Fault

• Used to describe  someone's responsibility for a mistake,  failure or wrongdoing suffice to merit criminal liability
• Relates to person's culpability/blameworthiness
• liability = based on culpability
• D should not be responsible for actions that weren't his own fault

• Actus Reus
• Causation
• Omissions
• Mens Rea
• Defences
• Liability

• Fault is seen in need to prove the AR
• P required to prove D did guilty act
• Guilty act must be voluntary
  • D has to be in control of his actions
• Hill v Baxter - 'no act is punishable if done involuntarily', Lord Denning
• D's act = involuntary -> not at fault -> not criminally liable

• Most offences = P must prove D caused a paticular result
• If D factually caused result (but for test - Pagett), this shows he is at fault + should be accountable
• Legal causation must also be proved -> determines culpability and blameworthiness -> fault-based
  • If a novus actus interveniens that 'is so independent of D's act that it becomes insignificant' (Cheshire, Mellor) occurs, D not at fault
    • E.g. Jordan
• Also seen through daftness test
  • Roberts - if 'V's acts are so daft and unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it' -> novus actus interveniens 
    • D would not be to blame -> not be at fault

• usually cannot form basis of AR
• Some situations do have a duty to act - criminally liable if omit from acting
• [Omissions scenarios]
• D can be guilty of offence for failing to act when they had a duty to -> at fault

• N/A to strict liability 
• A guilty mind is required in crim law
• Where law is silent, need for MR is presumed (Sweet v Parsely)
• MR -> fault based
• Direct intent (D's aim, purpose or desire to bring about a certain result - Mohan)
• Oblique intent (D does not want the outcome but knows it's virtually certain - Nedrick,Woolin)
  • No distintion between these; direct + oblique = same amount of fault
• Recklessness (Cunningham) less serious than intention - cannot be used for s18/murder
  • fault = hierachical
    • Offences w/only intention -> greater penalties
      • Someone intending a particular result -> more at fault

• D raising defence = him saying he is not at fault
• Some deny AR. Some deny MR. Either way, law regognises D not to blame if successful
• W/duress - cannot excuse murder but can be seen as a mitigating factor in sentencing
  • law recognises D acting under duress = less at fault than D killing out of free will
• Partial defences (LoC, DR) - D not at fault to same extent as plain old murderer

• Contract law, fault in liability seen in 'remoteness' of damage
  • Hadley v Baxendale - two part test for remoteness (based on foreseeability)
    • States: D will not be liable for losses that he could not have reasonably anticipated
      • Based on fault. If it was unreasonable for him to foresee C's loss, it's not his fault that C made that loss
• If C fails to mitigate loss, damages awarded = reduced - Payzu v Saunders
  • under duty to mitigate loss

• If D has control over body -> actions = voluntary -> criminal liability should be imposed as D is at fault
• Imposing liability in legal causation where a result was obviously not D's fault (e.g. Blaue) seems unjust
  • BUT reflects moral standards - law = reluctant to shift blame from D to third party
    • Especially for medical cases where aim is to help V (e.g. Cheshire)
    • Blaming V, medic/third party = cause moral outrage
    • Even if liability is imposed, the sentence could reflect D's level of blame
      • Sentencing guidelines means deciding whether people are more/less culpable
• Corrective justice = the notion that liability resolves the injustice inflicted from one person onto another
  • In contract law, focusses on one party committing + other party suffering transactional injustice + damages paid are meant to rectify this
    • Damages are based on fault (already discussed) -> corrective justice linked to blameworthiness
• Unfair w/SL offences
  • Callow v Tilstone - raising standards = conter productive - will be guilty anyway
  • Unfair to give anyone not blameworthy a penalty (Shah)

SL offences 

• SL not based n fault - no need for MR
  • Even taking steps to avoid committing offence can still be found guilty of it (Callow v Tillstone, Shah)
    • Cases that took reasonable care but still found guilty -> liability not based on D's fault

Absolute liability

• goes further - no need for AR to be voluntary
  • R v Larsonneur - D deported from Ireland to England, then charged w/being illegal alien
    • Did not act voluntarily, so no fault, but still liable

Thin Skull Rule

• Arguably D not at fault - D not at fault for V's death in Blaue. Nevertheless, still found liable

• SL raises standards w/health + safety of public
  • Callow v Tillstone - not at fault but meat still unfit
  • Alphacell Ltd. v Wodward - helped river pollution
  • Serves as warning to other businesses to be vigilant
  • Protects employees from being unfairly treated by bosses
    • They cannot claim a lack of MR for an offence
• SL offences generally not serious - relatively small penalty
  • Saves Court expense + time
  • Gammon v A-G Hong Kong - 'if mens rea had to be proved in even the smallest of regulatory offences, even the administration of justice might quickly come to a complete standstill'
• Avoids proving neglegence + problems w/litigation inc time delays + laywer costs
  • People entitled to compensation would get it more easily than w/fault based system