CAUSATION - COD – cold exposure night 2nd circumstances - Affected chances to

Rebut on actus reus
Must prove first
Circumstances
1) Several actions + several mens rea
2) Several contributors (accused + victim
+ 3rd party)
Issues:
Whether the accused had caused the death
toward the deceased?
1st circumstances
(Separate vs single transaction approach)
- To determine the cause of death (ac =
main or not?)
Re Palani Goundan
- Ac – hit his wife (several blows)
- Hanging his wife (thinking already
dead)
- Separate transaction approach (break
the chain of causation) – looking act
separately
Kaliappa Goundan
- Plan to kill his wife
- Strangled wife (thinking was dead)
- Put on railway
- COD – hitting by train
- Single transaction approach
- Act – series of action
- Ac – liable and cause of death
Thaboo Meli v Regina
- Ac – struck his wife head using an
instrument
- Believe was dead
- Took body out of hut – rolled down
- Single transaction approach
(liable)
- Ctd;
- Accused plan all
- Act of conceal become an
series of action.
Jackson v Commonwealth
- Ac- attempted to kill the
victim (large dose of cocaine)
- Believing (was dead)
- Cut off ac head
- COD – decapitation
- Single TA – liable
Queen-Empress v Khandu balad
Bavani
- Ac – intention to kill Father in
law
- Gave 3 blows (believing was
dead)
- Set a fire
- Cod – FIA from fire
- Separate transaction
approach – liable for attempt
for murder
PP v Ng Hock Lee
- Ac – two stab at neck
- Buried deceased
- Cod – asphyxiation
- Separate transaction
approach
- Liable for vch
Must prove the (who the main cause of
death?
R v White
- Mothers died – poisonous milk
- Cod – heart attack
- Ctd – break in the chain of
causation
Nga Ba Min v Emperor
1) Ac – several blows (stick) at head
- Normal circumstances – recovered
2) Received unskilled treatment –
wound inflicted
3) Back to village – not treat wound
properly.
Ac not liable for murder
Test applicable;
1) Factual causation test
(but-for-test)
2) Imputable causation test
The act of accused is direct cause
Emperor V Omkar Rampratap
- Held 304a (must be direct result
and proximate)
Quay Seng Tiong Nickson v PP
- The sufficient nexus between act
& damage caused
- Action of 3rd party will weaken the
nexus
3) Substantial cause test
The act of the accused is
substantially caused death.
R v Smith
- AC stabbed deceased
- Rushed to H – drop few times
- Had given poor treatment
recover
- Look at COD, if the injury
sustained was caused the
death – ac was the main
cause of death.
Hallet v Regina
- The act are subsisted and
happening at the event
Shaiful Edham V PP
- Ac – steb at neck
(substantial cause)
- Thinking was dead (throw
into canal)
- COD ; Drowning
- Ac liable
4) Foreseeability test
- More prominent among
Indians
- Whether the accused can
foreseen the death by the
act
PP v Chan Lie Soon
- Ac – several blows heads
- Died a week after
- Ctd; the ac must forsee
what the consequence of
post-surgery
Yohanan v State
- Ac – stabbed at back (pen
knife)
- Causing injury to spinal
cord (paralysis)
- Ctd; no intervening factor
- Must foreseen to die
Overseas tankship v merts dack - -
- Held
- Man should responsible for the
natural act.
R v Maybin
- Ac intended to kill (gave poisonous
meat)
- Throw – eat by 9 y/0 boy
- Held ; ac liable section 301
R v blowe
- Victim – refused blood transaction
- Holy blood
- Act of ac – injury (main cause)
- Act of dc – not want to receive blood
- Appellant/ac guilty