Law3001 Criminal Law Assignment 1 – Actus Reus

“Any act of a victim or intervening act of a third party that is equally capable of causing the resulting harm will break the chain of causation”. Assess the validity of the given statement with reference to the general principles of Novus Actus Interveniens and relevant case law.

Experts Answer on Above Question on Malaysian Criminal Law

Validity of the statement

With respect to the validity of the given statement, it is not considered as completely valid. As per the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens (NAI) the chain of causation is likely to break from an intervening act provided it is independent, unforeseeable, and sufficiently significant to become the new cause of the harm. The act of a victim never automatically releases the accused of liability.

Victims acts

The chain of causation will break from a victim’s conduct only if it is unreasonable or unforeseeable.

Case – R v Roberts [1971]

In the given case, the victim jumped from a moving vehicle and this particular action is considered by the court as foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation. The accused remained liable.

Third party acts

The chain is considered as broken from an intervening act by a third party, provided it is a free, deliberate and informed act that becomes the main cause of the harm.

Case: R v Pagett [1983]

In this scenario, the accused makes use of his girlfriend as a protection against police confrontation. Fire by the police killed her and the court held the opinion that the response of the police was foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation.

Medical negligence

Medical treatment also does not amount to the chain break unless the act is significantly negligent.

Case: R v Cheshire [1991]

The accused was held liable despite medical errors that resulted in the death. This is because his actions were still significant and the main cause of death.

Malaysian position

In respect to the Malaysian Court system, they follow the English law of principle on causation and Novus Actus Interveniens. The accused is held liable when his conduct is substantial and becomes the primary cause of concern, unless a new intervening act completely supersedes it. This leads to the conclusion that the statement given above is only partially correct.

Want Detailed Answers with References?

Criminal law analysis needs in-depth understanding of the criminal principles along with applicable laws and regulations. Not only with criminal law, we have a complete team of law writers to offer assistance across different branches of law. Visit our assignment help page for complete writing support with law tasks in Malaysia and also access law assignment samples to know how our experts approaches law tasks.