R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161

Facts

  • The defendant, Mr. Miller, was a squatter who had consumed alcohol and fell asleep in a building while holding a lit cigarette.
  • The cigarette ignited the mattress on which Miller was sleeping, causing a fire.
  • Upon waking and becoming aware of the fire, Miller moved to another room and went back to sleep without attempting to extinguish the fire or seek help.
  • The fire spread, resulting in extensive damage exceeding £800.
  • Miller was charged with arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, found guilty at trial, and appealed to the House of Lords.

Issues

  1. Whether an omission to act, following the creation of a dangerous situation, can constitute the actus reus of arson.
  2. Whether Miller’s failure to take steps to prevent the effects of the fire satisfied the requirements for mens rea, particularly recklessness.
  3. Whether the concept of a duty of care could arise from Miller’s own actions rather than a pre-existing relationship.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that Miller was criminally liable for arson even though the fire was started unintentionally.
  • The court determined that when a person creates a dangerous situation, a duty arises to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimize harm.
  • Miller's omission to take such steps after becoming aware of the danger constituted the actus reus of arson.
  • The court found that the requisite mens rea of recklessness was satisfied by Miller’s awareness of the risk and failure to act.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

Legal Principles

  • Criminal liability may arise from omission if a defendant creates a dangerous situation and fails to act reasonably to prevent harm.
  • The actus reus for offences such as arson can be established via omission when accompanied by a duty to act.
  • Mens rea in this context includes recklessness, defined by awareness of a risk and unreasonable failure to address that risk.
  • The duty of care can be imposed where an individual’s conduct creates the danger, expanding traditional notions of duty beyond pre-existing relationships.

Conclusion

R v Miller established that a person who creates a dangerous situation can be held criminally liable for the consequences of failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, thereby extending liability for omissions in English criminal law. The case clarified that both actus reus and mens rea requirements can be met through a combination of the defendant's initial actions and subsequent omissions when recklessness is present.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal