|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
R v Miller (1983)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
This case (Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 House of Lords) demonstrates how
actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act,
but a failure to act.
Miller, a vagrant, set fire to a mattress in a house in which
he was sleeping. Rather than taking action to put out the
fire, he moved to a different room; the fire went on to
cause extensive damage. He was convicted of arson.
Miller's defence was that there was no actus
reus coincident with mens rea. Although his
reckless inattention to the fire could be said
to constitute mens rea, it was not associated
with the actus reus of setting the fire.
The trial judge ruled that the actus reus
was not the setting of the fire, but was the omission
to deal with a dangerous situation the defendent
himself created. Thus an omission can be an
actus reus for a criminal conviction, even where
no prior legal duty of care exists. The Appeal Court
rules that the actus reus was in fact the
set of events, starting with the time the fire
was set, and ending with the reckless refusal to
extinguish it. This made the mens rea and
actus reus coincide. The House of Lords
upheld the view of the trial judge.
So it seems that we now have two different ways of
showing that an omission to act constitutes actus reus.
First, the notion that ones actions can create a duty,
failure to act on which is blameworthy. Second, that
an act and a subsequent omission constitute a collective
actus reus.
CaseLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|