R v Miller
Encyclopedia
R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6
is an English criminal law
case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act.
coinciding 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. Nevertheless, the defendant was convicted under the for recklessly causing damage by omission.
, Lord Diplock stated:
The decision in effect established 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, establishing the requisite mens rea and actus reus requirements.
Therefore, an omission to act may constitute actus reus. Actions can create a duty, and failure to act on such a duty can therefore be branded blameworthy. Secondly, an act and subsequent omission constitute a collective actus reus. This has been described as the principle of 'supervening fault'.
as a result of omitting to inform a police officer when questioned, that they had on their person a sharp object (needle).
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
is an English criminal law
English criminal law
English criminal law refers to the body of law in the jurisdiction of England and Wales which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community...
case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act.
Facts
Miller, a vagrant, accidentally 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 to the cost of £800. He was subsequently convicted of arson, under Sections 1 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Miller's defence was that there was no actus reusActus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
coinciding with mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
. 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. Nevertheless, the defendant was convicted under the for recklessly causing damage by omission.
Judgment
Upon appeal to the House of LordsHouse of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
, Lord Diplock stated:
"I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one's power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence."
The decision in effect established that the actus reus was in fact the set of events, starting with the time the fire was set, and ending with the reckless
Recklessness
Recklessness may be:* Recklessness , a legal term describing a person's state of mind when allegedly committing a criminal offence* Recklessness , a state of mind in which a person acts without caring what the consequences may be...
refusal to extinguish it, establishing the requisite mens rea and actus reus requirements.
Therefore, an omission to act may constitute actus reus. Actions can create a duty, and failure to act on such a duty can therefore be branded blameworthy. Secondly, an act and subsequent omission constitute a collective actus reus. This has been described as the principle of 'supervening fault'.
Subsequent developments
The case of DPP v Santana-Bermudez examined a similar principle, in which the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861Offences Against The Person Act 1861
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act...
as a result of omitting to inform a police officer when questioned, that they had on their person a sharp object (needle).