What is the ratio in R v Miller?

When a person creates a dangerous situation and becomes aware of it, they have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the harm that might result.

What did the court decide in R v Miller?

The House of Lords upheld the criminal damage conviction, establishing that Miller's failure to act after creating and discovering the fire danger constituted the actus reus.

Why is R v Miller important for omissions?

It established a key category of omissions liability based on prior conduct, showing how creating danger can generate duties to act beyond traditional relationship-based duties.

What is the ratio in R v Miller?

When a person creates a dangerous situation and becomes aware of it, they have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the harm that might result.

What did the court decide in R v Miller?

The House of Lords upheld the criminal damage conviction, establishing that Miller's failure to act after creating and discovering the fire danger constituted the actus reus.

Why is R v Miller important for omissions?

It established a key category of omissions liability based on prior conduct, showing how creating danger can generate duties to act beyond traditional relationship-based duties.

Criminal1 min read

R v Miller

[1983] 2 AC 161House of Lords1983

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“House of Lords establishes liability for omission after creating dangerous situation”

Facts

Miller, a squatter, fell asleep while smoking a cigarette which set fire to a mattress. Upon waking and discovering the fire, he moved to another room without attempting to extinguish it or summon help. The fire spread and caused damage to the building.

Issues

Whether a person can be criminally liable for an omission where they have created a dangerous situation but failed to take steps to prevent or minimize the resulting harm.

Held

The House of Lords held that Miller was liable for arson. A person who accidentally starts a fire is under a duty to take reasonable measures to counteract the danger they have created.

Significance

This case fundamentally expanded criminal liability by establishing that omissions can constitute actus reus where the defendant created the dangerous situation. It remains the leading authority on liability for omissions in English criminal law.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Miller. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 (HL)

Criminal LawTort Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.