Essay Plan: ‘The criminal law should not coerce people into helping each other. English criminal law is therefore right to restrict omissions liability to situations where failing to act involves directly harming another person.’ Discuss.

Essay Plan: ‘The criminal law should not coerce people into helping each other. English criminal law is therefore right to restrict omissions liability to situations where failing to act involves directly harming another person.’ Discuss.

Introduction

• Key Questions:

◦ Should criminal law coerce individuals into helping others?

◦ Is it appropriate to restrict omissions liability to cases where failure to act directly harms another person?

• Focus:

◦ Analyse current legal principles governing omissions in English law.

◦ Explore ethical considerations regarding the imposition of legal duties.

Paragraph 1: Outline of Omission Liability in England and Wales

• Overview:

◦ Omissions liability is limited to specific situations.

◦ General principle: No legal obligation to intervene to prevent harm unless a duty exists.

• Key Examples:

◦ Contractual Duty: E.g., R v Pittwood – failure to fulfil a contractual obligation leading to harm.

◦ Duty Imposed by Law: Statutory or common law duties that create a requirement to act.

• Ethical Perspective:

◦ Steven Heyman’s Justification: Penalising omissions can be justified when societal harm is at stake.

Paragraph 2: The Extent of Omissions Liability

• Degree of Restriction:

◦ Explore whether English law truly restricts omissions liability to direct harm.

◦ Borderline Cases: How close are we to imposing general liability?

◦ Duty Imposed by Law: Instances where the law mandates action (e.g., duty to care for a child, statutory duties).

◦ Case Law: Discuss cases that define the boundaries of omissions liability.

Paragraph 3: Ethical and Comparative Perspectives

• Critique:

◦ Pat Smith’s Argument: Omissions liability should be broader to encourage a more compassionate society.

• Counterpoint:

◦ Joe Ellin’s View: Caution against overextension; preserving individual liberty is crucial.

• Good Samaritan Laws:

◦ Compare with jurisdictions that impose a duty to rescue or assist.

◦ R v Broughton: Case highlighting the need for careful balance in enforcing such duties.

• Reasonable Foreseeability:

◦ Argue that general liability should only be imposed in reasonably foreseeable situations.

Paragraph 4: Continuing Acts and Narrow Extensions

• Continuing Acts Doctrine:

◦ Discuss how English law narrowly extends liability to situations involving continuing acts (e.g., Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner).

◦ Narrow Extension: Justified where failure to act would perpetuate ongoing harm.

◦ Limiting Scope: Prevents an undue burden on individuals to constantly act for the benefit of others.

Conclusion

• Summarise:

◦ English criminal law is cautious in imposing omissions liability, focusing on direct harm.

◦ This restriction reflects a balance between protecting societal interests and preserving individual autonomy.

• Final Thoughts:

◦ The current framework is appropriate, but ongoing debates highlight the need for careful consideration of when and how omissions liability should be applied.