Criminal Law: Should There Be a Duty to Rescue in England?

This essay delves into the complexities of criminal law concerning omissions, specifically addressing the question of whether a duty to rescue should exist in England. The paper examines the current legal framework, highlighting instances where individuals can be held responsible for failing to act, such as in cases of special responsibility, contractual obligations, and the creation of dangerous situations. It explores landmark cases like R v Miller and R v Stone & Dobinson to illustrate the courts' approach to omissions. The essay discusses the challenges associated with imposing a general duty to rescue, weighing the ethical considerations against potential legal ramifications. It also considers statutory provisions and the evolution of legal interpretations, ultimately analyzing the balance between individual responsibility and societal expectations within the context of criminal law.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Introduction
The omission of any particular individual is normally not criminalized as per the criminal
law of England or Wales, subject to instances of special responsibility, contractual responsibility,
and the creation of any kind of dangerous instance. It may be said that the jurisdiction of other
nations have adopted the common statutory responsibility to rescue. An example of such
statutory responsibility is section 63 as mentioned in French Penal Code1, which provides a
responsibility to rescue in the absence of any type of risk in relation to any specific individual.
However, it has not been acknowledged by the English law that any particular individual has any
kind of responsibility to help strangers in any situation of danger or peril. This paper shall
forward a discussion relating to the fact that whether there should exist any such responsibility in
connection to the citizens in England and what may be the challenges in relation to the imposing
of such responsibility.
Discussion
Responsibility or accountability in relation to omissions has been present since a long
time. It may be related to a pre-existing responsibility, which may be created between two
involved parties. For instance in the case of R v Miller [1983] 2 WLR 5392, it has been stated that
if a situation arises in which any individual inadvertently and unintentionally generates a small
and trifling fire in flat, then that particular individual shall be obligated to take rational and
practical steps to extinguish the fire, or to call for assistance and help. There is a special
responsibility between children and parents. If any parent omits to rescue their child from
drowning shall lead to criminal accountability, because it is supposed and considered that a
1 French Penal Code, 1810.
2 R v Miller [1983] 2 WLR 539.

2CRIMINAL LAW
parent willingly assumes and accepts responsibility to guarantee the security and safety of their
child. Other responsibilities may be incidental to contractual obligations. Hence, when any
particular individual, who is engaged to ensure the safety of individuals when crossing a railway
line, shall be held to be criminally negligent if he forsakes his post.
Initially, the courts were reluctant to levy any kind of accountability due to omissions by
individuals. The case of R v Smith (1869) 11 Cox CC 2103 should be considered to be an
important case concerning omission to act by persons. In this case, a watchman, who was hired
by a particular railway corporation, was on a break from his responsibilities, and during the time
when the watchman was on his break, an individual was exterminated by an approaching train. It
was held that although an omission may establish an action relating to murder, it may be said that
there was not any kind of statutory responsibility of the railway to afford and make available a
watchman, hence, there may not be any kind of criminal accountability. However, after a time
period of thirty years, a different approach was adopted and accepted by the court relating to
similar facts, in the case named R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 374. In this particular case, a
gatekeeper, who was hired by a railway service in county of Somerset, carelessly and
neglectfully forgot about closing a gate. This negligent act permitted the admission of vehicles
towards a railway line when went for lunch. It was found that in spite of the fact that his
employment was a private employment, he had made substantial contribution in relation to the
ensuing accident, because he opened the gate, and afterwards failed to close the gate. The
reasoning that has been utilized by the judges in this particular case may be considered to be
problematic and tricky in instituting accountability for omissions. The position of Wright LJ in
this case was that the misfeasance of the watchman subsidized the accident, and such reasoning
3 R v Smith (1869) 11 Cox CC 210.
4 R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37.

3CRIMINAL LAW
would propose that the opening of gate by the gatekeeper was criminalized, instead of the failure
of the gatekeeper to shut the gate. According to John Smith, the decision, forwarded in the
aforementioned case, demonstrates the general disinclination and unwillingness of the courts of
England to directly mention that any omission may be considered to be criminal, and the judges
have stated on several occasions that the efforts to differentiate regarding omissions and acts are
unhelpful, unaccommodating and perhaps risky or dangerous5.
A recent and contemporary acknowledgement by the ‘House of Lords’ in relation to the
fact that a failure or miscarriage to perform an action may lead to criminal accountability, has
been established in the case of R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 1616. In this specific case, a squatter, who
occupied a house, unintentionally fell asleep while he was smoking cigarette. This led to a minor
fire, which started on his cushion. Instead of putting out that minor fire, he moved himself into a
neighboring room, and over there he again fell asleep, which led to the entire house catching the
fire. A suit was filed against the defendant for arson, as per the Criminal Damage Act enforced in
the year of 19717. The defendant filed an appeal that was dismissed. It may be recommended that
the standards and principles that are provided in the aforementioned case would be most
probably applicable in connection to any particular situation where any individual negligently
generated a risk or danger, failed to give effect to any steps that may be reasonable and necessary
in order to avoid causing damage and harm to others.
Several instances exist regarding which a responsibility to perform action may be levied
by the courts that usually results from any contractual responsibility or pre-existing relation.
According to Ormerod, regardless of the unwillingness and disinclination of the English criminal
5 Siddiqui, Usmaan. Guilty of doing…... nothing: should there be criminal liability for failure to rescue strangers in
England and Wales?. Diss. University of Nottingham, 2019.
6 R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161.
7 Criminal Damage Act, 1971.

4CRIMINAL LAW
law from levying accountability due to omissions, there are several statutes that establish
criminal offences regarding a failure to assume a specific act. There are also other statutes, which
are construed to levy accountability in relation to a failure to perform action8.
Firstly, it may be said that it is a known fact that a parent has a responsibility in relation
to his or her child for ensuring that child does not go through any kind of unreasonable and
irrational damage regarding safety or health. Therefore, if any parent omits to nourish, maintain
or adequately care for his or her child, then that parent shall face criminal ramifications and
consequences for the following injury or death. A particular case in relation to the
aforementioned instance is R v Gibbins & Proctor (1919) 13 Cr App R 1349. In this case, it was
ruled by the court that it was so obvious that no authority or analysis was required, and the court
upheld the convictions relating to murder of child by the parents because of starvation. After the
aforementioned case, the Children and Young Persons Act of the year 1933 was passed that
made any negligence in relation to a child, which may possibly result in risk or injury, a criminal
offence. In the case of R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 35410, it was stated that any conviction
relating to murder or manslaughter may ascend if any parent has committed any intentional act
or any gross negligence in taking adequate care of his or her child. In the case of R v
Hood [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 7311, spousal responsibility was established when the conviction
relating to gross negligence manslaughter was upheld by court because the husband was not
successful in summoning proper medical attention regarding his ailing wife. Secondly, where a
contract exists according to which an individual must perform certain obligations, in such a case
any failure to perform such obligation shall lead to criminal accountability. The standard of
8 Todd, Lucy, et al. "Should the laws on involuntary manslaughter in England and Wales be reformed?." The
Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research 1.1 (2019): 65-73.
9 R v Gibbins & Proctor (1919) 13 Cr App R 134.
10 R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 354.
11 R v Hood [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 73.

5CRIMINAL LAW
accountability resulting from any mutual agreement ascended from the judgment forwarded in
the case of R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 45012. In this case, a woman was held accountable for
manslaughter, when she failed to call for medical attention regarding her aunt, who supported the
maintenance of both. The decision forwarded proposed that an implied contract relating to
mutual benefit was present that may infer a responsibility in connection to the defendant to
perform an action. Thirdly, an individual shall be held accountable for omission where a
dangerous situation is created that may reasonably and practicably put other individuals at risk. If
any particular individual is aware regarding the creation of the risk, then that individual is
obligated to avoid the harm. In the case of, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 1
QB 43913, it was stated that a man was held accountable for unintentionally driving onto a foot of
a policeman.
However, it may be said that the essential unfairness and wrongness relating to the kind
of statute as discussed above, is that if any private citizen, who is untrained in relation to first aid
unlike a doctor, and who offers help during an emergency, might be held legally responsible in
connection to his actions. It can be said that the contemporary law is unfair and inconsistent in
relation to the best ethical thoughts of the society. On one hand, the citizen is taught and trained
to consider for other beings and show love towards another fellow individual, however, if he
performs actions as per the teachings, then he might be penalized by that particular society,
which proliferates them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be said that the effect of levying such obligation to act to care for
others, as discussed above, must be weighed and balanced in an adequate manner. This paper has
12 R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
13 Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 1 QB 439.

6CRIMINAL LAW
discussed that whether there should exist any such responsibility in connection to the citizens in
England and what may be the challenges in relation to the imposing of such responsibility.

7CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography
Criminal Damage Act, 1971.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 1 QB 439.
French Penal Code, 1810.
R v Gibbins & Proctor (1919) 13 Cr App R 134.
R v Hood [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 73.
R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450.
R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161.
R v Miller [1983] 2 WLR 539.
R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37.
R v Smith (1869) 11 Cox CC 210.
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] QB 354.
Siddiqui, Usmaan. Guilty of doing…... nothing: should there be criminal liability for failure to
rescue strangers in England and Wales?. Diss. University of Nottingham, 2019.
Todd, Lucy, et al. "Should the laws on involuntary manslaughter in England and Wales be
reformed?." The Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research 1.1 (2019):
65-73.