Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Facts  





2 Judgment  





3 Subsequent developments  





4 References  














R v Miller







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


R v Miller
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case nameRegina (Appellant) v Miller (Respondent)
Decided17 March 1982
Citations
  • [1982] UKHL 6
  • [1983] 2 AC 161
  • [1983] 1 All ER 978
  • TranscripttranscriptatBAILII[1]
    Cases citedR v Caldwell ([1982] A.C. 341)
    Legislation citedOffences 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,
    Court membership
    Judges sitting
  • Lord Keith of Kinkel
  • Lord Bridge of Harwich
  • Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
  • Lord Brightman
  • Keywords
    Omissions; Arson; Failure to act

    R v Miller (case citation: [1982] UKHL 6; [1983] 2 AC 161) is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act.

    Facts

    [edit]

    James Miller, a vagrant, was squatting at 9 Grantham Road, Sparkbrook, an inner-city area in Birmingham, England, in August 1980 when he accidentally set fire to the mattress on which he was sleeping with a cigarette butt. Rather than taking action to put out the fire, he moved to a different room; the fire went on to cause extensive damage to the cost of £800.[2] He was subsequently convicted of arson, under Sections 1 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Miller's defence was that there was no actus reus coinciding 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. Nevertheless, the defendant was convicted for recklessly causing damage by omission.

    Judgment

    [edit]

    Upon appeal to the House of Lords, Lord Diplock stated:[3]

    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.

    The decision in effect established 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, establishing the requisite mens rea and actus reus requirements.

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

    Subsequent developments

    [edit]

    The case of DPP v Santana-Bermudez[4] examined a similar principle, in which the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as a result of omitting to inform a police officer when questioned, that he had on his pocket a sharp object (needle).

    References

    [edit]
    1. ^ R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6, [1983] 2 AC 161, [1983] 1 All ER 978 (17 March 1982), House of Lords (UK)
  • ^ [1982] UKHL 6 at para. 162
  • ^ [1982] UKHL 6 at para. 176
  • ^ Director of Public Prosecutions v Santa-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (13 November 2003), High Court (England and Wales)

  • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_v_Miller&oldid=1149463381"

    Categories: 
    English criminal case law
    House of Lords cases
    1982 in United Kingdom case law
    Hidden category: 
    Use dmy dates from April 2022
     



    This page was last edited on 12 April 2023, at 12:02 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki