Fault P1 and P2

Fault within law acts as a marker of blame for doing something wrong in society. For example in
crime, if you commit murder, you are deemed as a ‘murder’. Fault also signifies wrongdoing,
justifying punishment to act as a deterrent against future misconduct. Fault makes clear what
behaviour is and isn’t acceptable in society, attempting to achieve order in society.
Fault can be seen in the actus reus of crimes. Causation plays a crucial role in establishing the
blameworthiness or how at fault the defendant is. The defendants acts must directly link to the
resulting harm. For example in the Jack Woodley case, the element of fault was evident for all of the
teens, not just the person who stabbed him.
Fault can also be seen in the mens rea, the mental state of the victim at the time of the offence. This is
generally shown in two levels. Intent is the worse of the two, and so generally offers a high sentence
(this can be seen in s.20 / s.18 GHB). Intent can be seen in the case of Katie Rough where a teenage
girl killed a young child with the desire to cause that consequence. Recklessness can be seen in the
case of Cunningham, this is a lower form of mens rea which essential puts the defendant at less fault
than if he had intention. Cunningham didn’t know the consequences of his actions and so couldn’t be
held at fault.
Fault can be removed by defences, for instance self defence requires the defendant to prove a
reasonable belief in the necessity of their actions, and therefore mitigating the fault of their conduct.
Fault is removed from some crimes, in the case of strict liability. This could be seen as unfair as the
mental state of the defendant isn’t considered. While these offences do promote public safety, some
can argue they impose liability without fault which may result in unjust outcomes.
Overall fault plays a crucial role in maintaining law and order by acting as a fundamental principle in
determining culpability and justifying punishment in the criminal justice system. However the
weakness of fault lies in its subjective nature in law, determining the mental state behind every act
may be speculative, as well as ignoring systemic factors such as socio-economic disparities.

Paper 2
Fault is used as a marker of blame within society. For example in crime, if you commit murder, you
are deemed as a ‘murder’. In civil law fault justifies remedies, for example an injunction or damages.
It attempts to put the people back in the position they were in before the act.
Within law, fault in the act occurs to deem people liable. The factual causation test (Barnett) is an
example of this. It shows fault and accountability for things such as negligence, and holds people at
fault for not acting correctly. In most tort claims, there must be a breach of a duty of care. This means
the defendant must act below the standard of the ordinary person doing the task.
Another example for fault within civil law is fault within the mind. This doesn’t appear in isolation in
law, however can arise within remedies to make sure people get the appropriate amount of
compensation.
In criminal law there are levels of fault in the mind, intention and recklessness. Intention is the more
serious and so carries a longer sentence, as seen through s.18 / s.20 GBH.
Strict liability claims exist in civil law, for example Rylands v Flectcher. This is deemed a negative in
relation to fault as the defendant may have done nothing wrong and be held liable.
There are specific fault defences, such as contributory negligence. This shows fault as it removes
blame from the defendant as the original claimant contributed towards their own losses, meaning the
defendant shouldn’t be held completely responsible.
Fault is significant as if people weren’t held at fault, they would likely do the wrongdoings again. It
tries to improve public safety by changing behaviour.