Chapter three - The causality of criminal lawThe third chapter allowed me to discover many new concepts including the legal definition of death, the difference between factual and legal causality, the difference between euthanasia active and passive, what is assisted suicide and that there can be more than one cause of death. Much of this chapter has focused on causality. “In all cases where consequences constitute an essential element of the actus reus, it is clear that the Crown must demonstrate that “without” the defendant's actions, the prohibited consequences would not have occurred.” (Conference slide, September 24 (2) PPT) The consequences of someone's actions must be foreseeable and there should be a clear connection between the act and the consequences. An individual should only be punished for an event that could have been foreseen by his actions. Predictability becomes an important factor in causality. An applicable case is Trotta (2004). In this case, the husband and wife faced numerous charges after the death of their eight-month-old baby. The evidence showed that the husband assaulted the child and the knowing wife did nothing to prevent the assault. The man was charged with second-degree murder and his wife was charged with criminal negligence causing death. This case was later appealed. Another applicable case is Nette (2001). This occurred in the Supreme Court of Canada, where the Court held that “there are two issues – quite distinct – that must be considered in determining whether or not the defendant's conduct caused a certain prohibited consequence: namely, factual causality (or causality in fact) and legal causality (or causality in law).” (Jones, 2011, p. 52) Factual causation uses a mechanical test while the...... middle of paper ......and. This article states that “A female person commits infanticide when, through a malicious act or omission, she causes the death of her newborn child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not completely cured of the effects of the I give birth to a child and due to this or the effect of breastfeeding following the birth of the child his mind is then disturbed”. (Criminal Code, 1985) Roy's case (2012) concerns an offense of dangerous driving causing death. In this case, Roy was driving home in poor condition on slippery roads. Roy's passenger was killed when he veered onto the highway and collided with a tractor. Because Roy couldn't remember the events due to memory loss, he couldn't explain what happened. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it declared that the mens rea of ​​the crime had never been proven..