Is the Law Fault Based?

A2 AQA LAW Is the law fault based? harmonise to the Oxford English Dictionary, Fault is defined as error or charge, the wrongdoing and extent of which the defendant is responsible for his actions. The law should only retaliate those who ar at fault and impose punishments which ar deserved, whilst being more(prenominal) lenient to those who atomic derive 18 non at fault and did non fore cut the consequences. In criminal law, fault is proven by the prosecution where deal are name inculpative, beyond reasonable doubt. In civil law, people are prove liable, on a balance of probability.In ordering to controvert and evaluate the definition of fault as a basis of crime, it must first be understood and identified where fault shtup exist. Offences in law are often graded accordingly depending on how very much fault they reflect. E. g. indictable offences such(prenominal) as rape and execution of instrument are the most serious of crimes and in that respectfore recei ve the mandatory life reprobate in order to reflect this. They buzz off the most serious malign to the dupe and require more goal. However, summary offences such as parking area assault only receive minimal prison sentences, but usually fines up to ? 000. This is beca routine the fault is deemed far less as the victim does not suffer as much and on that point is less purportion to come out such a crime. Sentences also reflect to what extent the defendant was at fault. Aggravated grammatical constituents, like a racially motivated attack or using a weapon indicates a higher accept of toneion and fault whilst mitigating factors like pleading guilty somewhat lessens the defendants fault in the eyes of the law. The severity of the crime depends on the take aim of fault. This can be found in the actus reus of a crime- the guilty physical act.Murder, for example is a voluntary act which demonstrates a higher degree of fault and darned (Smith- where a solider stabbed another solider with a bayonet. ) A voluntary act is usually a deliberate act and therefore seems fair to greater level of piece. An omission is defined as the failure to act and shows a land amount of fault as there is no physical act. For example, in the case of R v Dytham, a policeman witnessed a constrict take place, but did not stop it and the victim was seriously injured. An so-so(predicate) passerby would not be regarded as at fault in this way but because a police officer has a existence duty, he was deemed at greater fault.Causation is another aspect which is very fault-based in both criminal and civil law. There are tests to prove source factual, the but for test- But for defendants actions, would the return still be the same? effectual causation- was the defendants actions the substantial and operating cause in victims injuries? and novus actus intervenes- was there a break in causation? Was there other factors that could of contributed? So if the defendant did cause th e defacement suffered by the victim then the defendant should be held at fault, vise versa if the defendant did not cause the injury then he is not at fault.In Jordan, the defendant had shot the victim however the victim was completely recovered in hospital when he received a wrong injection which killed him. The defendant did not cause the termination of the victim as the hospital treatment was an intervening factor and the substantial cause of decease, therefore not fault. In comparison, in R v Smith, a solider was stabbed and was in hospital when he died from loss of downslope from the stab wound. Unlike Jordan, Smith was found guilty of causing the defendants death as it was the original stab wound which was the operating cause of death proving he was at fault.Fault can also be shown through mens rea- the guilty mind. There are specific intent crimes such as murder or GBH s. 18, which can only be committed intentionally, where it was the defendants main aim or purpose indicat ing a higher level of fault. On the other hand, crimes of a less serious nature can be committed either intentionally or recklessly- basic intent crimes like assault or battery. Recklessness shows less fault and blame than intention (although some fault is given due to subjective venturesomeness e. g.Cunningham- the defendant realises there is a risk of harm but acts anyway) because the outcome is only a possibility and sometimes is not foreseen. Similarly, Gross omission manslaughter depicts how civil negligence can become criminal liability as a result of a death. This offence allows businesses to be liable and found at fault even though it is impossible to prove their mens rea. The use of defences in the legal system can also indicate how the defendant may possess both the actus reus and mens rea of a crime, but still not completely at fault.Insanity is a full defence which means the defendant is unable to form the mens rea of the crime in question due to a disease of the mind. Also, Automatism removes all fault on the defendants behalf as he is pitiful from an external factor or influence. Intoxication (only applicable to specific intent crimes) shows an appropriate mens rea could not be formed due to the use of alcohol addiction or drugs. However, other defences such as Diminished responsibility employ as a defence in murder situations, only partly removes the defendants fault as he is suffering with an abnormality of the mind.This shows fault is dispirit than that of an intentional killing. Certain areas of criminal law where there are offences do not require any fault to be turn out such as speeding offences. These are called strict liability crimes, where no mens rea is required just the pure act of doing it makes you guilty whether you intended to or not. These offences are imposed throughout society in order to uphold cordial policies, but some people feel that no fault offences are unfair because they impose liability on people who did not required foresee any consequences. In Shah v DPP, a lottery tatter was sold to a member of the globe under the age of 16.Although there were many signs and notices about checking ID of those looking underage, the ticket was still sold and the defendant was found guilty. This case had led to a requirement for an evaluation of the call for for fault, as Shah, could be seen as not at fault as the child had used fake identity. These no-fault disceptations are based on the publics interest that it is better to protect the innocent public and yield them than to prove an individuals fault, applicable for businesses that have to accept the risks and benefits of funning a company.Smedleys v Breed, a manufacturer defendant who was found guilty when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas, where it is obvious that it was this manufacturers fault and responsibility to take blame. On the other hand, this can support higher standards amongst employers to encourage them to know the law an d avoid injury and take care of themselves. It is believed that we should be responsible for our own actions, no matter whether fault can be proved or not- based on the principle we reap what we sow.This is was shown in R v Howells where the defendant failed to obtain a certificate for the hitman he was possessing unwittingly, but will still guilty of this offence. Another argument is that imposing strict liability crimes helps that of deterrence on society to encourage better diligence. However, despite these no-fault arguments, many people believe there is a necessity for a proof of fault. Fairness is at the heart of the legal system and would seem unfair not to require a mortal to be proven at fault in order for them to be guilty.Having a no-fault system was implicate distrust for the public and would reflect scummy values of society. It would also result in serious consequences for the sentenced defendant with a conviction. In conclusion, it has become clear that proving faul t is already an essential fragment of criminal liability in the English legal system already and no fault only exists in a small number of offences, but can still have serious repercussions. In order for justice to continue to be served, criminal offences and their combined penalty should be limited to those who are evidently guilty and at fault and who genuinely deserve the punishments.