'Under What Circumstances May a Person Be Criminally Liable for a Failure to Act?\r'

' worldwide principleThere is no general obligation for failure to work out below the common law of England and Wales. A offense ass be committed by slackness, provided there dirty dog be no omission in law in the absence of a responsibleness to act. The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant essential be proved to remove committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty differentiate of mind. The physical elements are collectively called the actus reus and the accompanied psychic state is called the mens rea.Liability for omissionsThe general rule is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to act the defendant was under a legal barter to recognise convinced(p) action. ‘’Unless a mandate specifically so provides, or ….the common law impose a job upon a person to act in a particular way towards another… a unpolluted omission to act cannot lead to criminal liabil ity’’.(R Vs Miller[1983]1 All ER 978.) A positive duty to act exists in the following circumstances:(a)Duty arising from statute Liability for failing to act will be imposed where the defendant can be shown to have been under a statutory duty to take positive action. A leading example of such a case is provided by the electric razorren and Young Persons playact 1933, which creates the offence of wilfully neglecting a child. Hence by simply failing to provide food for the child or failing to obtain appropriate medical examination care a parent could be held criminally liable for any harm that results. (Greener Vs DPP[1996] The Times, Feb. 15,1996).(b)Duty arising from a ContractWhere a person is under a positive duty to act because of his obligations under a contract, his failure to work out the contractual duty in question can form the basis of criminal liability. (R Vs Pittwood [1902] 19 TLR 37).\r\n'