A Comprehensive Report on the Law of Omission within Criminal Law

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the law of omission within the context of criminal law. It begins with an introduction to contract law and criminal law, defining the scope and nature of each. The report then focuses on the act of omission, explaining its significance in criminal law and how it relates to actus reus. It details various conditions and liabilities associated with omission, including duties arising from created dangers, failure to provide medical treatment, and contractual obligations. The report includes case studies such as A v Miller, R v Pittwood, R v Stone and Dobinson, and R v Dytham to illustrate key concepts. A case scenario involving drug use and negligence is analyzed to demonstrate the application of the law of omission and duty of care. The conclusion summarizes the key findings, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling duties and the consequences of omission. Finally, the report provides a list of references including books and journals used for research.

Contract Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
TASK ..............................................................................................................................................3
Law of omission in criminal law.................................................................................................3
Case scenario...............................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Contract laws the laws that has been formed in order to make sure that parties coming to
contract follows proper regulation in relation over it. Criminal laws are the laws which deals over
those kind of activities that makes crime controlled within a society. These laws provides a
framework over punishing of criminals within society. Under it body of law is related over
crime. Such laws covers about threatening, harmful or endangering activities which makes
damaged caused over health safety, property and moral welfare within society. Criminal laws
covers crime like murder , grievous hurt and harassment. Scope of criminal laws are wider as
they cover various aspects which makes crimes reduced within an organization. Nature is
dynamic as they have tendency to impact peace of an organization. In this file case study is given
based upon law of omission.
TASK
Law of omission in criminal law
An act of omission is that kind act within which an individual fails to perform duty
which requires followed by him. Act of omission makes is been done in relation over various
types of laws that exists within society. Under criminal law omission is covered within actus reus
and makes liability imposed upon duty for acting in relation to breach that has been done. In
criminal laws various kinds of liabilities exists which is imposed in relation over omission.
Under this various condition exists which has been explained as follows:
Duty to act when the defendant has created the danger
As per the situation an person makes dangerous situation for which reasonable situation
takes place. For example in case of A v Viller within which defendant was sleeping rough within
a building. While he was sleeping his cigarette was burning and as he woke up he found
mattresses to be on fire. He did not call for help but moved into another room. This made fire
spread in whole room. Later he was convicted for Criminal Damage Act 1971 for causing
damage through omission (Miller and et. al. 2019).
Failure to provide medical treatment
Under general terms of omission doctor and hospitals is having duty for providing care to
its patients and omission of such duty causes breach of duty of providing special treatment. If
breach is done then duty is been refuse over consent. Under such kind of omission an person or

individual's right of getting treatment is violated. Also it can lead over causing death of person.
Society’s interest is in upholding the concept that all human life is sacred and should be
preserved if at all possible. The omission is deal under various acts that are (Adult: Refusal of
Treatment1994 and Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment 2002. Both the act commits about
general capacity which makes understanding of nature and life saving procedures is been used .
Further the omission covers about two important things which are as follows:
(a) the person is unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, especially as to
the likely consequences of having or not having the treatment; or
(b) the patient is unable to use the information and weigh it in the balance as part of the process
of arriving at a decision
Duty to act when contracted to do so
This mainly been defines under the case of R v Pittwood in this defendant was convicted
for negligence and manslaughter. Under the case defendant didn't take care of the crossing which
he was bound to do. It resulted in causing train collapse with the cart. So, court held that "a man
might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract. It means that criminal liability
has accrued due to act of omission then person should take care that penalty is been paid by him
and also he goes to imprisonment (Montani and et. al. 2019).
Under criminal law there is one main element which makes crime to be caused that is
actus reus. In this omission of an act is been done which causes result in making crime
conducted. It is considered as crime when omission is done. For example an person taking oath is
lying and has omitted some important line. This amounts to actus reus of perjury. Also there are
various other example of this which is Perjury, theft, murder and grievous hurt. In this it doses
not matter that lie is believed to have any affect or nit within the case. Merely proving tat
omission is done holds act of actus reus proved.
In this actus reus is related for resulting within the act of omission over defendant. In this
conduct itself cannot be criminal but has caused criminal conduct the it is considered as
omission only. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it
could amount to a crime. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
The general rule of omission is amount to crime only when liability is there regarding
failure of an act. This can be understood through example in this it can be seen child drowning
within shallow water and nothing is done for saving him. In this condition criminal liability is

incurred. Despite of circumstances and there are various exception that has been given as
follows:
1. Statutory duty: In some situations there is a statutory duty to act. Eg to provide details of
insurance after a traffic accident or to notify DVLA when you sell a vehicle.
2. Contractual duty: If a person owes a contractual duty to act, then a failure to meet this
contractual duty may result in criminal liability:
3. Duty imposed by law: An actus reus is been committed through an omission within which
duty has been imposed by law. Under this three situation is covered within which duty should be
applied by law. These lawful obligation is related over creating dangerous situation within which
assumption over responsibility over misconduct is made within public. Then it can be clasiified
as per the act committed (Spies, 2019).
Case laws:
R V Stone and Dobinson
In the case Ted stone was a 67 year old person and was totally blind, partially def and
does not have appreciable sense of smelling. Also possessed low intelligence. Further
housekeeper is living for 8 years. Then Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 was infection affected
and inadequate. Ted's sisiter Fanny was living with him and has also lived in previous house. She
has been suffering form mental problems and with neural medical condition. Both Ted and
Gwendolyn was looking after her. Still condition of Fanny did not improved and was found dead
on her ned by applying condition. Court held that Stone and Dobinson were held liable over
death as it was been assumed that responsibility by them has not been followed. Also they did
not ensure that proper medical facilities is given to them.
R v Dytham
In this case defendant is an police officer and he stood by bouncer which caused death
through kick. For it only police was charged with offence over miscount within public office.
Also the offence could be committed through making omission which is required under special
misconduct. Further court held that offence of misconduct within public offence is related to
omission and in this conviction can be held.

Case scenario
In this case there are three cousins are there Stuart uses heroin. He one day visits Paul
who also takes drugs. They both took injection of the same drug which was purchased by Paul
with his friend Jack. Then Paul and Sturat injected each other voluntarily. Jack watches both men
but does not partake in the drug taking himself as he is certain it is dodgy stuff. After taking the
drug within short time both of them fall ill and Stuart collapsed. The other two cousins got panic
and went out to get help. In order to get help jack was stopping car but it did not stopped. Then
June an off duty nurse notices them. As jack got hospitalized finally Dr green gave him an
antibiotic and he is allergic to those and dies next morning. Paul survived his treatment but did
not tell about Stuart to anyone. He come back to his flat and noticed that Stuart has died but
postmortem says that he can be saved if treated on time (Yi and et. al. 2017).
So, from the above case scenario it can be observed that act of omission has been done in
relation ton duty of care and actus mens ra has been conducted. In the case doctor should have
asked Jack about allergy of this kind or should have tested his blood with it. Further in another
scenario it can be concluded that criminal liability is there over Jack as he did not told about
Stuart to anyone. His omission of duty of care caused death of Stuart.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion it can be concluded that act of omission is the act which is
been done in relation over not completing the act in proper manner. Further the file situations is
covered related to the act of omission. Also it has been told that how crime is related to act of
omission case laws has been covered in relation to this. In the end case scenario has been
explained with omission act.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Boselie and et. al. 2018. Comparing performance management across contexts. In Handbook of
Research on Comparative Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bringezu, S. and Bleischwitz, R. eds., 2017. Sustainable resource management: global trends,
visions and policies. Routledge.
Eyoun and et. al. 2020. The relationship between purpose of performance appraisal and
psychological contract: Generational differences as a moderator. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 86, p.102449.
Hao and et. al. 2018. Data-driven resource management in a 5G wearable network using network
slicing technology. IEEE Sensors Journal, 19(19), pp.8379-8386.
Jana, N.C. and Tarafder, S., 2020. Trend and Pattern of Infant Mortality in West Bengal, India: A
Critical Appraisal. In Population Dynamics in Contemporary South Asia (pp. 111-131).
Springer, Singapore.
Miller and et. al. 2019. Social science in natural resource management systems. Routledge.
Montani and et. al. 2019. Appraisal of economic crisis, psychological distress, and work-unit
absenteeism: A 1-1-2 model. Journal of Business and Psychology, pp.1-12.
Spies, E., 2019. Being in Relation: A Critical Appraisal of Religious Diversity and Mission
Encounter in Madagascar. Journal of Africana religions, 7(1), pp.62-83.
Yi and et. al. 2017. Revenge exacerbates the effects of interpersonal problems on mentors’
emotional exhaustion and work‐family conflict: a self‐defeating perspective. Human
Resource Management, 56(5), pp.851-866.