|
Saw a program ("Without a Trace") last night, which prompted a query.
The plot involved a girl who went missing in 1998. The investigating
team homed in on a married guy "A" who was having an affair with her,
and eventually got him to confess to her murder (he couldn't remember a
crucial timespan as he was drunk). He was jailed for "25-life". They
never found the body.
Because the investigators were sure he was their man, they didn't get
round to interviewing all her college friends.
7 years later, they re-investigate, and turn up a college friend "B",
who was with her the night she disappeared. Turned out he had tried it
on, she ran, and slipped and fell down a cliff.
Obviously this completely exonerated the jailed guy.
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
Would "A" have any civil claim against "B" ? I imagine "A" would have a
claim against the police for bungling the investigation, and would
recieve compensation
|
| |
| |
Saw a program ("Without a Trace") last night, which prompted a query.
The plot involved a girl who went missing in 1998. The investigating
team homed in on a married guy "A" who was having an affair with her,
and eventually got him to confess to her murder (he couldn't remember a
crucial timespan as he was drunk). He was jailed for "25-life". They
never found the body.
Because the investigators were sure he was their man, they didn't get
round to interviewing all her college friends.
7 years later, they re-investigate, and turn up a college friend "B",
who was with her the night she disappeared. Turned out he had tried it
on, she ran, and slipped and fell down a cliff.
Obviously this completely exonerated the jailed guy.
Not necessarily. If she slips and falls while he is pursuing her, it could
be manslaughter.
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
Not that I can see.
Would "A" have any civil claim against "B" ? I imagine "A" would have a
claim against the police for bungling the investigation, and would
recieve compensation
Sounds as if A is without any remedy at all. If he confessed to the crime I
can't see how the police could be accused of bungling the investigation.
|
| |
| |
I wasn't concerned with "B"'s liability in the girls death ... just
whether he had done anything criminally wrong by not going to the
police to tell them the truth. Bearing in mind that "B" was never
contacted by the police, so there is no question he lied.
This is different to the Christie/Evans case (10 Rillington Place)
because Christie *was* interviewd by the police, and indeed actively
put Evans in the frame.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
Not that I can see.
There is no liability for omissions unless a statute specifically so
provides, however the common law imposes a duty as in R v Miller 1983.
Although best highlighted in Bland 1993.
However, that said, there is a positive duty to act in the following
circumstances
(1) Duty arising from statute
(2) Duty arising under a contract
(3) Public duty ie a person in a public office, for example a policeman
(4) Voluntary Assumption of responsibility/reliance ie loco parentis,
this is controversial
(5) Duty due to defendants prior conduct/creating a dangerous situation
Sounds as if A is without any remedy at all. If he confessed to the crime I
can't see how the police could be accused of bungling the investigation.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
There is no liability for omissions unless a statute specifically so
provides, however the common law imposes a duty as in R v Miller 1983.
Hardly a comparable scenario. In Miller the defendant lit a fag, set fire to
his mattress and instead of putting out the fire moved to another room. The
question was whether he was guilty of arson.
I don't think failure to pass information to the police amounts to
perverting the course of justice.
Although best highlighted in Bland 1993.
Can't see the connection.
R. v. Headley (1995) on the other hand, is an example of a defendant charged
with perverting the course of justice and acquitted because he had not
committed any specific act, merely been passive and acquiescent.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
There is no liability for omissions unless a statute specifically so
provides, however the common law imposes a duty as in R v Miller 1983.
Hardly a comparable scenario. In Miller the defendant lit a fag, set fire to
his mattress and instead of putting out the fire moved to another room. The
question was whether he was guilty of arson.
Can't see the connection.
it is not a direct comparison, it is stating the ratio of omission
liability, if you read my post i made no reference to any comparables.
|
| |
| |
In message <1148025472.953971.253440@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Jethro <jethro_uk@hotmail.com> writes
Saw a program ("Without a Trace") last night, which prompted a query.
The plot involved a girl who went missing in 1998. The investigating
team homed in on a married guy "A" who was having an affair with her,
and eventually got him to confess to her murder (he couldn't remember a
crucial timespan as he was drunk). He was jailed for "25-life". They
never found the body.
Because the investigators were sure he was their man, they didn't get
round to interviewing all her college friends.
7 years later, they re-investigate, and turn up a college friend "B",
who was with her the night she disappeared. Turned out he had tried it
on, she ran, and slipped and fell down a cliff.
Obviously this completely exonerated the jailed guy.
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
No, no crime.
Would "A" have any civil claim against "B" ?
None that I can see.
I imagine "A" would have a
claim against the police for bungling the investigation, and would
recieve compensation
Unlikely, but he should (at least until Charles Clarke's recent
announcement) be entitled to automatic compensation for the time spent
in prison. Now even that is by no means certain.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
In message <4d5dk7F18dr8gU1@individual.net>, The Todal
<deadmailbox@beeb.net> writes
Not necessarily. If she slips and falls while he is pursuing her, it could
be manslaughter.
I think the jailed guy is A, and the guy who tried it on and from whom
she ran was this college friend B - in other words A had no connection
at all with the incident that led to her death.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
In message <4d5dk7F18dr8gU1@individual.net>, The Todal
<deadmailbox@beeb.net> writes
I think the jailed guy is A, and the guy who tried it on and from whom she
ran was this college friend B - in other words A had no connection at all
with the incident that led to her death.
Ah yes, I see that now. I misunderstood the "he"s. It seems strange that A
would confess to a crime when he wasn't even with the deceased, but stranger
things have happened. As to whether there is a duty to come forward and
confess to events which might result in you being prosecuted, I doubt if
there is.
|
| |
| |
On 19 May 2006 00:57:53 -0700, "Jethro" <jethro_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Saw a program ("Without a Trace") last night, which prompted a query.
The plot involved a girl who went missing in 1998. The investigating
team homed in on a married guy "A" who was having an affair with her,
and eventually got him to confess to her murder (he couldn't remember a
crucial timespan as he was drunk). He was jailed for "25-life". They
never found the body.
Because the investigators were sure he was their man, they didn't get
round to interviewing all her college friends.
7 years later, they re-investigate, and turn up a college friend "B",
who was with her the night she disappeared. Turned out he had tried it
on, she ran, and slipped and fell down a cliff.
Obviously this completely exonerated the jailed guy.
The question is (under UK law), has "B" commited any offence, by not
coming forward to clear "A" ? Bearing in mind, he was never questioned
by the police, so he hasn't *actively* done anything. So if he has,
it's a crime of omission.
No, he hasn't committed any crime.
Would "A" have any civil claim against "B" ?
*Maybe*.
If it can be shown that B was aware of the case against A, then A
*could* argue that B was negligent in not coming forward. But it would
be a difficult argument to prove.
I think it very unlikely (but just *possible*) that any claim by A
against B could succeed.
I imagine "A" would have a
claim against the police for bungling the investigation, and would
recieve compensation
I doubt he would have any claim against the police, since there is no
evidence they did bungle it.
He should get some compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My inferiority complexes aren't as good as yours.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
Alex Heney wrote:
*Maybe*.
If it can be shown that B was aware of the case against A, then A
*could* argue that B was negligent in not coming forward. But it would
be a difficult argument to prove.
I think it very unlikely (but just *possible*) that any claim by A
against B could succeed.
do you have reference to any cases that have succeeded on such grounds,
as I find it difficult to comprehend your reasoning
|
| |
| |
On 19 May 2006 03:44:22 -0700, "Willy" <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
do you have reference to any cases that have succeeded on such grounds,
as I find it difficult to comprehend your reasoning
No, I don't.
I do think it extremely unlikely, as I say.
My reasoning is that if B knew that A was going to be (or had been)
imprisoned for something that he *knew* A had not done, then A *might*
be able to argue that as a "public spirited citizen", B had a duty to
make that known, and was negligent in not doing so.
Given that B would have risked prosecution by coming forward, it is
hard to see how A could actually succeed, but I wouldn't rule it out
completely.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I remember when Saturns were rockets, not cars.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
Alex Heney wrote:
do you have reference to any cases that have succeeded on such grounds,
as I find it difficult to comprehend your reasoning
No, I don't.
I do think it extremely unlikely, as I say.
then why say it?
My reasoning is that if B knew that A was going to be (or had been)
imprisoned for something that he *knew* A had not done, then A *might*
be able to argue that as a "public spirited citizen", B had a duty to
make that known, and was negligent in not doing so.
you mean a moral duty? if so, no standing in law.
|
| |
| |
On 19 May 2006 05:12:31 -0700, "Willy" <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
do you have reference to any cases that have succeeded on such grounds,
as I find it difficult to comprehend your reasoning
then why say it?
Because I think it a *possibility*.
The question was asked, and I was also responding to the other
questions in the post.
you mean a moral duty? if so, no standing in law.
It could be argued, I believe. Whether such an argument would be
successful, I am not at all sure.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Machine-independent: does not run on any existing machine.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
Alex Heney wrote:
then why say it?
Because I think it a *possibility*.
So is cold fusion, do you think that is less or more likely?
Nevertheless still as relevant.
you mean a moral duty? if so, no standing in law.
It could be argued, I believe. Whether such an argument would be
successful, I am not at all sure.
if you are not sure why suggest it over any other similar unlikely
event?
|
| |
| |
On 19 May 2006 07:06:20 -0700, "Willy" <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
then why say it?
So is cold fusion, do you think that is less or more likely?
Nevertheless still as relevant.
Not at all.
Which part of "the question was asked" do you not understand?
the OP as asking (among other things) whether A could possibly have a
civil case against B. I answered that I thought it *possible*, but
unlikely.
If I hadn't also been responding to the other points in the OP, I
probably would not have bothered just for that.
you mean a moral duty? if so, no standing in law.
if you are not sure why suggest it over any other similar unlikely
event?
Because the question was asked.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never call a man a fool. Instead, borrow from him.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
Alex Heney wrote:
Which part of "the question was asked" do you not understand?
I understand it all, as well as the OL requirements, you are injecting
your own fantasy in order to address the issue which is unsupported by
law.
Because the question was asked.
the mist is clearing day by day
|
| |
| |
In message <hojr625p3q0chl0965lut1dmm61o07s31c@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
It could be argued, I believe. Whether such an argument would be
successful, I am not at all sure.
In 1929, it would have been said fairly unequivocally that finding a
snail in your bottle of ginger beer could not result in a finding of
damages. Then Donoghue v Stevenson came along, and we found out that
damages could be awarded.
Under current law, I can see no precedent to say that the perpetrator of
a crime owes a duty to someone wrongly being prosecuted for it. But it
is not so far against the grain of precedent that I would say it was
impossible that a Court could find that way. Indeed, given all the talk
at the moment about "rebalancing the system" in favour of the victim and
away from the perpetrator, I could imagine the argument finding quite a
bit of favour.
It would be rare to try to bring such a case because perps rarely have
enough dosh to make it worthwhile.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 May 2006 16:11:39 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <hojr625p3q0chl0965lut1dmm61o07s31c@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
In 1929, it would have been said fairly unequivocally that finding a
snail in your bottle of ginger beer could not result in a finding of
damages. Then Donoghue v Stevenson came along, and we found out that
damages could be awarded.
Under current law, I can see no precedent to say that the perpetrator of
a crime owes a duty to someone wrongly being prosecuted for it. But it
is not so far against the grain of precedent that I would say it was
impossible that a Court could find that way. Indeed, given all the talk
at the moment about "rebalancing the system" in favour of the victim and
away from the perpetrator, I could imagine the argument finding quite a
bit of favour.
Thank you Richard, for explaining it much better than I have managed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't think, therefore I am not.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 May 2006 16:11:39 +0100, Richard Miller
<richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Thank you Richard, for explaining it much better than I have managed.
I agree.
It is perhaps surprising it has not been tried yet. The victim of a crime
can of course sue the perpetrator for damages - it doesn't happen very often
because the perpetrator often has no money. But someone who is wrongly
accused of the crime is *in a sense* also a victim of the crime. Arguably a
duty of care is owed to everyone who might be affected by your actions. If
it is foreseeable that someone who arrives on the crime scene might suffer
"nervous shock" (the terminology still used to describe psychiatric injury
resulting from being exposed to a distressing event) whereupon he could
undoubtedly claim damages from the perpetrator, it is also foreseeable that
a person might be mistakenly accused of the crime. To allow that latter
person to recover damages would not seem unreasonable.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
It is perhaps surprising it has not been tried yet. The victim of a crime
can of course sue the perpetrator for damages - it doesn't happen very often
because the perpetrator often has no money.
the law as it stands would be very different if money was no object
But someone who is wrongly
accused of the crime is *in a sense* also a victim of the crime. Arguably a
duty of care is owed to everyone who might be affected by your actions. If
it is foreseeable that someone who arrives on the crime scene might suffer
"nervous shock" (the terminology still used to describe psychiatric injury
resulting from being exposed to a distressing event) whereupon he could
undoubtedly claim damages from the perpetrator,
one can in tort, but i see the point you are making
it is also foreseeable that
a person might be mistakenly accused of the crime. To allow that latter
person to recover damages would not seem unreasonable.
that i feel would depend largely on the circumstances.
|
| |
| |
It is perhaps surprising it has not been tried yet. The victim of a crime
can of course sue the perpetrator for damages - it doesn't happen very
often because the perpetrator often has no money. But someone who is
wrongly accused of the crime is *in a sense* also a victim of the crime.
Arguably a duty of care is owed to everyone who might be affected by your
actions. If it is foreseeable that someone who arrives on the crime scene
might suffer "nervous shock" (the terminology still used to describe
psychiatric injury resulting from being exposed to a distressing event)
whereupon he could undoubtedly claim damages from the perpetrator, it is
also foreseeable that a person might be mistakenly accused of the crime.
To allow that latter person to recover damages would not seem
unreasonable.
When Social Workers don't have a duty of care to families for culpable
negligence, I really can't see how this is going to happen in the near
future.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
<4d5dk7F18dr8gU1@individual.net>, The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
writes
Saw a program ("Without a Trace") last night, which prompted a
query.
The plot involved a girl who went missing in 1998. The
investigating team homed in on a married guy "A" who was having
an affair with her, and eventually got him to confess to her
murder (he couldn't remember a crucial timespan as he was
drunk). He was jailed for "25-life". They never found the body.
Because the investigators were sure he was their man, they
didn't get round to interviewing all her college friends.
7 years later, they re-investigate, and turn up a college
friend "B", who was with her the night she disappeared. Turned
out he had tried it on, she ran, and slipped and fell down a
cliff.
Obviously this completely exonerated the jailed guy.
Not necessarily. If she slips and falls while he is pursuing her,
it could be manslaughter.
Ah yes, I see that now. I misunderstood the "he"s. It seems strange
that A would confess to a crime when he wasn't even with the
deceased, but stranger things have happened. As to whether there is a
duty to come forward and confess to events which might result in you
being prosecuted, I doubt if there is.
Who said he confessed?
--
wigwambam
|
| |
| |
In message <446df57f$0$684$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Fred
<Fred@n0spam.c0m> writes
When Social Workers don't have a duty of care to families for culpable
negligence, I really can't see how this is going to happen in the near
future.
I do hate people who try to turn an interesting discussion into a debate
about their own completely irrelevant (to the topic under discussion)
pet gripe.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
In message <446df57f$0$684$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Fred
<Fred@n0spam.c0m> writes
I do hate people who try to turn an interesting discussion into a debate
about their own completely irrelevant (to the topic under discussion) pet
gripe.
I don't particularly have a gripe about social workers as such. I was
trying to suggest that proving that "B" had a duty of care to "A" would be
very tenuous based upon current cases. It seems that a duty of care only
exists where there is a contractual obligation or a strictly legal one.
I'm sorry you saw by post as being off topic and trying to start up an
unrelated debate.
|
| |
| |
I don't particularly have a gripe about social workers as such. I was
trying to suggest that proving that "B" had a duty of care to "A" would be
very tenuous based upon current cases. It seems that a duty of care only
exists where there is a contractual obligation or a strictly legal one.
I'm sorry you saw by post as being off topic and trying to start up an
unrelated debate.
I think you were on topic, actually, even though you didn't give a
particularly good example of the duty of care problem.
Many people have found it surprising that the House of Lords should rule
that social workers owe no duty of care to parents when exercising their
child-protection activities, though in fact this is a logical approach to
the problem. A social worker cannot be expected to cope with a conflict of
interest whereby both an abused child and an abusive adult must
simultaneously be protected. A solicitor has a duty of care towards his own
client but does not owe the same duty to his client's opponent - for
instance in a divorce case where he acts for the husband, the wife cannot
sue the solicitor for giving wrong advice to her husband.
There can be little doubt that when committing a crime, you owe a duty of
care to the victim. I suppose it could be said that if your crime caused the
victim's grandfather to commit suicide, either you owed no duty of care to
him or public policy required a degree of proximity similar to what was
stipulated in the Hillsborough cases (nervous shock) - interesting judgments
at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd981203/white01.htm
|
| |
| |
I don't know about DOC, but the thing that piqued my interest in the
(fictional) case was the fact that "B" (the eventually discovred
perptrator of the crime) *should* have been interviewed by the police,
but wasn't. They suspended that line of enquiry when they got "A" to
confess.
*If* "B" *had* been interviewed, then I can see he would be guilty of
some concoction of :
obstruction
perverting the course of justice
perjury (if he said it in court)
and obviously would be liable for criminal sanctions.
However, because he was never questioned, none of that matters, and
we're left with the fact that (under UK law) there was no *legal*
obligation upon him to volunteer information.
Following on from that, IIRC under German law, is there not an offence
of "failing to aid someone in mortal danger" which places an obligation
upon *any* citizen to help someone in danger ? Would that have any
bearing in these set of circumstances ?
|
| |
| |
Jethro wrote:
Following on from that, IIRC under German law, is there not an offence
of "failing to aid someone in mortal danger" which places an obligation
upon *any* citizen to help someone in danger ? Would that have any
bearing in these set of circumstances ?
also the law in this country
|
| |
| |
er excuse me, isn't that absolute bollocks ?
Unless I am very out of date, and ill informed, there is nothing in
English case or statute law which requires a person to do anything to
help another. The classic case being if you are walking along a
seafront, and see a complete stranger drowning, are you LEGALLY obliged
to throw them a lifebouy ?
The general case is NO.
The textbook I read then went on to say that there are situations which
would modify that, mainly to to with Duty Of Care. For example a
lifeguard *would* be obliged.
IIRC the common phrase is "I am not my brothers keeper"
|
| |
| |
Jethro wrote:
er excuse me, isn't that absolute bollocks ?
Unless I am very out of date, and ill informed, there is nothing in
English case or statute law which requires a person to do anything to
help another. The classic case being if you are walking along a
seafront, and see a complete stranger drowning, are you LEGALLY obliged
to throw them a lifebouy ?
The general case is NO.
Correct, unless a duty exists.
you wrote:
under German law, is there not an offence
of "failing to aid someone in mortal danger" which places an obligation
upon *any* citizen to help someone in danger ?
to which I replied:
also the law in this country
|
| |
| |
so if I see someone drowning as I walk along a riverbank, I am obliged
to help them ?
|
| |
| |
so if I see someone drowning as I walk along a riverbank, I am obliged
to help them ?
Only in France
|
| |
| |
so if I see someone drowning as I walk along a riverbank, I am obliged
to help them ?
You certainly do not. Not unless you are their parent/employer/teacher or in
some other role that imposes a duty of care on you. If they are a stranger
you are free to let them drown.
|
| |
| |
Jethro wrote:
to which I replied:
also the law in this country
If you mean there is a criminal offence in the UK of failing to help someone
in mortal danger, then I think you are mistaken. Are you able to cite any
law on this?
|
| |
| |
and, I suspect Italy. Certainly I have read in German law, of people
being charged with "failing to aid a person in mortal danger"
But there is nothing in UK law, which makes me responsible for you "a
priori" (If that's the expression)
|
| |
| |
thank you for also querying this.
|
| |
| |
Jethro wrote:
so if I see someone drowning as I walk along a riverbank, I am obliged
to help them ?
No you are obliged, save for the following exceptions (in law there are
always exceptions)
There is a positive duty to act in the following circumstances:
(1) Duty arising from statute
(2) Duty arising under a contract
(3) Public duty ie a person in a public office, for example a policeman
(4) Voluntary Assumption of responsibility/reliance ie loco parentis,
this is controversial
(5) Duty due to defendants prior conduct/creating a dangerous situation
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
If you mean there is a criminal offence in the UK of failing to help someone
in mortal danger, then I think you are mistaken. Are you able to cite any
law on this?
No, there is not no law in this country. Save for what i have already
listed, but here again:
(1) Duty arising from statute
(2) Duty arising under a contract
(3) Public duty ie a person in a public office, for example a policeman
(4) Voluntary Assumption of responsibility/reliance ie loco parentis,
this is controversial
(5) Duty due to defendants prior conduct/creating a dangerous situation
|
| |
| |
Willy wrote:
Jethro wrote:
No you are obliged, save for the following exceptions (in law there are
always exceptions)
There is a positive duty to act in the following circumstances:
(1) Duty arising from statute
(2) Duty arising under a contract
(3) Public duty ie a person in a public office, for example a policeman
(4) Voluntary Assumption of responsibility/reliance ie loco parentis,
this is controversial
(5) Duty due to defendants prior conduct/creating a dangerous situation
I am an idiot today, please read ""No you are NOT obliged....."
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
No, there is not no law in this country. Save for what i have already
listed, but here again:
(1) Duty arising from statute
Which one? The Riverbanks Act?
(2) Duty arising under a contract
That would be if the drowning man had paid you to rescue him and you had
agreed to do it, then? An unlikely scenario, but possible.
(3) Public duty ie a person in a public office, for example a policeman
Does a police officer have an actionable duty to rescue someone from
drowning? Obviously he doesn't have an actionable duty to clear a spillage
of oil from a road or to catch a mass-murderer.
(4) Voluntary Assumption of responsibility/reliance ie loco parentis,
this is controversial
I suppose a teacher conducting a class of unruly kids around Hyde Park is
probably under a duty to rescue them if they jump in the lake. But not if
the teacher did not believe he had the skill to do so.
(5) Duty due to defendants prior conduct/creating a dangerous situation
You mean if you create a lake, you must rescue anyone who falls in?
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
Which one? The Riverbanks Act?
That would be if the drowning man had paid you to rescue him and you had
agreed to do it, then? An unlikely scenario, but possible.
Does a police officer have an actionable duty to rescue someone from
drowning? Obviously he doesn't have an actionable duty to clear a spillage
of oil from a road or to catch a mass-murderer.
I suppose a teacher conducting a class of unruly kids around Hyde Park is
probably under a duty to rescue them if they jump in the lake. But not if
the teacher did not believe he had the skill to do so.
You mean if you create a lake, you must rescue anyone who falls in?
are you purposely being obtuse? Or would you like omission liability in
general further explained ?
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
are you purposely being obtuse? Or would you like omission liability in
general further explained ?
Well, I'd like you to attempt to answer a question in an intelligent way,
rather than by quoting from your Ladybird Book of Basic Law. Yes, let me see
your full lecture on omission liability please.
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
Well, I'd like you to attempt to answer a question in an intelligent way,
rather than by quoting from your Ladybird Book of Basic Law. Yes, let me see
your full lecture on omission liability please.
sorry i have spilt my morning milk on it. I can recite the gingerbread
man if you are at that level?
|
| |
| |
Jethro <jethro_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
thank you for also querying this.
Queyring what?
Please post at least some context.
Axel
|
| |
| |
Willy <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
If you mean there is a criminal offence in the UK of failing to help someone
in mortal danger, then I think you are mistaken. Are you able to cite any
law on this?
No, there is not no law in this country. Save for what i have already
listed, but here again:
(2) Duty arising under a contract
Contract does give rise to criminal charges.
Axel
|
| |
| |
Willy <bbapwilson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If you mean there is a criminal offence in the UK of failing to help
someone
in mortal danger, then I think you are mistaken. Are you able to cite
any
law on this?
Contract does give rise to criminal charges.
I'm not sure I understand that proposition. Normally, breach of contract
does not result in a prosecution.
On the other hand, there are plenty of criminal prosecutions for breaches of
duty which might be contractual, eg the employer's duty of care. Back on the
subject of whether there is a duty to save a drowning man, yes if you happen
to be employed as a lifeguard and yes, you could be prosecuted if you let
him drown. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4946978.stm
(the case is still ongoing).
|
| |
| |
The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
<axel@white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message
I'm not sure I understand that proposition. Normally, breach of contract
does not result in a prosecution.
On the other hand, there are plenty of criminal prosecutions for breaches of
duty which might be contractual, eg the employer's duty of care. Back on the
subject of whether there is a duty to save a drowning man, yes if you happen
to be employed as a lifeguard and yes, you could be prosecuted if you let
him drown. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4946978.stm
(the case is still ongoing).
I stand corrected... I think. But an employer's duty of care is
statutory. But the lifeguard situation is different.
Axel
|
| |
| |
The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
I stand corrected... I think. But an employer's duty of care is
statutory. But the lifeguard situation is different.
Sorry, and yes, I have oversimplified or muddled it. An employer is in a
contractual relationship with his employee, and there are common law duties
and statutory duties that govern his treatment of his employees. Normally
the remedies for any breaches are in a civil court, but failure to comply
with the Health and Safety at Work Act etc would also result in prosecutions
in the criminal courts, and the basis of such prosecutions is that the
employer owed the duty to the employee.
The lifeguard situation is arguably also a contractual situation. If you go
swimming and a lifeguard is present, his duty is to do what his employers
are paying him to do and rescue you, and he can expect to be prosecuted if
he lets someone drown. I am not sure why. If for instance there was no
lifeguard present but a member of the public said "don't worry, I'll keep an
eye on them while you go and have a coffee" could that member of the public
be prosecuted for manslaughter if there is a crisis and he realises he is
not a good swimmer and decides not to jump in? I don't know.
|
| |
| |
axel@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
(2) Duty arising under a contract
Contract does give rise to criminal charges.
take the position of the Child Minder.They are under a contractual duty
and if they breach this by way of omission of which has the effect of
gross negiligence, then the child minder is guilty of a criminal
offence,which could range from battery to murder.
So in answer to your question, yes cntract can give rise to criminal
charges for OL
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
(2) Duty arising under a contract
Contract does give rise to criminal charges.
I'm not sure I understand that proposition. Normally, breach of contract
does not result in a prosecution.
On the other hand, there are plenty of criminal prosecutions for breaches of
duty which might be contractual, eg the employer's duty of care. Back on the
subject of whether there is a duty to save a drowning man, yes if you happen
to be employed as a lifeguard and yes, you could be prosecuted if you let
him drown. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4946978.stm
(the case is still ongoing).
you have answered your own question
|
| |
| |
|
