Law and fault

• Define fault.


  Blameworthiness, responsibility and culpability/liability.
• Where in law may fault apply?

  Actus reus, mens rea, defences, sentencing.
• How may fault apply to the actus reus?

  Legal causation e.g. break in the chain of causation means it is no longer the defendants fault. Factual causation, but for the defendants actions the consequence would not have occurred therefore at fault. Omissions, failing to act when you owe a duty may mean you are at fault, if you do not owe a duty you are not at fault.
• How may fault apply to the mens rea?

  Degrees of sentencing:

  Intention- very at fault (direct or oblique, increases the sentence).

  Recklessness- sort of at fault, taking an unjustified risk (lower sentence).

  No intention- not at fault as there is no mens rea.
• How may fault apply to defences?

  Where a defence is successful you are likely not at fault or less at fault therefore a lower sentence or acquittal.
• Apply fault to self defence.

  Where self defence is successful it means you are not at fault, your actions stem from theirs, acquittal.
• Apply fault to insanity.

  You are not at fault, you do not have the capacity to form the mens rea so are not at fault. When successful, not guilty by reasons of insanity.
• Apply fault to the defence of duress.

  Where someone is forcing you to do something, it is not your fault. In relation to murder, attempted murder, treason or when you put yourself at risk of duress you are at fault, you are putting your life above theirs (murder), and have made yourself open to duress (put at risk).
• Apply fault to diminished responsibility.

  You are less at fault for your actions because you are substantially impaired from forming the mens rea due to the abnormality of mental functioning. The sentence is reduced if successful.
• How is fault applied to sentencing?

  More serious offences receive higher sentencing e.g. murder, life sentence. Less serious offences receive a lower sentence, S.18 GBH life whereas S.20 GBH 5 years.
• Where is fault not significant in law?

  Strict liability offences. No mens rea is needed, you are blamed when you act, and when you didn't know.
• Apply fault to LBC v. Shah

  Selling of lottery tickets to under 16s is illegal, the shopkeeper sold a ticket to an under 16, the shop owner was liable even though they told the shopkeeper not to sell tickets to under 16s and without checking ID. It is a strict liability offence therefore the owner was still liable. (It is not fair, he didn't know, but it is strict liability.)
• Apply fault to Callow v. Tillstone.

  The farmer took his cow to the vet to check it was healthy before selling the cow for meat. When people consumed the meat they fell ill. The farmer was liable, it was his fault the people fell ill as he sold bad meat. It is a strict liability offence to sell food that may cause illness. As the farmer took the cow to the vet he had some concern, therefore shouldn't have sold meat from that cow.
• Why do strict liability offences exist?

  To protect the public (utilitarianism, greatest good for the greatest number), people can get addicted to gambling, people can fall ill.

  Higher standard of care, when given two choices select the one that causes the least harm, e.g. sell or don't sell the meat, don't sell.
• There is an exception to strict liability offences, what is it? And case law.

  Where the offence carries stigma you will no be liable if you didn't know. It is illegal to own a building where drugs are dealt, the owner of the building didn't know therefore wasn't liable, because drug dealing carries a stigma. Sweet v. Parsley.