MULUNGUSHI UNIVERSITY

STUDENT NUMBER; 202002550.

NAME; Hopekings Kaoma.

SCHOOL; School Of Business Studies.

PRORAMME; Bachelor Of Laws.

COURSE; Criminal Law I .

COURSE CODE; LLB 211.

LECTRUER; Mr. Justin sipho Chitengi.

QUESTION; The Appellant was a soldier who had just stubbed a comrade during a fight
in an army barracks. The victim was dropped twice by those carrying to receive medical attention at the
hospital. Once at the hospital he received negligent attention, the medics failed to diagnose a puncture
to his lung. The victim died of his injuries. The Appellant was tried and convicted for murder at first
instance. The Appellant appealed on the ground that the Court errored both in fact and in law
contending that the victim would have survived but for the negligence of the people treating him.

His lordship, Justice Chitengi, now seeks your indulgence to prepare a well-reasoned legal brief for
authority in his adjudicating on the legal issue of whether the Appellant was on terre firma and whether
the court should agree in toto with Counsel for the Appellant’s unrebutted submission that the
negligence on the part of the doctors was capable of breaking the chain of causation between the
Appellant’s action in stabbing the deceased, and his ultimate death.

DATE; 22 nd November, 2021.

The Appellant has just been convicted of murdering his comrade during a fight in an army
barracks but has appealed to have his conviction turned on the basis that the victim would have
died but for the negligence of the medics attending to him. The task I have been given in this
assignment is to prepare a legal brief to uphold the conviction of the Appellant.

The facts of the case are that during a fight in an army barracks the Appellant stubbed his
comrade and caused a puncture to his lung which eventually led to his death. At this point it is
important to recognize that the Appellant satisfied all criminal liability requirements that make a
person criminally liable for an offence these being Legality. This principle stipulates that there
must be a law for there to be a crime. It is premised on the Latin maxim Nullum crimen sine lege
which translates "no crime without law." Legality is the moral principle in criminal law and
international criminal law that a person cannot or should not face criminal liability if there was
no law criminalising their conduct/act at the time they committed the act; Actus reus. This
principle of criminal law deals with human conduct, and stipulates that for a crime to occur there
must be a blameworthy act of either commission or omission by the accused. Causation. This
principle of criminal law dictates that the blameworthy conduct of the defendant must cause
harm. Therefore, for a crime to have been committed there should be a casual relation between
the blameworthy conduct the harm suffered. Harm. The principle stresses that for a crime to
occur there should harm caused by an act to some other/thing. That is to say, for there to be a
crime, an act must cause harm to some legally protected value. Mens rea. Mens rea simply
means "guilty mind." This principle requires that for a person to be criminally liable they should
have a guilty or ill-intent to commit the blameworthy act. Concurrence/Coincidence of Actus
Reus and Mens Rea. This legal principle of criminal law requires that for there to be a crime
there must be concurrence between the blameworthy conduct and the guilty state of mind. That is
to say, both the intent and the act must be present at the same time. A crime is committed only
when actus reus and mens rea concur in time. For instance, there is no burglary if a person breaks
into shelter escaping from a storm and only then steals. Only theft, and not burglary is committed
because at the time of entry the person had no intent to ‘break in and steal.’3 3
http://www.wcl.american.edu/sba/outline_databank/outlines/CriminalLaw_ Nulla poena sine
lege. This maxim forms the legal principle discouraging arbitrary punishment with the meaning
being: “no penalty without a law.” Once criminal liability has been proved, it must be established
that there is a provision in the law calling for punishment of those found guilty.
There is no contention that the Appellant satisfied all the principals that are needed to
make a person liable, but he contends that his actions fail below the requirement of
causation that his actions were not the sole cause of the death of the victim.

CAUSATION

For an offence to be finalised, it must be proved that its actus reus was actually combined with
the requisite mens to cause a prohibited injury or harm. Causation refers to the enquiry as to
whether the defendant's conduct (or omission) caused the harm or damage. Elemental Meaning
of Causation Technically, causation means three things namely: that a criminal act must be the
cause in fact or “but for” cause of a harm or injury, as well as the legal or proximate cause; that
a coincidental intervening act breaks the chain of causation caused by a defendant’s
criminal act, unless the intervening act was foreseeable; and that a responsive intervening
act does not break the chain of causation caused by a defendant’s criminal act, unless the
intervening act was both abnormal and unforeseeable. Causation must be established in all
result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal
causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In
most instances, where there exist no complicating factors, factual causation on its own will
suffice to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to
consider legal causation.

It is quite clear from the definition and elements of causation that I have discussed above that the
Appellants defence that the negligence of the medics attending to the victim constituted an
intervining act that eventually led to the victim’s death can not stand as it does not fulfill the
elements needed for one to be aquited on the basis of a “novus actus intervienes” These being
that a defendant’s act or omission needs to be the cause of harm, meaning that “but for” for the
defendants actions would the victim had suffered the harm or injury. In this case of this
Appellant it is fair to say that “but for” the defendants actions, that of stubbing the victim, the
victim would not have suffered the injury which eventually lead to his death.