body: 1. I don't understand the distinctions between the two clauses. Doesn't 42.2 encompass 42.1? Isn't 42.2 broader? Doesn't 42.1 automatically imply 42.2?
  2. Isn't "the defendant had acted as he ought" "evidence that the victim might not have suffered the harm"?
  
  
  Herring, [*Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (8 edn, 2018)](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/criminal-law-9780198811817?cc=ca&lang=en&). p. 75
  
  
  
  > 
  > When will the omission cause the result?
  > ----------------------------------------
  > 
  > 
  > It must be shown that the omission caused the harm. In other words, had the defendant
  >  acted reasonably in accordance with his or her duty the harm would not have occurred. For
  >  example, in \*Dalloway\*41 the defendant was driving a cart without keeping a proper grip on
  >  the reins. A young child ran out in front of the cart and was killed. It was held that if the
  >  defendant was to be convicted it had to be shown that had he been driving properly and
  >  holding onto the reins he would have been able to avoid injuring the child.42 Similarly, if a
  >  father sees his child drowning in a pond and does nothing to help he is not criminally responsible
  >  for causing the child’s death if it is shown that even if he had tried to save the child
  >  it would have been too late to do so.43
  > 
  > 
  > 42 There is some debate over **[call this 42.1] whether it needs to be shown that if the defendant had acted as he ought the
  >  victim would not have suffered the harm, or whether [42.2] it is enough that there is evidence that the victim might
  >  not have suffered the harm.** In *Marby* (1882) 8 QBD 571 the defendant was convicted of manslaughter after
  >  failing to summon medical help which might have saved the life of the victim.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: "if the defendant had acted as he ought, the victim would not have suffered" vs. "there's evidence that the victim might not have suffered the harm"