Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PBL CRIMINAL:
CAUSATION
Afaf Maisarah (2118054)
Presentation by Muhammad Yasir (2118163)
Sammy Ong was a maintenance officer at a condominium in KL East, and he had a gambling
addiction that led him to lose his monthly salaries regularly. During a maintenance call at
Melissa Tan's apartment, he noticed that she kept a safe box containing money in her
wardrobe. Melissa and Sammy exchanged phone numbers, and he began chatting with her,
even though he had ulterior motives to swindle her wealth to fund his addiction. Melissa
noticed a fault with her bidet, so she called Sammy to fix it. Sammy came prepared with a
range of tools, including a large adjustable spanner, screwdriver, claw hammer, portable
drilling machine, and hand saw, to pry open her safe box. When Melissa went to do her
chores, Sammy tried to break open the safe box, but Melissa caught him in the act. Sammy
struck her head three times with the large spanner, causing Melissa to collapse and bleed
from her head. Sammy noticed that she was still alive, took the medium screwdriver, and
stabbed her five times in the right side of her abdomen. She died from drowning after he
dumped her body in the condominium water tank. Police found Melissa's body in the tank,
and Sammy was detained as a murder suspect after CCTV footage of him dragging a large
bag into the elevator emerged.
OVERVIEW
Scenario Causation
Introduction Murder
Issues Conclusion
Page 04 INTRODUCTION
Section 300 of the Penal Code provides that Except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—
(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death;
(b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused;
(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death, or such injury as afore
ISSUES Page 05
The accused got into a fight with a The court in this case is of the opinion
fellow soldier which ended up with the that, “If at the time of death the
victim getting stabbed with a bayonet, original wound is still an operating
twice. The victim was taken to get cause and a substantial cause, then the
medical attention but was dropped death can properly be said to be the
twice while on the way and the victim result of the wound, albeit that some
was also given improper treatment other cause of death is also operating.
when he’s at the hospital. The accused Only if it can be said that the original
was charged with murder and argued wound is merely the setting in which
that the chain of causation between the another cause operates, it can be said
stabbing and the death had been that the death does not result from the
broken by the way in which the victim wound.
had been treated.
LORD WRIGHT IN THE OROPESA:
The court was disinclined to recognize that both actions committed by the
accused were driven by only one mens rea which is the intention to cause death.
Since the accused was having an intense quarrel with his wife, the infliction of
injuries to the wife’s head might have happened accidentally. Upon the
observation of the court, it is clear that the chain of causation was not complete
in the first act, since the prohibited result, the death was absent even though
the actus reus of hitting the wife’s head and mens rea of causing bodily injury,
that would result in death, were present. In the second act, the chain of
causation was broken by the absence of mens rea regardless of the presence of
actus reus and the prohibited result. Therefore, the court held that the accused
was not liable for the offence of murder, instead, the accused was held liable for
causing grievous hurt for the first act and liable for the offence of concealing
evidence for the second act.
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN
KALIAPPA GOUNDAN..
The court in this case considered the two transactions made by
the accused as a single act which means that there was no
break in the chain of causation. The court will look at several
actions committed by the accused as a single transaction even if
the several actions committed were accompanied by different
sets of mens rea on the ground that the commission of several
actions were driven by only one definite mens rea which is the
intention to cause death.
SHAIFUL EDHAM ADAM V PP
The appellant inflicted several injuries to the victim and thinking that the victim
was already dead, he threw the body into a canal. The medical report found
fluid in her chest cavity which showed that she was still alive when she was
submerged in water and that she had inhaled water into her lungs which
seeped out into her chest cavity. The Medical Expert witness in this case also
stated that the neck wounds alone could have caused death from the loss of
blood, albeit slowly; the deceased would have died even without being placed
in water because she was already on the brink of death. The court suggested
that a series of acts or transaction may be considered as part of one single
transaction, as long as at some point, the accused was doing the series of
action, he had the mens rea and would be sufficient to constitute the criminal
liability.
SHAIFUL EDHAM ADAM V PP
The court in this case also touched on the decision made in Thabo Meli v R
where in that case, Lord Reid opined that mens rea is necessary to establish
murder and there could be no intention to kill if the accused thought that the
victim was already dead, so their original intention to kill had ceased before
they did the act which caused the victim’s death. The court in Shaiful Edham
disagreed with this opinion where they basically said that it's not a valid reason
to say that someone should avoid punishment under the law just because they
made a mistake and believed they had already achieved their wrongful goal,
even if it turns out they hadn't actually accomplished it yet and the punishment
of the crime should not be reduced merely because the accused was under
some misapprehension for a time during the completion of the crime.
APPLICATION
Acts Actus Reus Mens Rea
Second Transaction:
❌ ✅
Stabbing
Third Transaction:
Dumping The Body In ✅ ❌
Water Tank
Presentation by Margarita Perez
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, by using the first transaction rule, there is no
break in the chain of causation as both the Actus Reus and
Mens Rea are fulfilled.
WHETHER SAMMY COULD
BE LIABLE FOR THE
OFFENCE OF MURDER
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Vivamus sed vestibulum nunc, eget aliquam felis. Sed nunc
Punishment for murder 302. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.
Page ACTUS REUS
Ghazali bi Mat Ghani v Public Prosecutor the accused shit the
deceased at close range with a rifle and the cause of death was due
to a fatal shot in the heart. The accused was convicted of murder.
The actus reus for murder is that the accused himself must have
caused the death of the victim. The issue that needs to be raised is
whether Sammy has caused the death of Melissa.
For a killing to amount to murder, the actus reus and mens rea must coincide
in point of time. The single transaction principle allows a conviction where
the defendant (accused) has both actus reus and mens together during the
sequence of events leading to death.
Margarita Perez
DETERMING THE LIMB OF MENS
REA
In order to determine which limb of mens rea is applicable to be used in
our current discussion. There are a few factors that must be considered,
as mens rea is a matter of inference and not merely assuming without
taking into account all the evidence. By gathering the factual evidence
and circumstance prevailing in the case. There are about six relevant
factors that need to be established in order to determine the limb of
mens rea for murder.
MEANS USED
Public Prosecutor v Musdar bin Rusli, the accused and the deceased were husband
and wife. The accused had stabbed the deceased with a sharp knife due to being
subjected to constant nagging of her wife. The pathologist found that there were
three stab wounds on the deceased’s front chest and another three stab wounds on
the back of the chest. There were two lacerations on the deceased’s face with
multiple abrasions on the foreheadand bruises on the upper lip, with dislocation of
the upper tooth. The pathologist opined that it was the stab wound under the mid-
front of the chest that caused the deceased's death. The Court of Appeal allowed the
appeal and held that the accused was convicted of murder and sentenced him to
death.
APPLICATION
Sammy used a lethal weapon that can cause serious injury to any person if a
deep wound is inflicted on the vital organ.
The means used by Sammy were a large adjustable spanner and a medium
screwdriver that he brought along with him.
A large adjustable spanner is a sharp tool with sharp jaws. It is a heavy metal
made of steel with a heavier mass on one side and a medium slotted flathead
screwdriver that is sharp at the tip that could pierce through an object.
Thus, the fact that Sammy used a large adjustable spanner to hit Melissa on
her head causing her a severe blow and for her to collapse. However, Sammy
continued to stab and impale Melissa with the slotted flathead screwdriver
that was sharp-edged as he wanted to ensure that Melissa would not survive
as he believed she was still gasping for air and could survive from the hit.
PART OF THE BODY INJURED
Tan Buck Tee v Public Prosecutor, the accused and the deceased
had a fight earlier on. The accused then attacked the deceased who
was asleep at that time with an axe stabbed in the chest. The axe
penetrated the heart and the liver. In this case, the deceased had five
appalling wounds which penetrated the heart and liver. The court
was of the view that the wounds were caused by violent blows with a
heavy weapon like an axe and that whoever inflicted such wounds,
intended to cause death.
APPLICATION
Inder Singh Bagga Singh v State of Pepsu was that the accused gave
six blows with a lathy on the head of the deceased one of which had
fractured his skull. The deceased died three days after the incident.
The court further mentioned that even though the blows were
inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased with force, the
appellant could not under any circumstances be held to have been
actuated with the intention of causing the death of the deceased nor
do one could think despite the medical evidence that the injury was
sufficient to cause death. The court held that the accused was liable
for culpable homicide under section 304 and not under section 302
for murder.
APPLICATION
NUMBER OF INJURIES
APPLICATION
Melissa was a young female banker living alone, she was struck
and stabbed by Sammy without any help as she was living alone.
Sammy, a maintenance officer, has the strength as he needs to
do physical work daily and allows him to kill Melissa without any
struggle.
PRE-ARRANGED PLAN
SPECIFIC LIMB