R V Dytham Essay

In the majority of the criminal cases there are two elements involved, firstly is called the mens rea which is the intention to commit an offence and this often refers to the thought process of the defendant, there is also the actus rea which relates to the act that has been physically committed by the offender. An Omission, on the other hand is to be found guilty of a crime when the defendant has committed the actus reus of an offence and will subsequently be convicted of this crime by failing to act. In the laws of England and Wales there are no specifics that describe punishment for omission, The general rule for omissions is that “An omission, without a duty, will not create an offence”, however, other countries such as France govern Omission

In English and Welsh law a person may be liable for failing to act when they are governed by statutory duty, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 170 if a person(s) is involved in a car accident the driver must stop the vehicle, report the incident and provide their drivers information and address to the relevant parties, failure to do so could result in the individual being prosecuted. Public Office holders also maintain a legal duty to act. A police officer may be guilty of omission when they knowingly neglect to act when they bare witness to an incident without legitimate justification. This was the case in R v Dytham (1979) a police officer was a witness to an attack outside a nightclub but did not intervene as his duty requires him to do so, this case was Held that the defence was guilty under the common law offence of misconduct in a public office.

He discredits Ashworth’s statement about the moral contrasting difference between acts and omissions, however, he does say that he can see situations that omissions can be as bad as acts and goes on to describe a situation of a parent starving their baby. William’s view is that the resources of the law should not be focussed on “the lethargic” as instead law enforcement agencies should continue with the current law and maintain the prevention of people who actively cause harm to others. M. Moore is also in favour of the current legislation, he believes that the same consequences would take place regardless of the defendant’s