Introduction Referring to clause 17 of the Draft Criminal Bill 1989 (DCB), certain actus reus of a crime required two-part inquiry which are the Prohibited Result and The Defendant(D)'s conduct causes the prohibited result. Prohibited result is when the D conduct have resulted the prohibited result, for example A causes a prohibited result which is murder, in murder the victim must have died. Although definition of prohibited result may differ depending on the type of the offence. This two-part are connected element in establishing the chain of causation. Further discussion on this matter will be discus briefly. Causation is define as the "casual relationship between conduct and result". Where to establish the chain of causation, Factual
…show more content…
For operating cause of the result it is not have to be the ' sole or main' cause of the specified consequences. For Further understanding of the principle of operating cause of result, the case of R v Smith[1959] is used to illustrated the principle. D was a soldier where he got in a fight in an army barrack, D stabbed the V who was another soldier. On the route to the hospital, the medics accidently drop the victim twice. Where later on in the hospital, the victim was given the wrong treatment for his condition. The victim died and the D was convicted of murder. The D appealed stating that if V received the correct medication and treatment, V would not have died. The Court Of Appeal (COA) held that, the stab wound by the D was an operating cause of the V death and the conviction was upheld. Similar principle apply in the case of R v Benge[1865]. For Substantial cause of result means more than something that the law considered as de minimis. where the principle is laid down in the case of R v Cato [1976], where D and V and 2 other purchased heroin and share it among them and they were paired to assist injecting each other, where D injected the V. Due to the repeated injection of the heroin during the night, V died on the next morning. The court held that, D was convicted of constructive manslaughter by …show more content…
There are few possible intervening factor one of it is the naturally occurring event, where it was not reasonably foreseeable. Referring to the case of Hallet[1969] it was held that the tidewater rising was a naturally occurring event, but it was foreseeable and therefore this would not fall under the intervening factor. When there is an act of third party, these could lead to an intervening factor. The act of the third party must not reasonably foreseeable, where in the case of Environmental Agency V Empress Car ltd [1998] the court held that the act of the party in the case was foreseeable as the D did not fence the tanks. It was foreseeable that if there was no proper fencing, it is foreseeable that the V or other person may have entered and causes the result. Other factor that can be an intervening factor is medical treatment. This means in some cases, intervening of medical factor can break the chain of causation. Referring to case of Cheshire[1991] where D shot V in the stomach and thigh. Weeks later, the V's wound was healing and no longer in life threatening condition. But the V had a breathing difficulties and died as the result of the complication of the tracheotomy. Court held that, intervening medical treatment could only be regarded as excluding criminal liability of the D
For operating cause of the result it is not have to be the ' sole or main' cause of the specified consequences. For Further understanding of the principle of operating cause of result, the case of R v Smith[1959] is used to illustrated the principle. D was a soldier where he got in a fight in an army barrack, D stabbed the V who was another soldier. On the route to the hospital, the medics accidently drop the victim twice. Where later on in the hospital, the victim was given the wrong treatment for his condition. The victim died and the D was convicted of murder. The D appealed stating that if V received the correct medication and treatment, V would not have died. The Court Of Appeal (COA) held that, the stab wound by the D was an operating cause of the V death and the conviction was upheld. Similar principle apply in the case of R v Benge[1865]. For Substantial cause of result means more than something that the law considered as de minimis. where the principle is laid down in the case of R v Cato [1976], where D and V and 2 other purchased heroin and share it among them and they were paired to assist injecting each other, where D injected the V. Due to the repeated injection of the heroin during the night, V died on the next morning. The court held that, D was convicted of constructive manslaughter by …show more content…
There are few possible intervening factor one of it is the naturally occurring event, where it was not reasonably foreseeable. Referring to the case of Hallet[1969] it was held that the tidewater rising was a naturally occurring event, but it was foreseeable and therefore this would not fall under the intervening factor. When there is an act of third party, these could lead to an intervening factor. The act of the third party must not reasonably foreseeable, where in the case of Environmental Agency V Empress Car ltd [1998] the court held that the act of the party in the case was foreseeable as the D did not fence the tanks. It was foreseeable that if there was no proper fencing, it is foreseeable that the V or other person may have entered and causes the result. Other factor that can be an intervening factor is medical treatment. This means in some cases, intervening of medical factor can break the chain of causation. Referring to case of Cheshire[1991] where D shot V in the stomach and thigh. Weeks later, the V's wound was healing and no longer in life threatening condition. But the V had a breathing difficulties and died as the result of the complication of the tracheotomy. Court held that, intervening medical treatment could only be regarded as excluding criminal liability of the D