Introduction

The assignment aims to analyse the issues of causation and omission issues under the case study given. In order to examine this case study, the ILAC model will be applied here.

Issue

Issue 1: Whether the causation chain will be broken in relation to the Paul breach of duty (if any) cause of Stuart injury.

Issue 2: Whether Omission will be applied to the June case against Jack?

Issue 3: whether the doctor breached the standard of care?

Rules

In order to find an individual liable for the offence, it is important that 3-element must be established.

• As per actus reus, they must be guilty of the defendant conduct.

• As per mens rea, the defendant must remain in the guilty state of mind

• There should not be a valid defence.

 For an offence, in order to find the defendant liable, causation of harm by the actions of the defendant is important. In order to satisfy the actus reus, there are two types of caution. This includes legal causation and factual. In order to establish an offence, it is important that both must be for. Often factual causation is based on the But for Test. Here the question is related to whether, but for the actions of the defendant, the victim harm would have occurred. While establishing the legal causation, it is not important that the accused be the main or sole cause of the victim’s harm, but it must be an important cause of the thing that happened. However, the chain of causation by a Novus actus intervenient can be broken.

This means that if the third party would intervene in the event, which harms the victim too, then the effect of those third party would break the chain of causation between the victim’s harm and the defendant. However, there are limitations to it when both actions of parties collectively result in the harm which is suffered by the victim, then potentially both the defendants will be considered liable for causing the harm. IT will not matter that one action of the defendant has caused the harm the other has not.

 On the other hand, an omission in certain circumstances and failure to act will constitute the conviction whether a requirement is present via Omission, which would depend upon the certain type of language present in the statue. Falsify, obstruct and deceive words are which is held by the court to be capable regarding gratification through omissions. By some of the commentators, it is believed that the emissions liability should be imposed for omissions that sufficiently violates the duties of not punishing wrong, outweighs the liberty diminution such entails punishment.