Moral and Legal duty: There are many instances where we can see a moral duty to act. However, as Stephan J. stated a person does not have to act if there is not a legal duty to. For this reason the difference between a moral and legal duty can be difficult. A person could watch a child fall of a cliff but does not have to stop the child from doing so. This raises serious issues morally, but under legal rights a stranger would not have to act. This is a problem on the law of omissions and shows our need for Good Samaritan Law.

Strict Liability offences: It can appear vastly unfair that there can be a crime that is strict liability and can also be committed through an omission. This means that all that needs to be proven is that the defendant failed to act, the mens rea is irrelevant. This is illustrated in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) which makes it clear that any member of a household where a child dies to due to domestic violence will be liable. This raises serious policy issues as surely a defendant should not be liable of a strict liability offence and failure to act.

Where a duty exists: The concept of a duty can be extended to a vast amount of areas. This is illustrated by Khan and Khan (1998) where the Court of Appeal made it clear that due to judge and jury deciding where a duty exists that the area covered by the law on omissions will continue to grow. This could cause serious problems for human liberty and it would mean that it would be reduced to the extent that we are not free to act in any situation.

When does a duty cease to exist: If the defendant has formed a duty of care then how to they get out of this duty? This is one problem on the law. This is because a defendant may take on a voluntary duty of care of an individual but then wish to make this duty cease to exist – how does this occur? This can be a serious problem for the law on omissions as a person may be unable to escape a duty of care and liability will be imposed for any harm that they could have avoided.

Contractual duty: A person bound by contract to have a duty may be at risk of harm themselves, does this appear fair? This is one of the major problems with the creation of a contractual duty of care as it appears unreasonable that the defendant should put