applies when the criminal has the intention to
execute the crime and even when the tactics involved do not produce the intended outcome.
Application
When applying the law to the particulars of Danielle's case: When applying the law to the
particulars of Danielle's case:
1. Danielle satisfies the psychological element because she willingly agreed to participate in the
plan that was set by Barry with the intention of inflicting harm on Tom.
2. She took what she thought was a real pistol to the café; this put her in a position that qualified
her as a would-be offender under the Criminal Attempts Act, making a progression towards
completion of the infraction.
3. Merely since Danielle believed that the pistol which she used was real when the incident
occurred, this should be sufficient to support criminal responsibility for attempting to maim
Tom, even if the gun was later found out to be toy.
4. Thus, even though Danielle’s stumble and pistol loss may not have been a part of the
conscious effort to contribute to the offense, they both played a part in the actus reus of the
offense because they assisted in the larger goal of the offense’s plan.
Analysis:
Actus reus, mens rea, Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and the element of classical crime are in
conjunction to analyze Danielle’s criminal responsibilities.
Indeed, Danielle ensures the mens rea criterion by confirming to the thought process of Barry’s
plan to harm Tom, thus meaning she had the intention to harm Tom. Her choices could likely
have been driven by her back breaking financial straits; she barely paid her bills and hoped to
feed off the proceeds from the payday lending deal with Barry. Nevertheless, with respect to the
law, one is rarely absolved for an unlawful act due to forces outside of the individual; she can
only plead that she was coerced to participate against her will.
Furthermore, the second scenario shows that Danielle got to the café with what she thought was
a real gun in her hand suggesting she was gearing up for the murder. That she was in a belief that
the gun was a real one at the time of the incident, which was just a toy, is vital in proving her
liability for the attempted damage to Tom. This clearly underlines why subjective belief is
paramount when deciding on intent because even if Danielle’s aims were not legally malicious,
she acted based on her indivisible belief that the gun she was pointing at was not real.
Thirdly, Danielle’s trip and the incident that followed mean that the actus reus of the offence is
affected even if Danielle did not intentionally misplace and lose the pistol. Her actions also
helped support the overall efforts to enact the plan which only made her more involved in the
unlawful venture. While determining criminal responsibility for Danielle, one should look at the
entire scenario that embraces her vulnerability, Barry’s addictiveness, and even possible harm to
Tom. Although these occurrences may partially redeem her for her sins, they do not exclude her
under the law from criminal charges.
Conclusion
However, Danielle could also be charged because she was attempting to contribute to Barry’s
plan to attack Tom. In this paper, her actions are analyzed in detail especially on the aspects of
actus reus and mens rea necessary according to UK law for criminal liability. Even though it did
not turn out to be a real pistol, her belief that it was a real pistol during the incidence is sufficient
along the line of attempt of an offense. Therefore, besides the offenses, Danielle could be legally
charged with attempting harm or conspiracy to cause harm in consideration of the circumstances
of the case.
Q4:
Case Involving Bella, Dr dexter, Max, Elfie and Duncan
Before using IRAC I would like to mention the parties Involved in this case:
Bella: Wife of Elfie, who was mentally challenged
Doctor Dexter: He killed a patient due to medical negligence
Duncan: Bella’s ex-lover, who died
Max: Dr Dexter’s assistant, who died
Elfie: Bella’s husband who died
Issue
The first case consideration is whether, as the counterparts of Alfie, Duncan, and Max, Bella and
Dr. Baxter are criminally liable in the UK for contributing to the tragic scenario.
Rule
A. Bella's Actions:
1. Bella Setting Alfie's Hair on Fire:
As UK law defines violence as a physical aggression that leads to the death of the aggressor’s
loved one, then Bella is a violent person due to causing the death of Alfie. Preliminary
investigations might lead to her arrest for murder, but she could also be charged with
manslaughter in some cases.
2. Bella assaulted Max:
The incident in the novel where Bella attacked Max could be assault, manslaughter, or murder
depending on the circumstances and the psychological state that Bella was in.
B. Dr. Baxter's Actions:
1. Medical negligence:
I would like to point that under the current UK law, Dr. Baxter could ultimately be charged for
gross negligence manslaughter if the information he had as well as his failure to recognize
swelling in Duncan’s brain could be viewed as failing to meet the level of care that a reasonable
neurosurgeon is expected to exercise in similar conditions.
Application
A. Bella's Actions:
1. Setting Alfie's Hair on fire
Bella, being Malcolm’s lover, wanted to cause violence, so she lit Alfie’s hair on fire. But the
correct charge should be based on the current state of her emotions or feelings. This explains
why Bella has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, thus she may not easily grasp all the
ramifications of his/her actions hence may not be accountable. Still, it is possible to find some
guilt a bit, she had been married to him for years and was obviously unhappy, she wanted to hurt
Alfie on purpose.
2. Max gets assaulted:
Such is the case when, as soon as Bella found out that Alfie and Duncan were dead, she attacked
Max in a jealous frenzy or desperation. It can deduce that her paranoid schizophrenia may have
distorted her perception of the goal of Max, which could mean that it has impacted on her guilt.
However, as she did the deed leading to Max’s death, she could be charged with murder or
manslaughter.
B. Dr. Baxter's Actions:
1. Medical negligence:
Here, Dr. Baxter failed to observe that Duncan’s brain was swollen, and such a mistake was
unbecoming of a neurosurgeon, implying that he was careless and failed in his duty of care.
Obviously, his efforts to work 48 hours (about 2 days) a day may be questionable due to fatigue
as well as leading to bad judgment, this is not a valid excuse to justify his actions. Given the fact
that due to his failure, which led to the rugby incident, Duncan might be charged with gross
negligence manslaughter.
Analysis
Bella's Case:
Exploring Bella situation raises so many ethical questions and legal analysis. Food and drink
must first be ingested to poison them and so her deliberate act of burning Alfie’s hair shows her
willingness and capable of causing harm, a requirement needed to be prosecuted for murder.
Nonetheless, Bella’s marital discontent before the night with Abbey as well as the events
following it, possibly fueled by paranoid schizophrenia, made the determination of her blame
ambiguous. Another devastating disorder, still not fully understood by the modern medicine, is
Paranoid schizophrenia – a mental disorder that can cause severe changes in the perception of
reality and a decrease in the personal ability to recognize the outcome of one’s actions. It can
only be assumed that community obsession with violence and obsession by a woman who thinks
that her husband and boyfriend are plotting against her led her to decide to kill in revenge.
Dr. Baxter’ Case:
Again, the issues of medical negligence and professional liability arise because of the actions of
Dr. Baxter. Yet, as a neurosurgery, he could not fail to offer it to each one of his patients
including Duncan. He failed in this duty by not observing or explaining how Duncan’s brain was
enlarging during the process but leading to his death. Therefore, I would argue that the degree of
guilt that Dr. Baxter is going to deserve depends on the conditions that led to it. He may not have
even seen the edema because being awake and active for 48 hours (about 2 days) might likely
affect a person's decision-making abilities and focus. In other words, the idea of fatigue might
not suffice to exonerate him of blame all by itself. Gross negligence manslaughter, according to
UK law, means any failure to meet a serious duty equivalent to gross negligence if it results to
death. Due to this, it could be possible that since Dr. Baxter could not even see the swelling due
to his fatigue, this must have satisfied this requirement. However, in relation to this, the
prosecution would have been required to prove that he failed in what any reasonable
neurosurgeon could have done.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as both Bella and Dr. Baxter participated in regrettable events, we can state that
they may be prosecuted for criminal beating. However, there is a possibility that the result of the
trial for Bella could be different since the presence of paranoid schizophrenia is evident in her
state of mind, it is vital to consider the possibility of either manslaughter or murder charges due
to her deliberate actions that led to the violent act and resulted in deaths. Dr. Baxter could be
charged with gross negligence manslaughter given that he was reckless when handling Duncan’s
illness and did not diagnose the enlargement of his brain as the cause of his death. The specific
allegations and the penalties that would ensue would have to be determined during the
investigation and through trial.
References
Duttwiler, M. (2006). Liability for omission in international criminal law. International criminal
law review, 6(1), 1-61.
Elliott, T., & Ormerod, D. (2008). Acts and Omissions-A Distinction without a Defense.
Cambrian L. Rev., 39, 40.
Cornford, T. (2019). The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities for Omissions. The
Cambridge Law Journal, 78(3), 545-569.
Monaghan, C. (2018). A critical commentary on the Fraud Act 2006. Financial Crime and
Corporate Misconduct, 1-13.
Goldberg, R. (2012). Medical Malpractice and Compensation in the UK. Chicago-Kent Law
Review, 87(1), 131-161.
McCutcheon, J. P. (1984). Criminal liability and the duty to remove danger. Irish Jurist (1966-),
19(1), 91-100.
Cobb, N. (2010). Re-Reading Criminal Law through a Feminist Lens: R v Stone and Dobinson.
Inter Alia, 80.
Hendel, R. A. (1966). Criminal Law-Murder-Proof of Malice. Biddle v. Commonwealth, 206 Va.
14 (1965). William & Mary Law Review, 7(2), 399.
Several, U. K. (2012). Law, ethics, and the duty of care. BMJ, 345, 29.
Power, H. (2003). Towards a Redefinition of the Mens Rea of Rape. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies, 23(3), 379-404.
Ashworth, A. (2023). Reassessing actus reus. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev., 54, 17.
Cross, N. (2023). Criminal justice, actus reus and mens rea. In Forensic Psychology, Crime and
Policing (pp. 108-113). Policy Press
