Scots Criminal Law Case Study

1500 Words6 Pages
Scots criminal law recognises liability for omissions within actus reus. Actus reus is the physical or external component and prohibited conduct of state of affairs (the physical act or omission). If actus reus is joined by an appropriate mens rea, it would result in criminal responsibility. An example of actus reus can be in the crime of theft, actus reus would occur when someone takes or appropriates someone else’s property without the consent of whom it belongs to. An example of mens rea within the crime of theft would be if someone intended to deprive the owner of the property permanently, indefinitely or temporarily. There are three types of actus reus- an overt or positive act; an omission; and a state of affairs. An overt or positive…show more content…
The Good Samaritan is not generally accepted in Scots criminal law, it is thought of that a legal obligation to shelter those who have a relationship will exist here. For example between a parent and a minor child. However it must be noted that this is not entire, this is made prominent in the case of Bone v HM Advocate (2005) that personal features of the accused will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not parental actions and omissions are fair. In this case, Bone was convicted of the culpable homicide of her daughter as she witnessed and allowed for criminal conduct to be carried out towards her daughter by her partner. Bone appealed to this and she argued the following (1) “her parental responsibility towards her daughter did not involve criminal responsibility for the failure to protect the child or to intervene in the assault being perpetrated by her co-accused where she was powerless to intervene; (2) there was insufficient evidence to entitle the jury to find that she had “countenanced” the murder; and (3) that the judge failed to direct the jury that they should take account of her subjective characteristics, notably her limited ability to react and her particular vulnerability as stated in the evidence of the forensic psychologist, when they were assessing what was reasonable in respect of the alleged failure to protect her daughter.” The court held that “(1) there had been a material misdirection regarding the evidence which was relevant to the question of whether Bone had taken reasonable steps to protect the child and ensure her well-being; and (2) the jury should have been given guidance as to what circumstances might properly have been regarded as relevant to the reasonableness of Bone’s acting and omissions and, in particular, regard should have been had to Bone’s physical and psychological condition in

More about Scots Criminal Law Case Study

Open Document