Stone And Ruffell Case Analysis

It is possible to hold that Stone and Dobinson caused the victims death because there was a legal duty on the Defendants(D) to care for the deceased(V), which they accepted. Given that they had voluntarily undertaken responsibility of the provision of V’s basic needs and that V occupied a room in the house (there was also some indication that the family relationship between V and one of the defendants had also contributed to the duty), once helplessness supervened The victim was dependant and reasonably relied upon stone and Dobinson, and in the absence of any steps to dissociate themselves from responsibility by placing her in the care of others (although there are some signs that they made attempts to do this), It is this reliance that generates

Firstly, with duty to act cases, it is often not clear exactly what D must do, or how little, before the duty will arise. The Ruffell case shows just how little you have to do in order for a duty to arise. Another issue is that it is very difficult to know exactly when the defendants had in fact undertaken responsibility to care for the victim (Ds had a very minimal interaction with V); the facts reveal that the defendants were of low intelligence which makes it unlikely that they would ever be capable providing the necessary care V required. The conviction of the defendant’s advocates that the courts adopt a strict stance when faced with claims that the accused had done what he believed to be sufficient to fulfil the duty. There is a lack of case law surrounding what family relations trigger a duty to act, this leads to uncertainty and inconsistency in cases when looking at the facts of the case . This is significant because prior to this case there was no case law that established a duty to act between siblings and without familial duties to act the duties to act based on an assumption of care might not have held up on its own as D’s attempts to care for V were so miniscule. Lastly There was also dispute on whether the D’s in this case believed that they had sufficiently fulfilled their duty or that what they were doing was sufficient because

There are legislative provisions that require companies to submit various kinds of figures (tax, license, etc.) and making it an offence to fail to do so. These types of offences are known as offence specific duties to act and are not restricted to just corporate regulation: the driver of a vehicle involved in an incident causing damage or injury to any person, vehicle or animal is to provide his name and address to any person that has reasonable grounds for requiring him to do so, or report the accident to the police within 24hours . A motorist who fails to provide a police officer with a sample of breathe when required to do so also commits an offence these offences are uncontroversial providing that they respect the general principles of criminal law. At common law, offences of pure omission can also to be found, though not often. A police officer was held to be guilty of a common law misdemeanour when, without justification, he failed to carry out his duty to preserve the queens peace by protesting a citizen who was being kicked to death