{"id":165,"date":"2005-02-24T18:44:10","date_gmt":"2005-02-24T18:44:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-02-24T18:44:10","modified_gmt":"2005-02-24T18:44:10","slug":"causing-or-allowing-the-death-of-a-child-or-vulnerable-adult","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=165","title":{"rendered":"Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whilst it is not explicitly part of the specifications these changes are highly significant and plug a loophole that has vexed lawyers and critics of the current state of the law of murder and manslaughter.
Introduction<\/strong>
1. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004<\/u><\/strong> is the biggest overhaul of the law on domestic violence in the last 30 years. It contains a wide range of reforms in the three distinct areas; domestic violence, crime and victims. Its provisions will be commenced in stages.
2. Sections 5 and 6<\/strong> introduce a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult and new procedural measures linked to the offence. The offence will come into force in England and Wales on 21st March 2005<\/strong>.
3. The new offence and procedural changes form a package of measures which are intended to solve the problem that arises when a child or vulnerable adult suffers an unlawful death<\/strong> and it can be proved that one or more of a small group of people living in the same household as the victim caused the death, but not which of them<\/font><\/strong>. In such circumstances there may be no case to answer against any member of the household for murder\/manslaughter. Until now this loophole in the law<\/strong> has enabled those co-accused of the death of a child or vulnerable adult to escape justice by remaining silent or by blaming each other<\/strong>. However it is also a serious stand-alone offence which puts a new legal responsibility on adult household members who could be charged with the offence even for example where there is no charge of murder\/manslaughter or where evidence suggests that the defendant could not themselves have committed the criminal act which killed the victim.
4. The offence provides that members of a household who have frequent contact with a child or vulnerable adult will be guilty if they caused the death of that child or vulnerable adult or three conditions<\/strong> are met:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n
  1. they were aware or ought to have been aware that the victim was at significant risk of serious physical harm from a member of the household; and <\/font>\n
  2. they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent that person coming to harm; and <\/font>\n
  3. the person subsequently died from the unlawful act of a member of the household in circumstances that the defendant foresaw or ought to have foreseen. <\/font><\/li>\n<\/li>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/p>\n

    be applicable in two different circumstances \u2013 the defendant may have caused or allowed the death of a child or vulnerable adult. The prosecution do not have to prove which of the two circumstances apply to the defendant. The maximum penalty is 14 years<\/strong>.
    5. The text of the Act including the new offence and procedural measures can be found on http:\/\/www.hmso.gov.uk\/acts\/acts2004.htm<\/a>.
    6. The ‘allowing’ element of the offence will generally be continuous rather than a single event<\/strong><\/font>, but for the offence to apply some failure to take reasonable steps to protect the victim, or continuation of a failure to take steps, must have taken place after the commencement of the provisions in the Act. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Whilst it is not explicitly part of the specifications these changes are highly significant and plug a loophole that has vexed lawyers and critics of the current state of the law of murder and manslaughter. Introduction 1. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is the biggest overhaul of the law on domestic violence in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}