IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA, AT PUTRAJAYA

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MOOT NO: 66 of 2018

BETWEEN

MORES JONES APPELLANT

And

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT

[IN THE HIGHT COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN

CRIMINAL TRIAL NO. 47-120/2017]

BETWEEN

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AND

MORES JONES

APPELLANT’S MEMORIAL
 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO CONTENT PAGE

1 Moot Problem

2 Problem Clarification & Answer

3 Lead Counsel Skeletal Argument

4 Lead Counsel Written Submission

5 Co-counsel Skeletal Argument

6 Co-counsel Written Submission

7 Index of Authorities

8 Bundle of Authorities
 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

MOOT PROBLEMS
 In the Court of Appeal of Malaysia

Dr Mores Jones v PP

Dr Mores Jones was convicted at the High Court of Kuantan of the murder of Baby Zeena.
The following facts were not in dispute:

At the time of the offence Dr Mores Jones was in charge of the premature baby unit at a
district Hospital known as Hospital Excellent in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. He had
previously authorised the use of the available life-support system for Baby Zeena, whose
chances of surviving without it for longer than a few hours were small. His aim was to make
sure that Baby Zeena is survived and will be in good conditions although she was born
premature. There is only one life support system in that Hospital. After 5 hours using the
support system, her conditions were quite stable and Dr. Mores Jones suggested that she had
to be on the support system much longer however an hour after the decision was made, he
was informed that, Baby Yasmine need the support system too and she was just born few
minutes later, she was brought to the unit needing an immediate support.

No alternatives being available, Dr Mores Jones has to make a quick decision and he decided
to remove Baby Zeena from the life-support system to make room for the new arrival, Baby
Yasmine. Dr Mores Jones made this decision entirely on his own initiative, and without any
consultation with medical colleagues or the parents of Baby Zeena. Baby Zeena died soon
afterwards, and Baby Yasmine died five days later while still on the life-support system.

At first instance Court, the trial Judge, Clever J. held that Dr Mores Jones was found guilty to
the murder of Baby Zeena on the following grounds:

1. that Dr Mores Jones had caused Baby Zeena’s death, since the baby would, though
born prematurely, have lived much longer if it had not been removed from the life-
support system; and

2. that Dr Mores’s belief that the life-support system would give Baby Yasmine a far
better chance of survival than Baby Zeena was no defence to the charge.

Dissatisfied with the decision Dr Mores Jones now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the
ground that both rulings were erroneous, and that his conviction is accordingly unsafe.

Moot Problem_2018_ULS2622
MOOT CLARIFICATION
ULS 2622 (MOOTING) – TRIMESTER 3 (2017/2018)
No Question Answer

1 What section is Dr Mores Jones charged under? Please refer to the Moot
Problem
2 How long after being off life support did Zeena die? Please refer to the Moot
Problem
3 Were there any other doctors present when Dr Mores No
Jones made the decision?
4 What are Dr Mores Jones' qualifications? He is a qualified
Paeditrician
5 Is Dr Mores Jones the only doctor in charge of the life Yes
support system and the unit?
6 How old was Zeena? New born baby

7 Was Yasmine a premature baby? Yes

8 What type of life support system was the hospital The standard system use in
using? Malaysia
9 How 'stable' was Zeena? Stable within the medical
definition
10 How long more did Zeena have to use the system? And Please refer to the moot
why? problem
11 What is the exact percentage of 'small chance' of No exact percentage to be
Zeena's survival before using the system? argued
12 Why does Yasmine need to use the support system? Please refer to the moot
problem
13 How much longer would Zeena have lived with the Please refer to the moot
support system? problem
14 Was Zeena predicted to have severe impairment? No

15 What was Yasmine's condition -- both before and after Please refer to the moot
using the support system? problem
16 Are law dictionary, article and law textbook consider as Yes- but it will be part of
a law authority? the 10 authorities limitation
17 Does one section/Article from any statute/Federal Yes
Constitution considered as 1 authority?
18 Should we purely discuss on the 2 grounds provided in Yes only focus on the two
the moot questions or include other relevant grounds to grounds provided
be argued as well?
19 Was Dr Mores Jones an experienced pediatric and was Yes
he capable in handling the support system machine?
20 How many years was Dr Mores in the pediatric unit? 2 years

21 Does the removal of the life support system baby Zeena Refer to the Moot Problem
had contributed to her death?
22 What would be the chances of survival for baby Refer to the Moot Problem
Yasmine if she the life support system was not given to
her?
23 Why is Dr Mores Jones charged for murder instead of The PP has decided
culpable homicide or negligence?
24 Are we only allowed to use Malaysian cases? No

25 Was the case filed in the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya? Yes

26 Who has better chance to survive with the life-support Refer to the Moot Problem
system, Zeena or Yasmine?
27 Among Zeena and Yasmine, whose condition is worse? Refer to the Moot Problem

28 What are the reasons for Zeena and Yasmine to use the Refer to the Moot Problem
life-support system?
29 When Dr Mores Jones decided to remove Baby Zeena To be argued
from the system, did he have any chance to contact
Zeena's parent?
30 Has Dr Mores been authorised to use the life-support To be argued
system without discussion or consultation with his
colleagues?
31 When Dr Mores Jones suggested that Zeena had to be To be argued
on the support system much longer, does that mean it is
difficult for Zeena to survive without the support
system?
32 Is Dr. Mores Jones an expert or professional in the area Yes
of handling the premature baby at Hospital Excellent?
33 How many years of experiences that Dr. Mores Jones 10 years
has in his profession?
34 Is there are any hospital nearby which having the life To be argued
support system, if yes, what is the driving distance
between Hospital Excellent and that particular hospital?
35 Is there have sufficient time for Baby Yasmine to be To be argued
transferred to other hospital which is nearby in order to
receive the treatment from using the life support
system?
36 At the time when the life support system was given to Please refer to earlier
Baby Yasmine, whether there was sufficient time for answer
Baby Zeena to be transferred to other hospital which is
nearby in order to receive the treatment from using the
life support system?
37 Is the life support system used by Hospital Excellent Yes
up-to-date and is the latest system that need to be used
in a Hospital?
38 Whether Dr. Mores Jones should discuss with his To be argued
colleagues and parents of Baby Zeena before he made a
decision on discontinuing Baby Zeena from using the
life support system, by right?
39 Why Baby Yasmine died 5 days later while still on the Please refer to the Moot
life support system? (the exact reason) Problem
40 How old is Baby Zeena and Yasmine, how many at 30 weeks
minutes or months?
41 Did Dr. Mores Jones take any reasonable step to take Hospital protocol was
care of Baby Zeena after he decided to remove the life followed to take care of
support system to Baby Yasmine? Baby Zeena
42 Had Dr Mores followed the correct protocol for using To be argued
the life-support system for both the babies?
43 What will be decision of other medical practitioners if To be argued
they were to be in the position of Dr Mores at the time?
44 Is it an ordinary practice by a medical practitioner to To be argued
remove a life-support system to use that on another
patient who need it too?
45 Is Dr Mores aware that Baby Zeena would not survive Please refer to the Moot
if the life-support system was removed from her? Problem
42 Does the need of the life-support system by Baby To be argued
Yasmine outweigh the need by Baby Zeena?
43 Was Dr Mores the sole person who has the ultimate Please refer to the Moot
authority in deciding the use of the life-support system? Problem
44 Was baby Yasmeen born with any known deformities? No

45 What type of life-support system did both the babies Refer to earlier answer
required? (mechanical ventilation, cpr, etc)
46 Was Dr Mores charged under S302 for murder or S304 The question expressly
for causing death by negligence? states murder

47 Whether it was expected that Baby Zeena would suffer To be argued

other complications arising from the removal of the life-
support system.
48 Is Dr Mores Jones a specialist of pediatries or only a Please refer to earlier
physician in Hospital Excellent? answer

49 Is Hospital Excellent a private or government hospital A district Government

which only has one life support system? Hospital in Pahang

50 What were the chances of survival for baby Yasmine Refer to the Moot Problem
with life support?

51 Why did Dr Mores suggested baby Zeena to be on the His medical opinion
support system much longer after her condition was
reported to be stable?
52 Whether baby Zeena has any underlying disease? No

53 How long Dr Mores jones suggested that Zeena have to Refer to the Moot Problem
stay in the life support system before Yasmine was
born?
54 Did Dr. Mores Jones analys baby Zeena's condition Refer to the Moot Problem
before decide to remove her from the life support
system ?
55 Refer to the Moot Problem
The chances of survivial of baby Zeena if she was kept
in the life support system for a longer period.
56 Who's chances of survivial is higher according to the Zeena
professional opinion of Dr Mores ?

57 Why Dr Mores make his decision alone without To be argued

consulting his medical colleagues or the parents of
Baby Zeena ?
58 Is the condition of baby Zeena similar to the condition Yes
of Yasmine ?

59 Do hospitals always provide only one life-support To be argued

system?

60 Does other colleagues of Dr Mores Jones knew about To be argued

Zeena's conditions besides Dr Mores Jones himself?

61 Does Dr Mores Jones' colleagues agree with his Refer to the Moot Problem
suggestion that Baby Zeena should be on the support
system for much longer?
62 What was the exact condition of Baby Yasmine when Premature
she was born?

63 Was Baby Yasmine given any other immediate action Premature Medical Care
after she was born besides being put into the support
system?
64 Whether any other steps were taken to take care of Refer to earlier answer
Baby Zeena after she was removed from the life support
system?
65 What defence did Dr Mores Jones raised when he was Refer to the Moot Problem
charged? What is the name of the defence and what
section?
66 What makes Dr Mores Jones believed that Baby Refer to earlier answer
Yasmine would have a higher chance of survival than
Baby Zeena if she was put in the life support system?
67 Do we state " dalam mahkamah rayuan Malaysia" or " Refer to Tutorial discussion
dalam mahkamah rayuan putrajaya" for the memorial

68 Did Dr. Mores aware of the risks that may rise by Refer to the Moot Problem
removing the life-support system even though it was
reported that baby Zeena was already stable
69 whether dr mores jones aware that the baby zeena might Please refer earlier answer
die after he remove the support system

70 Is there any code of ethics of whether a doctor should To be argued

consult another doctor beofre they take any decision
71 Whether the hospital was also liable for the death of Refer to the Moot Problem
Zeena?
72 Whether the hospital can also be sued by Zeena’s Refer to the Moot Problem
parent?
73 Why do the hospital only have one life-support system? refer to earlier answer

74 What was Dr Mores rank in the hospital? Head of Unit

75 After how long did baby zeena died ? Refer to the Moot Problem
76 Were the consent is obtained from the parents before Refer to the Moot Problem
the life-support system is used on the baby?
77 Does believing someone will live longer if we help her to be argued
is actually acting on good faith?
78 What is the causation of death of Baby Zeena? Refer to the Moot Problem

79 What is the causation of death of Baby Yasmine? Refer to the Moot Problem
80 Can the case be under both murder and medical Refer to the Moot Problem
negligence or only 1?
81 Dr mores jones is charged for both babies or only baby Refer to the Moot Problem
zeena?
82 What is dr jones age and how many years of experience Refer to earlier answer and
does he have in handling and authorising Hospital the age is 35 years old
Excellent's life support system?
83 Was Dr Jones aware that Zeena would be unstable once refer to earlier answer
the life support system is removed or did Dr Jones think
Zeena would be stable without the the life support?
84 What is the term or medical name for Zeena and Premature
Yasmine's medical condition?
85 What is the position and qualification of Dr. Jones Refer to earlier answer and
medical colleagues? Are they of a similar rank as Dr. to be argued
Jones or lower? If so, how much lower? They could be
nurses.
86 What was the exact subsection that Dr.Jones was Refer to earlier answer
charged under murder?
87 Was Dr. Jones a senior doctor or a junior doctor? Refer to earlier answer

88 What is the past practice of Hospital Excellent in the this is the 1st time the
event two patients require the use of the single life incident happend
support system?
89 Can we argue that Dr.Jones should be charged for to be argued
causing death by negligence instead? to escape from
death punishment instead of acquittal.
90 Is Dr Jones a premature baby specialist or just a general Refer to earlier answer
practitioner?
91 Does Dr Jones have adequate experience in dealing Refer to earlier answer
with life support system matters?
92 Does Dr Jones have adequate experience in dealing Refer to earlier answer
with that particular life support system or was it a new
or upgraded version that he has never handled before.
93 Are visual submissions allowed such as a CD of the No
recording of expert testimony?
94 Are we allowed to get the testimony from the medical No
practitioners regards this medical area?
95 Why did Yasmine need immediate support? Refer to the Moot Problem

96 How should withholding or withdrawal of the life to be argued

support system be carried out?
97 Does hospital excellent have any existing guidelines to be argued
for such situations?
98 Were there any nurses present when Dr Mores made to be argued
that decision?
99 What is the distance between the nearest hospital with Refer to earlier answer
hospital excellent ?
100 Are there any reasonable reason for Dr Jones to Please refer to the Moot
replace the life support system from baby Zeena to Problem
baby Yasmine?
101 Does Dr Jones's reason in deciding to withdraw the To be argued
life support system from baby Zeena to baby Yasmine
considered as reasonable?
102 What is the cause of death of baby Yasmine ? Is it due To be argued
to fault of Dr.Mores or any other releveant cause of
death?
103 What made Dr. Mores change his decision ? Please refer to the moot
Problem
104 Can we use textbooks, dictionaries or reference books Refer to earlier answer
as our authorities?
105 Who is the head of department Dr. Jones is working Refer to earlier answer
in ?
106 Is it necessary for us to add the sub-issues? If no will it Up to the student
affect our marks?
107 are dictionaries/articles/policies considered to be part Refer to earlier answer
of the 10 authorities?
108 can clinical practice guidelines from ministry of health one of the 10
be used as one of the 10 authorities ?
109 what is the standard operating system in this situation? to be argued
110 can journals be used as an authority (osgoode hall law Refer to earlier answer
journal) ?
111 is Dr Mores a general practitioner or a specialist in this Refer to earlier answer
field?
112 can the malaysian medical council guideline be used Refer to earlier answer
as one of the 10 authorities?
113 Is it possible for the Appellant to borrow life support Refer to earlier answer
system from other hospitals or medical organizations?
114 What is the relationship between the Appellant and Refer to the moot problem
Zeena's parent? Is there any personal clashes between
the Appellant and Zeena's parent?
115 Does the Appellant have any previous record of No
medical negligence or any medical malpractice?
116 How long has the Appellant in charge of the premature Refer to earlier answer
baby unit in Hospital Excellent?
117 Is the Appellant a neonologist? If yes, how long has He is peaditrician but he does
the Appellant practise as a neonatologist? not have sub specialist
118 What is the moot number? Refer to the Tutorial question
119 Is the course of action can be characterized as one that Not relevant
does not continue to provide the patient with treatment
which will prolong their life?
120 Can the Alman Criminal Law In Malaysia textbook Yes
and Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore second
edition be used as our authorities?
121 The facts given was not in dispute in the High Court of Refer to the Moot Problem
Kuantan. Hence, can we use the facts in the Court of
Appeal to support our arguements?
122 Does the name of "Hospital Excellent" reflect the Just a name
quality and the reputation of the hospital or it is just a
name without any other meaning?
123 can we borrow the sample moot submission to have an Consult tutor
idea and don't get confused
124 Is it permissibe to use and refer to Code of Medical Yes
Ethics as part of the authority?
125 Is it permissible to use and refer to the commonwealth Yes
country cases as an authority to support the argument?
126 Is it permissible to use and refer to the Common Law Yes
cases as part of the authority?
127 Is it permissible to use and refer to the Code of Yes
Professional Conduct for the misconducted by Dr
Mores as part of the authority?
128 Is it permissible to use and refer to the Malaysian Yes
Medical Council Guideline: Consent for Treatment by
Registered Medical Practitoners as part of the
authority?
129 Can we pray for Dr Mores to be convicted under a to be argued
lighter punishment section and at the same time raise a
general defence?
130 If Dr Mores did consulted his medical colleges and to be argued
they also made the same decision to give the life
support system to Yasmine, will he still be convicted
for murder?
131 Is Baby Yasmine having a higher chance of survival Refer to the Moot Problem
than Baby Zeena if she is provided with life support
system?
132 Is the fact suggesting that Baby Zeena would Refer to the Moot Problem
eventually still died even she is provided with life
support system?
133 Can the appellant argue that "Dr Mores’s belief that Refer to the Moot Problem
the life-support system would give Baby Yasmine a
far better chance of survival than Baby Zeena" as a
defence?
134 What were the chances of survival of Baby Zeena with to be argued
the life support system ?
135 Was Baby Zeena's condition sufficiently stable that Refer to the Moot Problem
there was no threat of death after 5 hours on life
support system ?
136 How long has Dr Mores Jones been practicing as a Refer to earlier answer
doctor ?
137 How long has Dr Mores Jones been in charge of the Refer to earlier answer
premature baby unit at the hospital ?
138 Is Dr Mores Jones an expert on treatment of premature Refer to earlier answer
babies ?
139 What is the common practice of the hospital when to be argued
there are 2 premature babies concurrently in need of
life support system ?
140 How long does the hospital usually put a baby on life to be argued
support system ?
141 How did Dr Mores Jones come to the conclusion that to be argued
Baby Yasmine had a better chance of survival than
Baby Zeena ?
142 How severe was Baby Yasmine's condition ? To be argued
143 Was Dr Mores Jones the head of the premature baby Refer to earlier answer
unit of the hospital ?
144 Did Dr Mores Jones have a superior officer ? Refer to earlier answer
145 Can a civil case turn into criminal case in court and Not relevant
vice versa?
146 Is it a civil issue or criminal issue? Refer to the Moot Problem

147 Was it reasonable for Dr Mores to come to the to be argued

conclusion that Baby Yasmine had a better chance of
survival than Baby Zeena ?
148 Are there other medical practitioners who possesses to be argued
similar skills to Dr Mores Jones who agree to the act
of Dr Mores Jones to remove Zeena from the life-
support system? If so, what are their medical opinions?
149 According to medical opinion by experts, are there Refer to the Moot Problem
other possible factors which may caused the death of
premature baby Zeena?
150 Did the parents of Zeena consented to entrust Refer to the Moot Problem
premature baby Zeena to the hospital, namely Hospital
Excellent?
151 Can civil law cases be used in criminal law To be argued
proceedings and vice vesa?
152 Should we purely discuss on the 2 grounds provided in Refer to earlier answer
the moot questions include other relevant grounds to
be argued as well?
153 Should the argument on presumption of charge be the Please refer to the Moot
same for the appellant and respondent? i.e the limbs Problem
for murder
154 What is Dr.Mores's age? Refer to earlier answer
155 What are Dr.Mores's qualifications? Refer to earlier answer
156 Was Dr.Mores was an experience doctor in that field, Refer to earlier answer
if yes, how many years, if no what is his speciality?
157 Did Dr. Mores checked on Baby Zeena's condition Refer to the Moot Problem
after removing the life support system?
158 How many years did Dr. Mores incharge of the Answered earlier
premature baby unit at the Hospital?
159 Is Dr.Mores suffering from any disease or depression ? To be argued
160 Is there any documentation available regarding the to be argued
applying and withdrawal of life support system on
patient?
161 Is Hospital a well to do Hospital ? Refer to earlier answer
162 Why is there only one life support system in the to be argued
hospital?
163 Why Dr.Mores never inform baby Yasmine's parents to be argued
that only one life support machine was available in the
hospital?
164 what was the reason of death of baby zeena and baby Refer to the Moot Problem
yasmine beside the fact that they are premature
babies? any post mortem report provided?
165 What was Dr. Mores charged of previously ? Refer to the earlier answer
166 did the hospital provide any option to transfer their to be argued
patient to other hospital nearby with sufficient
facilities?
167 is dr.mores an experienced practising doctor? Please refer to the earlier
answer
168 What is the condition of baby yasmine? refer earlier answer
169 Whether there was an intervening act that constitute to to be argued
the murder or the death of the baby zeena?
170 What constitute to the belief of dr.mores claiming that to be argued
baby yasmine would have a better chance of survival
than baby zeena
171 what is the extent of confirmation of dr.mores towards to be argued
the fact that baby zeena need the supporting machine
172 What amount to stable??how stable is it? to be argued
173 what is the charge Refer to Moot Problem
174 Can we incorporate some established principles in the To be argued
tort law into our argument ?
175 What are the situation that constitute to the To be argued
authorisation of the usage of supporting machine
176 what are the ordinary practise of the other doctor under To be argued
such situation ie having to choose either to save baby
zeena or baby yasmine
177 Can a person be charged for both medical negligence Please refer to the Moot
and also murder Problem
178 why dr.mores suggested that baby zeena had to be on To be argued
the support system much longer?
179 what are the supporting fact that led to the dr.mores To be argued
conclusion that dr yasmine has a far beter chance of
 survical?
180 what constitute to the better chance of survival? To be argued
181 Is there any defence raised by Dr Mores previously in Refer to the Moot Problem
the high court ?
182 How many years of experience does Dr Mores have in Answer earlier
dealing with premature babies ?
183 Does Dr. Mores have a good reputation or a bad Not relevant
reputation as a Doctor ?
184 How many years of experience does Dr. Mores have Answered earlier
under his belt as a practicing doctor in general ?
185 When Dr. Mores has to make decisions under To be argued
pressure, is he known to make the best decision or is
he rash in making decisions ?
186 Did the parents of Baby Zeena agree to certain terms Refer to the Moot Problem
and conditions entrusting Dr. Mores with making the
right decisions for their baby ?
187 How many months does baby zeena born premature? Answered earlier
If baby yasmine was also born premature, how many
months does she born premature?
188 Has Dr. Mores made any wrong decisions in relation No evidence of previous
to the patients well being throughout his medical medical misconduct
career ?
189 Are there any witnesses to clarify that Baby Zeena was To be argued
infact stable when the Life support system was
removed from her and given to Baby Yasmine?
190 What section of the Penal Code was Dr. Jones charged Refer to Moot Problem
under?
191 Is the doctot also guilty for the murder of Baby Refer to the Moot Problem
Yasmine?
192 Is the life support machine functioning properly? Yes
193 Were steps taken to obtain another life support to be argued
machine?
194 Is it common practice for doctor's to make such To be argued
decisions in that manner?
195 What is the standard hospital protocol in this kind of To be argued
situation?
196 Was Baby Zeena put on any other treatment post Refer to the Moot Problem
removal of the life support?
197 What powers does Dr. Jones have as the person in Refer to earlier answer
charge of the premature unit? Does he have the power
to make such a decision?
198 Is the life support machine commonly used or as a life Refer to earlier answer
support?
199 Is the hospital a government hospital or private Refer to earlier answer
hospital?
200 What is the moot number of our case? Should we Refer to Tutorial
leave it black if there is no moot number？
201 Which limb did the prosecution rely on to charge Dr Refer to the Moot Problem
Jones during the trial? Was he convicted under the
 same limb?
202 Is it 10 authorities allowed per counsel or per group? 10 pergroup
203 Is 5 hours of using the life-supporting system to be argued
considers a long period?
204 If the condition of Zeena is already quite stable,why to be argued
Dr Mores Jones decided that Zeena had to use the
system for a much longer period?
205 Can policy documents issued by the Ministry of Yes
Health on the withdrawal of life support be used as
authorities?
206 Can medical report be used as authorities? No
207 Does the facts suggests Zeena must use the system to to be argued
continue surviving and removal of the system must
cause her death?
208 Can you clarify in detail the meaning of the phrase To be argued
"chances of surviving without it for longer than a few
hours were small"?
209 If case law in malay couldn't be found, can English Yes
case being used for BM mooting session?
210 does the phrase "mencadangkan bahawa bayi Zeena to be argued
perlu menggunakan sistem sokongan hayat dalam
jangka masa yang agak panjang" means that Dr Mores
after seeing Zeena’s condition getting stable, so he is
planning to continue giving Zeena a longer period of
life support system?
211 What justify Dr Mores Jones to think that Yasmine has To be argued
a better chance to survive than Zeena?
212 Are we allow to use Americans cases Yes
213 Did Dr Morres Jones have the authority to remove the Yes
life support system
214 Did Dr Morres Jones have obligation to save Baby To be argued
Yasmine over Baby Zeena
215 Did Dr Morres Jones have the knowledge that his act To be argued
of removing the life support system from Baby Zeena
could result in a high risk of death
216 Does baby Yasmine have other health complications No
other than being born prematurely
217 Does baby zebra have other health complications other No- who is baby Zebra
than being born prematurely
218 How many doctors are working in this unit Premature unit - 5 doctors
219 What is his level of expertise Refer to earlier answer
220 How experience is dr. Mores as a doctor at the hospital Refer to earlier answer
221 Have doctor mores dealt with such cases Yes
222 What made doctor mores to take such decision to be argued
223 Is there any procedure to put and remove the life to be argued
support machine
224 Why didn’t doctor mores consult with his medical to be argued
colleagues or the parents of baby zeena
225 Do you agree if the life support machine is not remove to be argued
 the baby might have live longer
226 What are the chances of survival of both babies with to be argued
the aid from the life support machine
227 Which baby has the highest chance of survival and To be argued
why
228 Could we made an assumption that baby yasmine To be argued
could life without life support after her birth
229 What punishment that Dr. Mores Jones received Refer to the Penal Code
230 What is the investigation report on the death of the Cause of death-premature
both babies by the relevant medical council? Does the birth.
council opine that Dr Mores are responsible for the
death of the two babies?
231 What are the post-mortem reports regarding the death Please refer to the above.
of the two babies?
232 for the second ground, did Dr Mores rely on the To be argued
defence of necessity or mistake at the first instance
court?
233 Did Dr Mores know that by taking the life support To be argued
system from Baby Zeena would cause her death?
234 What are the consequences if Zeena and Yasmine Refer to the Moot Problem
were both not provided with the life-supporting
machines?
235 Is the Hospital Excellent a Government Hospital or a Please Refer to earlier answer
Private Hospital?
 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

LEAD COUNSEL SKELETAL ARGUMENT

SKELETAL ARGUMENT BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

1.0 FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL

Whether Dr Mores Jones had caused Baby Zeena’s death, since the baby would,

though born prematurely, have lived much longer if it had not been removed from the

life-support system.

2.0 FIRST SUBMISSION

The High Court Judge had erroneously overlooked that Dr Mores Jones was guilty for

murder of baby Zeena. The acts of Dr Mores Jones did not break the chain of

causation on the death of baby Zeena.

 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22

 Donald D. McIntire, PhD and Kenneth J. Leveno, MD. National Mortality

and Morbidity Rates In Late Preterm Births Compared With Births at Term

 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844

3.0 SECOND SUBMISSION

Public Prosecutor failed to fulfil the main ingredient of Section 300(d) of Penal Code

(Act 574).

 Section 300(d) of Penal Code

 Emperor v Dhirajia AIR 1940 A11

4.0 CLOSING SUBMISSION

The Appellant submits to the court that the appeal to be allowed and the sentence to

be set aside.

DATED 7th OF MAY 2018

LEAD COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT

 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

LEAD COUNSEL WRITTEN SUBMISSION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

1.0 ISSUE TO BE DISPUTED

Whether Dr Mores Jones had caused Baby Zeena’s death, since the baby would have,

though born prematurely, lived much longer if it had not been removed from the life-

support system.

2.0 FIRST SUBMISSION

2.1 The acts of Dr Mores Jones did not break the chain of causation on the

death of baby Zeena.

2.1.1 Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the Defendant’s conduct (or

omission) caused the harm or damage. As a matter of proving a crime, chain of

causation is a major key of the Actus Reus in result crimes. Any forms of failure to

establish this impactful element would cry out a catastrophic judicature. In the

situation where all the required ingredients of actus reus and mens rea were

successfully delivered, the occurrence of the death, must in any circumstances, be

caused by the defendant and not in the presence of any other cause.

2.1.2 One of the most famous principal to engage this situation is ‘causa sine qua

non’. This principal then prolongs us to the test that demands the said cause to be not

just material but also substantial. Substantial cause here means the act (or omission)

conducted by the accused is interconnected with the occurrence of the scene and to

the extent of possessing a sufficiently substantial causal effect which prominently

drives us to the result of the crimes.

2.1.3 The House of Lords in the English leading case on causation, Fairchild v

Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, had been firmed in their decision
to approve the test of ‘materially increasing the risk’ of harm, as a deviation in some

circumstances from the ordinary ‘balance of probabilities’ test under the ‘but-for’ test.

Lord Bingham, in particular, noted that in this case, it was not possible to speak of

‘probabilities’ in a simple way. He emphasised the following:

“It is on this rock of uncertainty, reflecting the point to which medical science

has so far advanced, that the three claims were rejected by the Court of

Appeal and by two of the three trial judges”

It was wrong to deny the claimants any remedy at all. Therefore, the appropriate test

of causation is whether the employers had materially increased the risk of harm to the

claimants.

2.1.4 Based on the aforesaid ladder, I submit that the chain of causation needs to be

smoothly understood. The initial cause of death for baby Zeena, before the action of

life-support system removal by Dr Mores came into action, was clearly her premature

condition which was explicitly prescribed by Dr Mores Jones as having a minimal

rate of survival and only a few hours chance of living. The premature condition of

baby Zeena is indeed a prominent causal for her own death and the intervening act of

removing the life-support system did not establish a substantive point as well as

‘materially increasing the risk’.

2.1.5 In the article of “Neonatal Mortality and Morbidity Rates In Late Preterm

Births Compared With Births at Term” by Donald D. McIntire, PhD and Kenneth J.

Leveno, MD, stated the following:

“The outcomes we studied included neonatal death within 28 days of birth in

undischarged infants. Respiratory distress was defined as use of a ventilator in

 the first 24 hours after birth. Transient Tachypnea (respiratory problem) of the

newborn was defined as tachypnea that resolves spontaneously after 6 hours”

2.1.6 Baby Zeena was attached to life-support system for 5 hours and subsequently

became quite stable. Hereupon, Dr Mores continued to give baby Zeena a life-support

system for another 1 hour, which was then summed up to 6 hours.

2.1.6 Lord Justice of Beldam in the case of R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, stated

the following:

“Even though negligence in the treatment of the victim was the immediate

cause of his death, the jury should not regard it as excluding the responsibility

of the defendant unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts,

and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made

by his acts as insignificant”

2.1.7 In the above mentioned case, the Judge instructed the jury that they could find

the defendant’s chain of causation could only be broken if they were satisfied that the

medical staff had been reckless in their treatment. Applying to Dr Mores’, I submit

that baby Zeena’s condition of premature death was the causal event and it chained to

her own death. Question to be asked was whether the removal of life-support system

is the intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. Beldam LJ affirmed his

decision by saying that the chain of causation would break by the intervening act if

and only if the medical act was so potent in causing death.

3.0 SECOND SUBMISSION

3.1 Public Prosecutor failed to fulfil the main ingredient of Section 300(d) of

Penal Code (Act 574)

3.1.1 Based on the facts of the case, I submit that the appellant’s committal was

done with the absence of guilty mind. He did not have knowledge that his action of

removing the life-support system would eventually ended baby Zeena’s life.

3.1.2 The relevant section for this argument is stipulated in Section 300(d) of Penal

Code:

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder 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”

3.1.3 Returning back to the situation faced by Dr Mores Jones, he was indulged by

his own medical opinion and subsequently relied to it. I submit that Dr Mores had the

knowledge that baby Zeena was quite stable but not in the contrary possessed the

knowledge that by removing the life support system from baby Zeena would cause

her death.

3.1.4 In the case of Emperor v Dhirajia AIR 1940 All:

“It is not murder merely to cause death by doing an act with the knowledge

that it is imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. In

order that an act done with such knowledge should constitute murder it is

necessary that it should be committed without any excuse for incurring the risk

of causing the death or bodily injury… it becomes murder only if it can be

positively affirmed that there was no excuse”

3.1.5 In the light of the situation, I submit that Dr Mores had carried a handsome

excuse to remove the life-support system from baby Zeena due to his knowledge that
 it is not imminently dangerous and that it is not in all probability would cause death,

which if referred to the aforesaid case of Emperor v Dhirajia, there is no murder.

3.1.6 The judgment from the case Emperor v Dhirajia is to be then protracted to

understand the phrase from Section 300(d) of Penal Code:

“…commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing

death, or such injury as aforesaid”

It manifested that if there is any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death then it

is not murder. The judge installed his decision by expressing that it can become

murder only if it can be positively affirmed that there was no excuse.

3.1.7 However, I submit that Dr Mores had his own excuse that baby Zeena was

quite stable and it was also his responsibility to ensure that the other baby in his unit

(refer baby Yasmine) could be saved.

4.0 CLOSING SUBMISSION

Therefore the the Appellant pray that the appeal to be allowed on the respective

grounds:

1. The acts of Dr Mores Jones did not break the chain of causation on the death of

baby Zeena

2. Public Prosecutor failed to fulfil the main ingredient of Section 300(d) of Penal

Code (Act 574)

DATED 7th OF MAY 2018

LEAD COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT

 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

CO-COUNSEL SKELETAL ARGUMENT

SKELETAL ARGUMENT BY CO-COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

1.0 SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL

Dr Mores’s belief that the life-support system would give Baby Yasmine a far better chance

of survival than Baby Zeena was a valid defence to the charge.

2.0 SUBMISSION

2.1 Dr Mores’s defence of necessity is a valid defence because elements required to raise a

defence of necessity were present.

(a) Penal Code (Act 574)

 Section 81 of Penal Code states that act likely to cause harm but done without a

criminal intent and to prevent other harm is not an offence.

 Section 52 of Penal Code provides the definition of “good faith”

(b) Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins Surgical Separation) [2001] 2 WLR 480

(c) Re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421

3.0 CLOSING SUBMISSION

The counsel for Appellant submits to the court that the defence of necessity is valid and we

pray this defence to be allowed and the conviction and sentence to be set aside.

DATED 7th OF MAY 2018

CO-COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT

 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[In the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120-14/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

CO-COUNSEL WRITTEN SUBMISSION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CO-COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

1.0 ISSUE TO BE DISPUTED

Dr Mores’s belief that the life-support system would give Baby Yasmine a far better chance

of survival than Baby Zeena was a valid defence to the charge.

2.0 SUBMISSION

Dr Mores’s defence of necessity is a valid defence to the charge because the elements to

raise the defence of necessity were present.

2.1 The case at hand, we submit to the court that Dr Mores had acted in good faith while

conducting his services as medical practitioner. When his intention was to help Baby

Yasmine, Dr Mores’s intention was meant to keep Baby Zeena alive too. This was proven

that Baby Zeena was survived and stable for 5 hours after Dr Mores put the life support

system on her.

2.2 Section 81 of Penal Code provided the explanations of the defence of necessity as

follows:

Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is

likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and

in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or

property.

2.3 Based on the provision above, it can be understood that it was the intention of the Code

framers to provide a complete defence to allow a person who acted in good faith to escape

criminal liability. The defence of necessity applies to situations where person who acted in

good faith but was faced by emergency and torture situation, may likely performing an act
that will give uncertain outcome. Necessity provides relief in situation pertaining to this. This

defence has the effect of allowing one who acts under the circumstances of necessity to

escape criminal liability.

2.4 Three essential elements provided in the provision were (i) the person must have

knowledge that his conduct is likely to cause harm; (ii) the conduct was done without

criminal intention and; (iii) it was done in good faith to prevent other harm.

2.5 Section 52 of Penal Code interprets ‘good faith’ as follows:

Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without

due care and attention.

2.6 Regarding on the appellant situation, I submit to the court that the appellant fulfilled these

three elements. Dr Mores had a knowledge that his act will likely cause harm to Baby Zeena

but he did not has any criminal intention towards her. Furthermore, his conduct of removing

Baby Zeena’s life support system was to help Baby Yasmine who needed it the most. This

shows that Dr Mores’s conduct was done in good faith because it was done with due care and

intention.

2.7 In the case from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Re A (Children) (Conjoined

Twins Surgical Separation) [2001] 2 WLR 480, had provided that defence of necessity

could be raised for murder case if it was made for the best interests of the patient. The

summary of the case as follows. Mary and Jodie were conjoined twins joined at the pelvis

and shared single bladder, anus and vagina. Jodie was the stronger of the two and capable of

living independently. However, Mary was weaker, she was described as having a primitive

brain and was completely dependent on Jodie for her survival. According to medical

evidence, if the twins were left as they were, Mary would eventually be too much of a strain
on Jodie and they would both die. If they operated to separate them, this would inevitably

lead to the death of Mary, but Jodie would have a strong chance of living an independent life.

The parents refused consent for the operation to separate them. The doctors applied to the

court for a declaration that it would be lawful and in the best interests of the children to

operate. The High court granted the declaration on the grounds that the operation would be

akin to withdrawal of support for example an omission rather than a positive act and also the

death of Mary, although inevitable, was not the primary purpose of the operation.

2.8 The parents appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the learned judge erred

in holding that the operation. However, the appeal was dismissed. The operation could be

lawfully carried out by the doctors.

2.9 The courts were on opinion that the operation could be lawfully carried out because it

was for the best interests of each of the twins. Despite one of them would probably die, the

operation was likely to be successful in giving one of the twins an ordinary lifespan, allowing

the operation was the best decision overall.

2.10 In the case of Re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421,

the British Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal of the local NHS health authority and

authorized life-saving surgery for a mentally retarded infant against her parents' wishes. The

facts of the case were B was born with Down syndrome and an intestinal blockage. Without

an operation, she would die within days; with an operation and without other complications,

her life expectancy was between 20 and 30 years. Acting in what they saw as their child's

best interests, her parents refused to consent to the operation. The appellate court's decision to

authorize surgery was based on the welfare of the child. The judges held that if the operation

were successful the girl could live the normal life span of a Down syndrome child with the

handicaps of such a child.

2.11 Therefore, I submit to the court to apply on the principle of the best interests of the

patient based on the both cases mentioned above. Dr Mores Jones was in dilemma but he was

believed that when he was taking away the life support system from Baby Zeena and

provided it for Baby Yasmine, it will help the Baby Yasmine to live longer. Although in that

situation, the act of taking away the life support system would probably harming Baby

Zeena’s life, but it is in fact proved that the Dr Jones’s belief was perfectly correct when

Baby Yasmine has lived 5 days longer from the day she was given the life support system.

2.12 This is proven that Dr Jones was acted in his best probability for the best interests of the

both babies. His act has shown that he was acted in a good faith and nothing here can be seen

as criminal intention. Furthermore, his expertise was enough to make a sound judgment

without referring to other colleagues. Any doctor will act on his best belief to take away life

support system on their patient. This is what actually happened in our case at hand.

3.0 CLOSING SUBMISSION

Therefore, the counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal to be allowed on the respective

ground:

1. The defence of necessity is valid and could be raised by Dr Mores Jones.

DATED 7th OF MAY 2018

CO-COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT

 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES OF LEAD COUNSEL

1. Section 300(d) of Penal Code

2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22

3. R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844

4. Emperor v Dhirajia AIR 1940 A11

5. Donald D. McIntire, PhD and Kenneth J. Leveno, MD. National Mortality and

Morbidity Rates In Late Preterm Births Compared With Births at Term.

AUTHORITIES OF CO-COUNSEL

6. Section 81 of Penal Code

7. Section 52 of Penal Code

8. Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins Surgical Separation) [2001] 2 WLR 480

9. Re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421

 In the Court of Appeal Malaysia, at Putrajaya

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Moot No: 66 of 2018

Between

Mores Jones Appellant

And

Public Prosecutor Respondent

[High Court of Malaya at Kuantan

Criminal Trial No. 47-120/2017]

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

Mores Jones

BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES