Question

Principle: Causing an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offence. Facts: A did not provide any food to his daughter D. He also confined D in a room. Consequently, D died.

• A. A committed the offence of not providing food to D.
• B. A committed the offence of confining D.
• C. A committed the offence of killing D.
• D. A committed no offence.

Hint:

In criminal law, omission (failure to act) can lead to liability if it directly causes harm.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The principle states that if an offence is committed partly by an act and partly by omission, it still qualifies as a criminal offence. In this case, A did not provide food (omission) and confined D (act), both of which led to D’s death. Therefore, A is guilty of the offence of killing D, as his actions and omissions directly caused her death. Option (A) and (B) are incorrect because they only address part of the crime. Option (D) is incorrect because A’s actions and omissions directly led to D’s death. Thus, the correct answer is (C).

Answer 2

This question tests whether combining an act and an omission that together cause death amounts to the offence of killing, rather than two lesser, separate offences. Let's check each option.

1. A committed the offence of not providing food to D: This captures only the omission part of A's conduct and ignores the confinement, as well as the fact that both together produced D's death. Isolating just the omission understates what actually happened.
2. A committed the offence of confining D: This captures only the act of confinement and leaves out the omission of not feeding D, along with the resulting death. Like the previous option, it describes only part of the conduct.
3. A committed the offence of killing D: The principle explicitly says that an effect caused partly by an act and partly by an omission is still an offence. Here, the confinement, an act, combined with the failure to feed, an omission, together caused D's death. Since the principle treats such a combined cause as sufficient to constitute the offence, and the effect here was D's death, A is liable for killing D, not merely for the isolated act or omission.
4. A committed no offence: This ignores both the explicit terms of the principle and the fact that D died as a direct consequence of A's combined act and omission.

Since A's confinement of D and his failure to feed her operated together to cause her death, and the principle treats such a combined act-and-omission cause as constituting the offence, the outcome, D's death, is what defines the offence A committed.

Therefore, the correct answer is A committed the offence of killing D.

Answer 3

The principle has a specific structure: an act plus an omission, operating together, that produce an effect, and it is that combined effect which defines the offence, not either piece alone. Checking the options against this act plus omission equals effect structure.

1. A committed the offence of not providing food to D: This isolates only the omission half of the structure and ignores the confinement and the resulting death entirely. Naming the offence after just one ingredient understates what the combined conduct actually produced.
2. A committed the offence of confining D: This isolates only the act half, leaving out the starvation and the death that followed. Like the previous option, it describes a fragment of the conduct rather than the effect the principle says defines the offence.
3. A committed the offence of killing D: Applying the structure directly, the act, confinement, combined with the omission, withholding food, together produced the effect, D's death. Since the principle names the offence by its effect when act and omission combine, and the effect here is death, the offence is killing.
4. A committed no offence: This drops the entire structure, denying that any effect followed from A's combined conduct, which contradicts the plain fact that D died as a result of it.

Running the combined act, confinement, and omission, withholding food, through to their joint effect, D's death, shows the offence is properly named after that effect rather than either component alone.

Therefore, the correct answer is A committed the offence of killing D.