Fashion Business | 2023

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

01 Whether there was a break in causation in Sammy’s act

whether Sammy could be liable for the offence of murder

02 under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
CAUSATION 06
Page

Causation is a discussion used in determining whether the

accused’s act is the cause of the victim’s death or injuries.
It is an established method with the purpose to ensure that
only those who are truly responsible for the death of the victim
may be punished for causing such serious consequences.
For example, in cases of murder, the prosecutor must prove
that the accused act was the one that had caused the death of
the deceased.
If the prosecutor failed to do so, then the accused can not be
charged with murder. The least he could get is either
attempted murder or causing grievous hurt.
R V SMITH 06
Page

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:

In order to break the chain of causation, there

must be another factor or act besides the
original act of the accused that contributes to
the death or injury to the victim and it also
disturbs the sequence of events.
THE RULES Page 08

01 SEPARATE TRANSACTION RULE

02 SINGLE TRANSACTION RULE

SEPARATE TRANSACTION RULE
In Palani Goundan vs Emperor, the accused had an intense quarrel
with his wife, at some moment during the intense quarrel, the accused
hit his wife’s head with a ploughshare. Consequently, the wife became
unconscious due to the injuries inflicted. Believing that the wife was
already dead, the accused hanged his wife on the beam with the
intention to conceal the evidence that he was the suspect that killed
her wife. By way of explanation, the accused hanged the wife to make
it looked like the wife committed suicide. The post-mortem report had
shown that the cause of death of the wife was due to asphyxiation
which was caused by the act of hanging committed by the accused.
SEPARATE TRANSACTION RULE

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

First Transaction: Head

❌ ✅
Strikes Three Times

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

UNDER SECTION 302 OF

purus, accumsan sit amet dictum in, ornare in dui.

THE PENAL CODE.

 LEGAL AUTHORITIES
300. 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 aforesaid.

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.

Sammy’s conduct by striking the spanner at Melissa’s head and

stabbing with a screwdriver at Melissa’s abdomen piercing
through as illustrated by his action likely to cause the death of
Melissa. The post-mortem report does not suggest that his actions
of striking and stabbing caused the death but it contributed to
Margarita Perez the death.

Page MENS REA

Another element that must be proven is mens rea. As mentioned above in

the discussion, a person cannot be convicted for committing murder based
on his action alone. It needs to be fulfilled along with the offender's mens rea
(intention) at the time of committing the crime.

In Mokhtar Hashim v PP, it was stated as follows: Under section 34 of the

Penal Code, to succeed the prosecution must prove that the criminal act was
done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan or arrangement.

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

Sammy targeted and inflicted injury to Melissa on her head

and abdomen. The brain and large and small intestines are
located at the region where Sammy had inflicted the injuries.
They are categorized under vital organs of the human body
where such injury can cause death. Even though Sammy’s
strike and stab did not affect the vital organs such as piercing
through, Sammy suffered a hemorrhagic shock due to
excessive loss of blood from the inflicted injuries.
Sammy's second action of stabbing Melissa using a
screwdriver, was with clear knowledge to end her life and
aiming at her lower abdomen. Therefore, part of the body
injured has been satisfied.

NATURE OF THE ACT

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

Sammy, caused the injury of the deceased, Melissa, by a

violent blow repeatedly using a sharp and lethal tool which
were a spanner and slotted flathead screwdriver, resulted in
her to collapsed from the strike and suffered a hemorrhagic
shock due to loss of excessive blood from the stabbing, and
may in all probability cause death.
Distinguishing with the Indian case, Inder Singh Bagga Singh
v State of Pepsu, the accused in this case was liable for
culpable homicide and not murder due to the fact that the
nature of the act was neither imminently dangerous nor
violent to cause death even though it was done six times on
the deceased's head, as compared to the aforesaid case and
the present case.

NUMBER OF INJURIES

Salman bin Kassim v Public Prosecutor, the deceased suffered

multiple injuries including a stab wound to the chest and three stab
wounds to the neck, one of which severed her left carotid artery and
caused her death. The court held that the accused; the appellant,
acted by stabbing the deceased in the most vulnerable parts of her
body was reflective and consistent with his intention to kill, from the
spur of the moment and coming within section 300(a) of the Penal
Code. On the other hand, the bodily injuries at the hand of the
accused are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
to be made liable under section 300 ( c) of the Penal Code. Thus, the
Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court decision that the accused
was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering the deceased.

APPLICATION

It is clear Sammy has inflicted more than one injury that

leads to Melissa's death by striking her head three
consecutive times and using a medium slotted flathead
screwdriver. Sammy then stabbed Melissa five times in a row
on the lower right side of her abdomen intending to end
Melissa’s life. Even though it was an indirect act that
contributed to her death.

GENDER OF AN ACCUSED AND

VICTIM
In the case of Pathmanabhan a/l Nalliannen & Ors v Public
Prosecutor, in this case four male accused murdered a female
millionaire, Sosilawti Lawiya that was brutally killed and burnt to
ashes.

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

Ismail bin Hussin v Public Prosecutor, where the appellant, a

member of the Home Guard was convicted of the murder of Omar
and the attempted murder of Riffin. He claims that he has mistaken
them for terrorists and fired at them.
As a result, Omar died instantly resulting from being shot at close
range while Riffin was injured on the legs. The court held that
evidence as a whole showed that the accused saw a man and
fired at him once on impulse. Thus, the intention to kill amounts
to murder even though he had not made any pre-arranged plan.
 APPLICATION
11
Sammy had a prearranged plan strategy for robbery but not a murder. Applying
the case above, the court makes a presumption that to sentence the accused for
murder, the law requires a clear intention to murder the victim.
Thus, the invention can be formed on the spur of the moment without any pre-
arranged plan to commit murder. In the present situation, the fact that Sammy
used the tools he brought with him, struck and stabbed Melissa on the spur of
the moment after realizing that Melissa had witnessed his attempt of prying
open the safe box.
Sammy wanted to conceal the life witness in order to avoid being reported to
the police. Secondly, Sammy had also prepared a large bag in case his plan
turned southward. Hence, it could be established he had a prearranged plan and
planned other ways in his operation.
To conclude, Sammy’s intention to commit murder was formed when he acts to
kill Melissa on the spur of the moment even if it is done without any pre-
arranged plan and within the initial consideration.

SPECIFIC LIMB

The elements and relevant factors have been satisfied, it can be

said that the mens rea of Sammy in the present case fall under
section 300 ( c) of the Penal Code. Initially, it might be likely to fall
under the first limb; section 300 (a), as the actions in the lethal
striking on the head and stabbing on the abdomen; in the most
vulnerable parts of the deceased was reflective and consistent
with his intention to kill formed at the spur of the moment.
Nonetheless, the bodily injuries inflicted to the deceased that
were caused by the accused were sufficient in the ordinary cause
of nature to cause death which is the act by stabbing the
deceased with a spanner and screwdriver.
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is proven that Sammy had fulfilled both the

mens rea that fall within section 300 (c ). However due to the fact
that the actus reus does not cause the prohibited result it is
proven through causation through the single transaction
approach. Therefore Sammy holds the criminal liability which will
make him liable for committing murder. As for the possible
punishment for the accused, we have to look at the provisions of
Section 302 of the Penal Code where it is stated that, “Whoever
commits murder shall be punished with death”. Thus, Sammy
will receive the mandatory death penalty.
 CONCLUSION
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing
elit. Vivamus sed vestibulum nunc, eget aliquam
felis. Sed nunc purus, accumsan sit amet dictum in,
ornare in dui. Ut imperdiet ante eros, sed porta ex
eleifend ac. Donec non porttitor leo. Nulla luctus ex
lacus, ut scelerisque odio semper nec.
THANK
YOU!