"If you work harder, you will get luckier" per Anita Sarawak dictum.

To established the prima facie case, as stated in Woolmington v DPP, the prosecutor bear the responsibility to prove beyond the reasonable doubt base on the facts of the evidence tender before court. if there is any reasonable doubt that emerge from the evidence, the accuse should enjoy the benefits and entitle to acquittal. Specific intent crime will require the actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. rest on the eveidents, it is easy to prove the actus rea through the positive act that cause the prohibited result. the causation link, which consists of the factual causation (R V White and R V Dalloway) and legal causation (either the legal cause is operative, substantial and/or significant), will be built up on the foundation of the evidence collected. the links should be concrete and unless the accuse can somehow prove that there is a novus actus interveniens (if any depend on the evident present before court) either by a third party, victim himself or by God. so far as the physical evidence suggested, the actus rea should be coagulated to file a prima facie case.

mens reas however is the most tricky and challenging proportion. intention is the element that needed to be proven in order to convict the accuse with the specific intent crime's charge. there is no specific equipment nor yardstick to measure the mind activity of the accuse at that particular material time, whether the accuse is intended to cause the prohibited result or other way round. even common law had somehow formulated out the principles through R V Nedrick and R V Woollin, no doubt they are still a very good law, but everything also will have the exception, (as Young V Bistro), the principles are not a prefect one, at least when it come to very rare case. instead of burning the candle at both ends to commit someone for serious offense, there are still many choices to convict the wrongdoer. manslaughter might be viewed as mitigating the offense, but still it is better than the total acquittal of the wrong charge.

Prof. A.V. Dicey in the Rule of Law stated the principles that (1) no man is punishable and presume as innocent unless and until the law has proven his guilt and wrongdoing. The idea was further enacted in Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights which stated that everyone is entitle to a fair trial. in a social contract, every resident of the realm surrender their rights to the authority, in return to get the protection and peace. any culprit that cause the uncomfortableness and threat to the society peacefulness should bring before justice and sentence according to the return verdict. no one is above the law-that is the principle of the rule of law, the innocent deserve an unconditional acquittal and the wrongdoer should be punished.

nothing is perfect in this world, not even laws and regulations. laws are suppose to protect all the reasonable creatures in rerum natura, and enforce in bona fide of the best interest of all the people, inter alia, to guarantee the harmony and peace of the realm, nevertheless, there is always wolf under the sheep clothing that try to take advantage and violate the rules and regulations, they manipulate the lacuna of the laws and make themselves above the laws. through history we will know that this issue happens from time to time, but the question is are we just read the history instead of learning a lesson from the past, or we refuse to know the facts even we may know, ere we are too scare to accept the facts?

Rome wasn't built in a day, so do the road to JUSTICE. Socrates's spirit is the one that we should have within ourselves. together we stand, let's us all join hands against the injustice and cross fingers for the better tomorrow.