R v Miller

English case infobox
name=R v Miller
court=House of Lords
date_decided= 17 March 1982
full_name= Regina (Appellant) v Miller (Respondent)
citations= [1982] UKHL 6, [1983] 2 AC 161, [1983] 1 All ER 978
judges= Lord Diplock, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Brightman
Cases_cited= R. v Caldwell (James)( [1982] A.C. 341)
Legislation_cited=Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s. 47, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19) s.33(2), Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48) s.1, Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48) s.1(1), Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48) s.1(2), Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c.48) s.4, Cruelty to Animals Act 1849 s.2, Indecency with Children Act 1960 (c.33), Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (c.82) s.1, Theft Act 1978 (c.31), Theft Act 1968 (c.60) s.15, Theft Act 1968 (c.60) s.16,
prior_actions= tbc
subsequent_actions= none
Keywords=Omissions; Arson

This case in English criminal law (Miller [1983] 2 AC 161) [ [http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/6.html&query=r+and+v+and+miller+and+1983&method=boolean Case Full Text at Bailii] ] demonstrates how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act.

Facts

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 defendant was convicted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for recklessly causing damage by omission.

Judgement

The judge, Lord Diplock said:

"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."

An omission can therefore 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.

Therefore, an omission to act may constitute actus reus. Actions can create a duty, failure to act on the duty is therefore blameworthy. Secondly, an act and subsequent omission constitute a collective actus reus. This has been described as the principle of 'supervening fault'.

imilar Case Law

The case of DPP v Santra Bermudez (2003) examined a similar principle, in which the defendant was convicted of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as a result of omitting to inform a police officer when questioned, that they had on their person, a sharp object (needle).

References