Fault

WHAT IS FAULT

responsibility or blame for a misdeed or offence

negligence or intentional

opposite of strict liability

1 of 9

ACTUS REUS

- if an act is voluntary, D is at fault. ( Hill v Baxter )

- D must factaully/legally cause it. ( Pagett, White, Kimsey)

- Recognises individuals not at fault for failing to act UNLESS they have a duty to act

- Defences recognise individual may have AR and Mr but isnt at fault. Fault may still be attached though, Martin

2 of 9

MENS REA

- If D has a guilty mind, they are at fault

- Intention is highest level of fault ( Mohan)

- Recklesness is slightly lower but still fault

3 of 9

CIVIL LAW

- breach of duty of care

- falling below standards of reasonable man

- damages reflect level of fault

- may turn criminal if serious enough - Gross neg Adamoko

4 of 9

STRICT LIABILITY

no mens rea required

liability is imposed without proving fault

Just actus reus means liability - Shah v Lbh

5 of 9

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

liable even if the actus reus was involuntary, Larsonneur

6 of 9

CIVIL STRICT LIABILITY

Rylands v Fletcher - water from resevoir leaked into C's mine

Didn't have to prove D's fault, act was enough

7 of 9

FOR NO FAULT

- PUBLIC INTEREST = law seeks to priotect and promote interests of individual and this is sometimes given priority over proving fault. Those who run firms must be prepared for risk(Smedleys v Breed) Public interests better served by using questions of fact than proving MR. Strict liability only affordable fines (Gammon)

- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY = we reap what we sow, we're responsible for esuring compliance and we're at fault for failing to do so. Rose v Plenty accountable for actions

- DETERRENCE = encourages standards of care and promotes greater vigilance

- SAVING TIME = mens rea need not be proved, D more likely to plead guilty

8 of 9

FOR FAULT

- REJECTIONS OF NO FAULT =little ev to suggest raise standards, Callow v Tillstone

- INJUSTICE = morally offensive to punish blameless, if theyve taken reasonable steps, lack of confidence in CJS, doesnt reflect values of free society. Conviction lasting consequences

- INSURANCE PREMIUMS = premiums would rise to match more claims. more people would risk driving without insurance and hospitals would be less willing to perform operations

9 of 9

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Concepts resources »