Coincidence of AR and MR

1.General Rule is AR and MR must coincide

In criminal law, two key elements are required for someone to be found
guilty of a crime: mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act).
These elements must coincide in time for a person to be held liable for an
offense.

Example (case of Mohd Isa bin Mohd Nor v Public Prosecutor):

In this case, the accused's mens rea (intention to cause bodily harm) and
actus reus (stabbing the victim) coincided in time. When the accused
stabbed the victim with a knife, he had the intention to harm her, which
ultimately led to her death. Both the wrongful intent (mens rea) and the
harmful act (actus reus) were present at the same time, making the
accused liable for the offense.

2. Series of Wrongful Acts as One Actus Reus:

Sometimes, a series of distinct acts may be considered a single actus reus

if they are part of a larger transaction. It's sufficient for mens rea to
coincide with any point in the series of acts, even if it doesn't align
precisely in time with the specific act that causes the ultimate harm.

Example (case of Shaiful Edham Bin Adam v PP):

In this case, the appellants wounded the victim and threw her into a canal,
believing she was dead. Later, it was revealed that she had died due to
drowning. The court recognized that the series of acts formed a larger
transaction. The appellants' mens rea need not precisely coincide in time
with the specific act (drowning) that caused death. It was enough that
they had the requisite intent at some point during the transaction.

Causation
For result crime, the law required a connection between the accused’s
conduct and the proscribed harm for criminal liability to be established
and this is known as causation. The act of the accused must have
sufficient cause in law in order to be proven guilty. It requires not only
the accused have acted in a particular manner but also, he had caused the
particular result or consequence.

For your own understanding : So what it means is the act of the accused
must have caused the harm to the victim, If the act of accused didn’t
cause that harm, then there is no causation, For example, if u put poison
in ur fren drink and he died but post mortem show he died cos of heart
attack not becos of poison, then u wont be liable for murder. U will only
be liable for attempt of murder.

So to see whether chain of causation is established there are two test. U

can choose to apply either one of the test.

1) Substantial test/ But for test -

R v White(substantial test)


In order to prove actus reus, there must be a chain of causation between the act and
the crime committed. There are several tests can be used and the most suitable test of
causation for current situation is the “but for” test which established by the court in
the case of R v White to which the principle for this test is the defendant could not be
convicted unless it could be shown that “but for” his actions the victim would not
have died. In other words, would the harm have happened if the defendant hadn't
acted the way they did? The accused act must be a significant reason the harm
occurred.

Example of application : Applying the but for test/substatantial test, Ali would not
have suffered the damage on his head if not for Abu’s acts. Ali’s injuries are
substantially due to Ali’s actions.

R v Jordan

Facts: The accused had stabbed the deceased and resulted the death of deceased died
in the hospital eight days after. At first, the deceased was found death of
bronchopneumonia following by the injury stabbed by the accused. However, the
accused was still found guilty. Later, a leave was granted for the accused in order to
gather new evidence for this case.
Held: The court held that the additional evidence had proved that the victim’s death
was not caused by the wound but due to improper administration of antibiotic and
suffer abnormal quantity of fluid which later caused water clogged in the lung of
victim. Here, we can see that the victim would still die but for the accused’s act of
stabbing because of the improper medical treatment suffered by victim in hospital. As
such, the “but for” test was not meet. Hence the court quashed its previous decision.

2) Forseeability test

Foreseeability Test: It must show that whether the accused had foreseen his act would
cause the result in the issue. For example, when the victim is pushed by the accused
and drown by a strong stream of water flow, the question is that whether the
defendant, when pushing the victim, foreseen that the stream may cause the death of
the victim. This means that if the accused foreseen that the consequences which may
result in crime are only one, then the foreseeability test is fulfilled.
Yohanan v State

Facts: The act of stabbing carried out by the defendant with a penknife had injured his
wife’s spinal cord. This resulted in her paralyzed on her lower limbs and bladder.
Eventually, she died a few months ago.

Held: The court found that the act of stabbing had been an imputable cause of the
death of the deceased because a reasonable man might have foreseen that the act of
stabbing would cause the death of another.

R v Knutsen

Facts: The accused hired a taxi to take the victim home. After they got out the taxi,
they started to quarrel and the accused attacked her. The accused left the victim lying
on the main highway at 1am and the victim was hit by a motorcycle. The victim was
left under a street lamp but there is no evidence of cars using the road.
Held: The court held that the grievous bodily harm of the victim caused by the
defendant is not foreseeable as a reasonable man might not have foreseen car would
run over the victim and there is also no evidence of intention that A get car to hit the
victim.

Sample Question :

Sandra was sleeping soundly when Mike, her boyfriend, came into her room with a
cigarette. Sandra was angry with him for smoking and they quarreled. Mike left the
room and Sandra thought that he had gone back to his apartment. However, she did
not realize that he had gone to the next room to continue smoking. Mike did not put
out his cigarette properly and much later his cigarette had caused a small flame. Mike
ignored the flame as he was too upset with Sandra since she scolded him earlier. He
left quietly without alerting Sandra and the flame became bigger. Sandra later
discovered the fire and tried to put out the fire by herself. As a result, Sandra was
severely burnt. Mike was later charged for causing grievous hurt under section 326 of
the Penal Code.

Sample answer :

ISSUE : The second issue is whether there is a complete chain of causation between
Mike's conduct and injury suffered by Sandra.

LAW : In order to prove the existence of actus reus, there must have a complete chain
of causation between the accused’s conduct and the proscribed harm for criminal
liability. There are several tests to be used and the most appropriate test of causation
for current situation is the substantive test which can be seen in the case of R v Smith.
In substantive test, it must be shown that the act of the accused is an operating and
substantial cause of the result in issue. In Smith’s case, the accused stabbed the
deceased during a fight. While sending him to hospital, the deceased had been
dropped twice by the person carrying him. At the hospital, the victim even received
negligent medical treatment and the medics failed to diagnose a puncture to his lung.
The deceased died and the accused was charged with murder. On appeal, the
defendant contended that the deceased would survive if he had not been dropped
twice and received improper medical treatment. The court held that the wound caused
by the act of stabbing was the operating cause of the victim’s death. It was further
held that in order to break the chain of causation, an event must be unwarrantable, a
new cause which disturb the sequence of event and can be described as either
unreasonable or extrinsic.

APPLICATION : Back to current situation, Sandra was injured by the fire that was
lighted up from the cigarette which was not being pulled out properly by Mike.
Obviously, she was suffering injury due to the failure of Mike in pulling out the fire
of his lighted cigarette and alerting her. The fact that Mike failed to pull out the fire or
mitigate the harm he created was the substantial and operative cause of Sandra’s
injury.

CONCLUSION : Therefore, there is a complete chain of causation.

The first issue of the case is whether Mike has the actus reus for causing grievous hurt
of Sandra under S 326 of PC?

S 326 of PC only lays down the punishment for voluntarily grievous hurt causing hurt
by dangerous weapons or means. The element of actus reus can be found in S 322 of
PC, namely “causing grievous hurt” whereby it states that whoever voluntarily causes
hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is
grievous hurt, then he is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”.

“Grievous hurt” is defined under S 320(h) of PC whereby it states that any hurts that
endangers life, or causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow
his ordinary persuits during the space of then days, then it amounts to a “grievous
hurt”.

In order for actus reus to be established, a person must have acted positively or
committed an illegal omission as provided under S 32 of PC whereby it states that in
every part of the Penal Code, except where there is a contrary intention, words which
refer to acts done in PC extend also to illegal omissions.

Illegal omission can be defined in S 43 of PC which provides that whenever a person

is said to be “legally bound to do” something but he failed or mitted to discharge the
duty then it becomes an “illegal omission”.

S 33 of PC provides that a series of omissions committed are considered as a single

omission or meaning as a transaction of omission.

Illegal omission can be found in two categories which are statutory duty or common
law principle. The common law principle has provided that if an individual had
created a dangerous situation, then he or she is having a duty to mitigate the harm
which he created. If he failed or omitted to discharge such duty, then such failure can
amount to an illegal omission. This can be further illustrated in the case of R v Miller.
In this case, the defendant fell asleep with a lighted cigarette in hand. He then causes
the mattress went smouldering but he just moved to another room to sleep without
doing anything. The court held that the defendant was liable for his omission. Since
he had created a dangerous situation and hence owed a duty to call the fire brigade
upon becoming aware of the fire. However, he had failed to mitigate the harm he
created. Therefore, he was liable for his omission. It was further held that it is not
necessary that the defendant was aware of the risk of damages result by the fire, but
whether a reasonable man would act like him in the matter.

Back to current situation, Mike had failed to pull out his lighted cigarette properly and
it had caused a small flame. Mike, after seeing the situation, ignored the flame and left
quietly without alerting Sandra. Subsequently, the flame became bigger and resulted
Sandra to suffer severe injury. The failure of Mike in pulling out the cigarette and
alerting Sandra seemed to have created risk to Sandra. By applying the principle in
Millers case, Mike had committed an illegal omission because he had created a
dangerous situation but he failed to mitigate the harm he created and that situation
resulted injury to Sandra.

Therefore, the actus reus of causing grievous hurt had been established because the
injury suffered by Sandra was due to Mike’s failure to mitigate the risk created by
himself.

The third issue is whether Mike has the mens rea for causing grievous hurt to Sandra.

Specifically, S 39 of PC has defined “voluntarily” whereby it states that a person is

said to cause an effect of voluntarily when he had the intention to cause it or at the
time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause
it.

See also the case of PP v Mohamad Sabu. In 1950, there was a political speech was
given by the defendant in imputing communists who attacked the police station at
Bukit Kepong as freedom fighters. He was later charged for criminal defamation
under S 499 and S 500 of the PC on the ground that the speech given was defamatory
towards the deceased policemen who defended the station and families. Soon after, he
was also being charged under S 186 of the PC for obstructing public servant in
discharge of public functions. Provided that the mens rea of voluntarily has to be
sufficed for a person to be liable under S 186 of the PC. The court stated that the
meaning of ‘voluntarily’ is resemblance to the meaning of ‘willfully’ under the
English Law. The wordings of "intended or knew or had reason to believe" in the
definition of "voluntarily" in S 39 of the PC indicates the requirement of mens rea in
an offence.

Here, we can see that a person is said to do an act voluntarily if he had the intention or
knowledge to cause it, or even a reason to believe. Looking to the current situation,
the most appropriate one is