Danielle’s Law and the Transformation of a Core Principle of British Criminal Law

Preamble

As a Human Rights Advocate, I am often approached with campaigns that demand careful thought, legal scrutiny, and moral clarity. Yet when I was first asked to consider supporting Danielle’s Law, I found myself confronted with one of the most challenging ethical dilemmas of my overall view on human rights.

The proposal; to create a legal duty to assist individuals in immediate danger, resonated deeply with my instinctive belief in protecting life and safeguarding the vulnerable. At the same time, it struck at the heart of a long-standing principle within British law: that individuals, however morally compelled, are not legally obligated to act.

This tension was not abstract. It was personal, philosophical, and profoundly uncomfortable. On one hand stood the tragic death of Danielle Haggerty, a young woman whose life might have been saved had someone taken the simple step of calling for help. On the other stood the foundational legal doctrine that the state should not compel private citizens to intervene, even in the face of obvious danger. Reconciling these competing values, the sanctity of life, and the preservation of individual autonomy, required deep reflection.

The more I examined Danielle’s case, the more I recognised that the existing legal framework had failed her in ways that were both systemic and avoidable. Yet I also understood that introducing a duty to act would represent a profound shift in the balance between personal liberty and societal responsibility. Supporting such a reform demanded not only compassion, but intellectual honesty about what might be lost as well as what might be gained.

The following thoughts emerge from that process of reflection. It explores how Danielle’s Law challenges the core principles of British criminal law, how it could reshape our understanding of responsibility in domestic abuse cases, and how it raises legitimate concerns about the potential erosion of individual rights. It is written not from a place of certainty, but from a commitment to engage with the complexity of the issue, to honour Danielle’s memory while also respecting the legal traditions that have shaped our society.

Only by confronting these tensions openly can we hope to craft a law that protects the vulnerable without compromising the freedoms that define us.

Introduction

British criminal law has long been anchored in a distinctive principle: there is no general legal duty to act.

Unlike many European jurisdictions, the UK does not require citizens to intervene, assist, or even call for help when another person is in danger. This doctrine reflects a deep-rooted commitment to personal autonomy and the belief that criminal liability should arise from harmful actions, not from moral failings or omissions.

The campaign for Danielle’s Law, inspired by the tragic death of 33-year-old Danielle Haggerty in 2023, directly challenges this foundational principle. Danielle died after a violent domestic incident in which she was left unconscious and unaided, despite clear opportunities for intervention.

Her family argues that a legal duty to assist could have saved her life. If enacted, Danielle’s Law would represent one of the most significant philosophical and structural shifts in modern British criminal law.

My research examines how Danielle’s Law would reshape the principles of British law, the implications for domestic abuse policy, and the potential erosion of individual rights that accompanies the introduction of a legal duty to act.

1. The Current Legal Position: No General Duty to Act

British law traditionally distinguishes between acts and omissions. Criminal liability almost always requires a positive act, ie; doing something that causes harm.

Failing to act, even when morally indefensible, is generally not criminal unless a specific legal duty already exists.

Existing duties arise only in narrow circumstances:

• Special relationships (e.g., parent–child)
• Contractual obligations (e.g., carers, lifeguards)
• Voluntary assumption of responsibility
• Creation of a dangerous situation
• Statutory duties (e.g., reporting road accidents)

Outside these limited categories, a person may witness violence, injury, or even a life-threatening emergency and face no criminal consequences for doing nothing. This principle is rooted in liberal philosophy: the law should not compel individuals to act unless they have chosen or caused the situation.

Danielle’s Law directly confronts this tradition.

2. What Danielle’s Law Proposes

Danielle’s Law seeks to introduce a legal duty to assist someone in immediate danger. It would make it a criminal offence to:

• Knowingly abandon a person who is unconscious or gravely injured
• Fail to call emergency services when someone is in clear peril
• Deliberately withhold assistance following violence or harm

The law is particularly aimed at domestic abuse contexts, where perpetrators often delay seeking help to avoid detection, delays that can be fatal.

This would create a new, generalised duty in UK law: a requirement to take reasonable steps to preserve life.

3. How Danielle’s Law Challenges the Foundations of British Criminal Law

A. From negative liberty to positive responsibility

British criminal law is built on the idea that individuals should be free from state coercion unless they cause harm. Danielle’s Law introduces a new expectation:

You may be criminally liable not only for what you do, but for what you fail to do.

This shifts the UK toward a more communitarian legal philosophy, similar to France or Germany, where “duty to rescue” laws already exist.

B. Expanding criminal liability for omissions

Currently, omissions are criminal only when tied to a pre-existing duty. Danielle’s Law would expand liability by creating a new statutory duty, fundamentally altering the boundaries of criminal omission.

This raises complex questions:

• How do we define “immediate danger”?
• What counts as a “reasonable” step?
• How do we protect individuals who freeze, panic, or misjudge the situation?

C. Reframing domestic abuse

Domestic abuse often involves:

• Delayed calls for help
• Victims left unconscious or injured
• Perpetrators prioritising self-protection

Danielle’s Law would close a dangerous gap: the ability of perpetrators to avoid liability by simply doing nothing after causing harm.

D. Aligning the UK with international norms

Many countries impose a duty to assist:

• France: non-assistance à personne en danger
• Germany: §323c StGB
• Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland: similar provisions

Adopting Danielle’s Law would bring the UK closer to these systems and reflect evolving societal expectations.

4. The Potential Erosion of Individual Rights

Introducing a legal duty to assist inevitably raises concerns about state power, personal autonomy, and the limits of criminal law.

A. Autonomy and the right not to act

A core argument against a duty to act is that individuals have the right to choose their own actions, including the choice not to intervene. Critics argue:

• The state should not criminalise moral failings
• Compelling action risks undermining personal freedom
• Individuals may be forced into situations they feel unprepared or unsafe to handle

Danielle’s Law narrows the scope of personal autonomy by requiring action in specific circumstances.

B. Risk of over-criminalisation

A duty to assist could criminalise:

• Misjudging the seriousness of a situation
• Freezing or panicking
• Misunderstanding what is happening

The danger is that the law may punish human fallibility rather than deliberate neglect.

C. Burden on ordinary citizens

A legal duty shifts responsibility from institutions to individuals. While most people would instinctively call for help, the law would now require it. This raises concerns about:

• Vulnerable individuals being held to the same standard as trained professionals
• Fear of prosecution leading to unnecessary emergency calls
• Cultural or psychological differences in how people respond to emergencies

D. The slippery slope concern

Once the state imposes a general duty to act, some fear it could expand over time:

• Could citizens eventually be required to intervene physically?
• Could the duty extend to non-emergency situations?
• Could failure to report suspicious behaviour become criminal?

While these outcomes are not inherent to Danielle’s Law, they illustrate the broader philosophical tension.

E. Balancing rights with responsibilities

The challenge is not whether helping someone is morally right; most people agree it is, but whether the law should enforce that morality.

Danielle’s Law asserts that:

In certain circumstances, the protection of life outweighs the individual’s right to choose inaction.

This represents a significant recalibration of the relationship between the individual and the state.

5. Why the Shift May Be Justified

Despite concerns about autonomy, Danielle’s Law is not about policing morality. It is about preventing avoidable deaths. The law would apply only in clear, immediate, life-threatening situations, and only require reasonable steps, such as calling emergency services.

Key safeguards would include:

• No obligation to intervene physically
• No liability if the person reasonably believed they were unsafe
• No punishment for honest mistakes
• Focus on deliberate, knowing abandonment

The law targets willful neglect, not human imperfection.

Conclusion

Danielle’s Law would mark a profound shift in British criminal law, challenging the long-standing principle that individuals have no obligation to act. It introduces a new expectation that citizens must take minimal steps to preserve life when they are the only people who can do so.

This shift raises important questions about autonomy, state power, and the boundaries of criminal responsibility. Yet it also reflects a modern understanding of vulnerability, domestic abuse, and societal values.

The task for lawmakers is to ensure that Danielle’s Law protects the vulnerable without unduly eroding individual rights. With careful drafting, it can strike that balance, modernising British law while preserving its core principles.

14 February 2026

---

I have written an updated Linkedin article 25th February 2026 here: Towards a UK Duty to Assist: A Combined Strategy for Danielle's Law and Matthew's Law

Edwin Duggan LLB(Hons)