Causal link between the act or omission of the accused and the loss
For the prosecution to succeed it must show that the State incurred a financial loss through the action or omission of the accused person. Of the more than a dozen meanings of the word 'through', the most appropriate or relevant for this case are those indicating cause, reason or motive, in consequence of, by reason of, on account of, owing to, as a result of; by means of. In other words, it must be proved that the cause of the State's financial loss is the action or omission of the accused. There must be a direct causal link between the action or omission of the accused and the financial loss incurred by the State. It is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accused's action or omission could have caused or contributed to the loss.
My Lords, as a starting point, it is well-settled that based on the charge the prosecution preferred against the 3rd Appellant, the prosecution had to prove its case that ‘there had been a financial loss, and it is to the state, and it was caused through the action or omission of the accused, intended or desired to cause the loss; foresaw the loss as virtually certain and took unreasonable risk of it; or foresaw the loss as a probable consequence of his act and took an unreasonable risk of it; or if he had used reasonable caution and observation, it would have appeared to him that his act would probably cause or contribute to the loss’.
