The main issue is whether Syantik, Rossa and Alifah could be made liable for the death

of Sajada?
In order for Syantik, Rossa and Alifah to be made liable for the death of Sajada, there are a few
issue that needed to be discuss.
The first issue is whether there is a present of actus reus and mens rea by Syantik, Rossa
and alifah?
Generally, criminal liability can be established against a person if he commits a
forbidden act or causes a result prohibited by law which is the actus reus, and in carrying out
such an act, there is accompanying guilty mind which is the mens rea. It is a vital principle that
to establish liability that there must be the presence of both of the elements stated. This
principle illustrates the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means an act does
not make a person legally guilty unless his mind is guilty.
The act done must be a voluntary act but not every act done will cause a person
criminally liable. The act omitted must cause conduct forbidden by law or result in a prohibited
consequence. As for mens rea, a person can be made criminally liable when there is a guilty
mind accompanying the prescribed act and it must be present although it need not coincide
precisely with the time of doing the act. However, mens rea must, at some time during the
duration of the commission of the act, be present.
In R v Smith [1959], the defendant was involved in a fight with a fellow soldier. During
the fight, he stabbed the victim, resulting in the victim being taken to the medical station where
he died about one hour later. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed
unsuccessfully. The court held that the defendant's stabbing was the actus reus and "operating
and substantial cause" of the victim's death. In this case the victim clearly died from loss of
blood caused by the stab wounds inflicted by the defendant.
In R v Latimer (1886), the defendant struck a blow with his belt at Horace Chapple
which recoiled off him, severely injuring an innocent bystander. The defendant was convicted
of maliciously wounding the victim, and appealed on the ground that it had never been his
intention to hurt her. The court held that the conviction would be affirmed. The defendant had
committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea, as he had acted
maliciously. There was no requirement in the relevant act that his mens rea should relate to a
named victim. Thus, Latimer's malice was transferred from his intended to his unintended
victim.
In applying to the present case, the actus reus and mens rea has been established by
Syantik, Rossa and Sajada. Firstly, the three of them are obviously has the state of guilty mind
when they planned to end Sajada’s life on the bachelorette party that was meant for Sajada’s
death. In referring to R v Latimer, the accused also has been proved that he had mens rea when
he had acted maliciously although the malice was transferred to another victim.similarly in the
present case, Syantik, Rossa and Alifah also own men rea when they planned to kill Sajada.
Actus reus has been committed by Syantik when she struck Sajada’s head with a heavy
stick resulting to Sajada’s bleeding. Meanwhile, Rossa’s actus reus is established when she
spiked some pills into Sajada’s drink and that made her unconscious. As for Alifah’s
circumstance, she had commit actus reus as she joins the two of them to took Sajada’s body to
a nearby river and rolled her body off, upon thinking Sajada was dead. The omission of actus
reus as can be seen in this present case can be referred to R v Smith where the accused is
proven that he has committed actus reus when he stabbed the victim. The act done has resulting
in the victim being taken to the medical station where he died about one hour later.
In conclusion, there is a present of actus reus and mensrea rea by Syantik, Rossa and
alifah.
The second issue is whether the act Syantik, Rossa and Alifah could be made liable for
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea particularly on series of act.
Criminal liability occurs when there is an act causing an effect prohibited by law
coupled with the state of mind at the time of the harmful act, thus causing that result. There are
two crucial elements that needed to be establish to prove criminal liability which are actus reus,
the performance of the prohibited act and mens rea, the intent when committing the prohibited
act. It is a requirement that actus reus and mens rea must coincide to create criminal liability.
Although there are scenarios where there may be liability even though there is no strict
coincidence of these two constituent elements. This usually occurs in incidents where the
accused believed the victim is dead from the incident and attempt to dispose the ‘body’
resulting in killing him. Thus, there are three approaches to determine liability which are strict
approach, extended act and series of acts.
Series of acts is one of the approaches that is non-coincidence of actus reus and mens
rea. It involves series of distinct acts as a constituent parts of a larger transaction. At some point
in the series of acts, liability may be attached. The accused has the necessary mens rea even if
mens rea did not coincide precisely in time with the act causing death. This approach extends
to situations where there is a plan to kill but the decision to dispose the body in a particular
manner is made after and where there is no preconceived plan to kill but there is a clear
intention to cause death. It can be best illustrated by the case of Thabo Meli v R where the
appellants, in accordance with a prearranged plan to kill, took the victim, to a hut where they
gave him beer. When he was partially intoxicated, they struck him on the head. Believing him
to be dead, they rolled his body down a cliff to make his death look like an accident. He died
of exposure when lying unconscious at the foot of the cliff. They appealed against their
convictions on the grounds that the actus reus and mens rea of the crime did not coincide. The
court held that two acts were done separately, whereby firstly, the attack in the hut and
secondly, the placing of the body outside afterwards. The first act was accompanied by mens
rea and not the cause of death whereas the second act was the cause of death without mens rea
thus, on that ground the accused was not guilty of murder but may be guilty of culpable
homicide. Mens rea is pivotal to establish murder as an intention to kill but no intention to kill
when the accused thought the man was already dead therefore, the primary intention to kill had
ceased before the act carried out resulting the cause of death. The judge stated that they were
under a misapprehension at one stage and thought that their guilty purpose had been achieved,
which is before throwing hence, they escape the penalties of law. However, in support of Re
Thabamani, the latter decision, there is no preconceived plan to kill as there was a clear
intention to kill because the victim appeared to have died from being thrown into a well rather
than the earlier judgment.
Another case that is relevant is Jackson v Commonwealth, there were series of acts
by Jackson which resulted in the death of the victim. Jackson had attempted to murder his
victim in the state of Ohio by administrating a large dosage of cocaine. He then loaded the
victim into his car and drove into the neighbouring state of Kentucky. Believing her to be dead,
he cut her head. She died from the decapitation and not from the drugs. Defence argued that
the Kentucky courts could not convicted of murder in Ohio because the death was not caused
there. These defence contentions were, however, rejected by the Kentucky court.
 By applying to the issue above, the situation they are facing are similar to the sequence
of Thabo Meli. Syantik had planned to end Sajada’s life together with Rossa and Alifah behind
Sajada’s back. The fact that they had the bachelorette party claiming it was for her to be
celebrated was just a fake scene for Sajada’s appearance that night thus, completing the
essential part of the plan, her. Also, they continued carrying their action by spiking some pills
into Sajada’s drink making her unconscious. Being unconscious is not being aware of the
surrounding and the happenings to the person. At this point, it is easier to proceed with the
killing as she would not have known who have done to her since she will be dead. The situation
was worsen when Syantik struck Sajada’s head with a heavy stick causing her head to bleed.
With the condition of her being unconscious and there was no reflex movement nor any respond
after, the three of them believe she was dead. Hence, to conceal the ‘supposed corpse’ they
took Sajada’s body to a nearby river and rolled her body off. This assumption made by them
believing the victim was dead in sync with the case Thabo Meli and Jackson v
Commonwealth that made them go beyond circumstances resulting death of the victim.
Moreover, they even created a note as if it came from Sajada, left in her handbag saying she
was tired with everything and wanted to end her life. However, the latter decision in Thabo
Meli indicates that there is no preconceived plan to kill but there is present a clear intention to
cause death. The intention was even clearer as Syantik loathed since they were teenagers and
she could not stand when Syantik is more than her, since they both are instafamous, they treated
each other badly as if they are in a competition of who is the better girl next door. She could
not stand of her winning in life when Sajada announced that someone from the royal family is
marrying her thus the hatred that she built throughout the time she have known her leads on to
her wanting to end her life with the help of Rossa and Alifah whom follows orders and
prosecuting whatever actions needed that to make her dead.
In conclusion, Syatik, Rossa and Alifah are liable as there is series of act in their action
leading to the death of Sajada.
The third issue is whether there is a break in causation when Sajada did not get enough
supply of blood?
The accused person can only be liable if the actus reus of the accused person resulted
to legal cause of the injury suffered or death of the victim. There is distinction between a factual
cause which is but for or sine qua non and a legal cause which is imputable or cause causans.
Factual causes are those factors without which the result would not have occurred. They form
a very broad category. Causation can only be established when there is an unbroken sequence
of cause and effect in that the injury which is the prohibited result can be attributed directly to
the act of the accuse. The accused is only absolved from liability if the sequence of cause and
effect sit in motion by his act is interrupted by another extraneous cause.
For offences of causing death by rash or negligent under section 304A of the Penal
Code, the test of causation is a strict one. In the case of Lee Lim Leng v R, the deceased was
knocked down and killed as she crossed the road at a pedestrian crossing. The appellant’s car
had collided with a stationary taxi which had stopped without any signal. The taxi consequently
lurched towards her. In allowing the appeal, the court referred to Indian case of Emperor v
Omkar Ram Pratab where it was held that to incur criminal liability under section 304A, it
was necessary, death should have been direct result of a rash and negligent act by the accused
and that the act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without intervention of
another’s negligent. In the earlier case, the death of the deceased was due to the collision
between the appellant’s car and the taxi. It must be established that the collision was entirely
or at least because of the appellant’s conduct. It is insufficient to establish that the appellant‘s
was wholly or mainly responsible for the collision
In order to break the chain, the reason must be something unreasonable, extraneous or
extrinsic. The test was discussed in the case of R v Smith whereby it was stated that if the
second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history,
only then it can be said that the death does not flow from the wound.
The many causation cases suggested may be categorised into the following groups such
as complication of medical treatment, voluntary conduct and attributes of the victim, and
intervention of third party. The most relevance to this case is complications of medical
treatment. Explanation 2 to section 299 states that where death is caused by bodily injury, the
person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death although b
resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
While explanation 2 to section 299 may be sufficient to cover situations of death
resulting even because of proper medical treatment, the scope of the section needs to e
considered in relation to the spectrum of situations where death resulted as a consequence of
unavailable or inadequate treatment, improper treatment resulting in death from medical
complications and the switching off of life support systems.
The most relevant to this situation is unavailable or inadequate treatment. Explanation
2 would apply to impose liability on an accused who risks causing death which could have
been averted by proper and skilful treatment. The language of Explanation 2 has been said to
be phrased broad enough to cover even situations where death occurred becaused the victim
had received inadequate treatment as well as even in the circumstanes of its non-availibility. In
the case of Morcha v The State of Rajastan, The Indian Supreme Court held that The mere
fact that if expert treatment had been available and the emergency operation had been
performed, there were chances of survival of the deceased can be no avail to the appellant. In
Pubic Prosecutor v Aziz bin Mat Shah, a similar submission was advanced to negate the
intention to cause death. It was that if the child had received medical attention in time, there
would have been less certainty of death. The court, however held that, Based on the objective
test, it did not accept the submission that if the child had been brought o time, death was
unlikely to occur.
By applying to this situation, Sajada was saved but unconscious. However, she needed
blood transfusion but unfortunately, the blood bank ran out of supply of an A+ type of blood
and she was pronouncing dead after two hours of the incident. However, by applying
explanation 2 of Section 299, the death of Sajada is because she was struck by heavy stick on
the head. Therefore, Syantik, Rossa and Alifah shall be deemed to have caused the death of
Sajada although her death might have been prevented if there is enough suppy of blood. By
applying the case of Morcha v The State of Rajastan and the case of PP v Aziz Bin Mat
Shah, even though the death of Sajada would likely to occur if she got enough blood suppy,
the chain of causation will not break because she died from the complications flowing from the
original wound which I was struck by head.
Therefore, there is no break in causation when Sajada did not get enough supply of blood.
To conclude all, Syantik, Rossa and Alifah could be made liable for the death of Sajada.
QUESTION
Syantik loathed Sajada since they were teenagers. Now both of them were instafamous and
treated each other badly. Syantuk was always so jealous of Sajada. Sajada was prettier and
nicer than Syantik. One day, Sajada announced that someone from the royal family is marrying
her. She announced the good news through Tweeter. When Syantik found out, she even loathed
Sajada more. She planned to teach Sajada a lesson she would never forget. Syantik invited
Sajada to her house for a bachelorette party. Initially, Sajada was doubtful and suspicious to
accept Syantik’s invitation.N Nevertheless, her friends, Rossa and Alifah assured her that the
party was meant for her, especially for Sajada.
Unknown to Sajada, Syantik had planned with Rossa and Alifah that they will end Sajada’s life
that night. Rossa spiked some pills into Sajada’s drink that made her unconscious. Syantik
struck Sajada’s head with a heavy stick. Sajada began to bleed. Thinking she was dead, all
three of them took Sajada’s body to a nearby river and rolled her body off. They even created
a note as if it came from Sajada, left it in her handbag that said “She was tired with everything
and wanted to end her life.”.
McGregor happened to be on the scene anad watched the three women in action. After they
went off, he hurriedly went to rescue Sajada. McGregor took Sajada to the hospital. She was
saved but unconscious. She needed blood transfusion but unfortunately, the blood bank ran out
of supply of A+ type of blood. She was pronounced dead after two hours of incident.
Discuss whether Syantik, Rossa and Alifah could be made liable for the death of Sajada.
(100 marks)
REFERENCE

Works Cited
Lee Chong Fook, C. A. (n.d.). Introduction to Principles and Liabilites in Criminal Law
(Second ed.). LexisNexis.

Teacher, Law. (November 2013). Cases on Mens Rea 2. Retrieved from

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/mens-rea-cases-2.php?vref=1

Teacher, Law. (November 2013). What is meant by ‘causation’ in Criminal Law. Retrieved
from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/what-is-meant-by-
causation-in-criminal-law-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1