Sherlock Holmes Case Summary

This memo is in response to the case Senior Constable Sherlock Holmes is investigating regarding the accused, Donny Doer and the deceased, Velma Victim. The incident occurred at a family gathering for brunch with Velma Victim’s daughter Sally Victim, Donny Doer’s wife Debbie Doer and Joe and Wendy (the parents of the deceased). The deceased became aware of Donny Doer’s human immunodeficiency (HIV) condition when they had gone camping together previously and encouraged him to tell his wife. He said he would tell his wife, however, did not. During the family gathering, an HIV program showed on the television causing the deceased to feel unsettled. Velma Victim, whilst intoxicated emotionally demanded Donny Doer to tell his wife the truth. Due …show more content…
For causation to be established, it must satisfy two key components beyond a reasonable doubt: the defendant’s voluntary action was a ‘but-for’ cause of death of the victim and the lack of any events that could supervene the chain of cause and consequence in the case. It is examined the accused struck the deceased in the throat and caused her death directly without any other intervening events which significantly caused her death. The first casual test is referred to as the operating and substantial cause test. The R v Hallett case is an example of where the offender was convicted of murder despite the victim drowning in shallow water. Because the offender had assaulted the victim to an unconscious state and left him near the shore of the beach, it led the victim to drown. It is established in R v Hallett, the act must substantially and contribute to the death of the victim. The Chain of Causation remained stable as there were no occurring novus actus interveniens (intervening act/event) which caused the casual chain between the accused and death of Velma Victim to break. Donny Doer’s punch and the impact from it contributed significantly to the death of Velma Victim. Legal causation exists if the events leading up to the injury causing death is reasonably foreseeable. Causation is determined by measuring the probability and likelihood of the accused knowing the degree of risk of death or grievous bodily harm they could cause the victim. It is reasonable for Donny Doer to be at least aware of his actions having the possibility of causing Velma Victim grievous bodily harm due to the previous incident with his dog . The Boughey v The Queen case additionally established the risk must be ‘substantial’ and a ‘real and not remote’ chance for it to be present, despite if it is less or more than 50%. It is not clear if Donny Doer was aware that his conduct was