“Assault by omission possible where defendant has duty to prevent harm occurring.”
During a police search, Santana-Bermudez was asked if he had any sharp objects. He said no, but the officer was injured by hypodermic needles in his pockets during the subsequent search.
Whether assault occasioning actual bodily harm could be committed by omission, specifically by failing to warn of a danger when under a duty to do so.
The Divisional Court held that assault could be committed by omission where the defendant was under a duty to act and failed to do so, thereby causing harm.
This case significantly extended assault law to cover omissions, establishing that liability can arise from failing to act when under a duty to prevent harm. It's important for understanding the boundaries of criminal liability and duty situations.
You're reading the free summary of DPP v Santana-Bermudez. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.