''R v Miller'' ( case citation: 982UKHL 6; 9832 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

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. 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 (), sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Law Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the ("guilty mind"), produces criminal liability in th ...

coinciding with

mens rea In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element ...

. 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

Upon appeal to the House of Lords, Lord Diplock stated: 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 Reckless may refer to: Film and television Film * ''Reckless'' (1935 film), an American musical directed by Victor Fleming * ''Reckless'' (1951 film), a Spanish drama film directed by José Antonio Nieves Conde * '' The Reckless'', a 1965 Itali ...

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

The case of ''

DPP v Santana-Bermudez ''Director of Public Prosecutions v Santa-Bermudez'' Divisional Court of Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, considering an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales), Director of Publi ...

'' 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

{{reflist, refs= {{cite BAILII , litigants = Director of Public Prosecutions v Santa-Bermudez , link = , court = EWHC , division = Admin , year = 2003 , num = 2908 , date = 13 November 2003 , courtname = auto , juris = {{cite BAILII , litigants = R v Miller , court = UKHL , year = 1982 , num = 6 , parallelcite = 9832 AC 161, 9831 All ER 978 , date = 17 March 1982 , courtname = auto Miller House of Lords cases 1982 in British law 1982 in case law