Criminal Law I Notes PDF

CRIMINAL LAW I TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................1 2. ELEMENTS OF CRIME / CRIMINAL LIABILITY.....................................................

CRIMINAL LAW I TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................1 2. ELEMENTS OF CRIME / CRIMINAL LIABILITY..........................................................................................7 3. CAUSATION FOR HOMICIDE.............................................................................................................................. 12 4. STRICT LIABILITY........................................................................................................................................................19 5. CRIMINAL DEFENCES IN MALAYSIA............................................................................................................ 28 6. MISTAKE............................................................................................................................................................................30 7. ACCIDENT........................................................................................................................................................................36 8. NECESSITY....................................................................................................................................................................... 41 9. INFANCY...........................................................................................................................................................................47 10. UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND / INSANITY..................................................................................................... 57 11. INTOXICATION...........................................................................................................................................................62 12. CONSENT.......................................................................................................................................................................66 13. DURESS.............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 14. PRIVATE DEFENCE....................................................................................................................................................73 0  CRIMINAL LAW I 1. INTRODUCTION Definition of Crime refers to behaviour / actions that have been declared illegal by law. These crime actions are prohibited by legislation passed by Parliament. A crime occurs when someone commits an act in violation of a law that prohibits it or fails to perform an act required by law. What constitutes a crime ? An act is considered a crime if it violates laws established by the legal system. Parliament enacts legislation that outlines which actions are considered criminal offences. Purpose of Criminal Law : To protect society by facilitating the detection, prosecution, and punishment of criminal actions, while also safeguarding the rights of the accused. Examples ★ Sexual intercourse without consent (rape) - If one person forces another to engage in sexual activity w/o their consent, it is a crime. ★ Sexual intercourse with consent - If both parties consent, it generally is NOT a crime UNLESS other factors are involved. - Such as, the age of consent or issues like power imbalance. - Power imbalance : A situation where one person holds significant authority, influence, or control over another. It affects the ability of the less powerful person to make free & voluntary decisions, even if they appear to give consent to it on the surface. ★ Dishonesty (fraud, theft) - Deliberately misleading someone / depriving them of something unlawfully. - Engaging in dishonest action like fraud and theft is a crime. ★ Dishonesty in marriage - While dishonesty in marriage (like indefinitely) is not necessarily a crime, certain dishonest actions related to marriage (like bigamy) are criminal offences. ★ Killing a human being (homicide) - The act of killing someone is generally classified as a crime. - Although there are distinctions such as : murder (intentional killing) & manslaughter (unintentionally killing due to negligence). ★ Mercy killing (euthanasia) - Ending a person's life to relieve suffering, often referred to as euthanasia. Components of 1. Actus reus crime - Conduct either commission / omission prohibited by law. 2. Mens rea - State of mind accompanies the actus reus. 3. A punishment prescribed by law 1 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Harm & Blame Harmful conduct : - Actions that cause damage / injury, either to an individual / society. - For conduct to be criminal, it must typically result in some form of harm. Blameworthy conduct : - Mental state of the person committing the act. - The individual must be at fault / guilty of wrongdoing. - E.g. : they intended to cause harm / were reckless. Defences to Criminal Responsibility - In some cases, the accused may raise defences to reduce or eliminate criminal responsibility. - E.g. : self-defence, insanity, or duress (being forced to commit the crime under threat). Criminal Law - Public law. - An offence against the state. - State takes actions against the offender (Attorney General “AG” / Deputy Public Prosecutor “DPP”). Criminal Law is divided into :- 1. Substantive Law 2. Procedural Law 1. Substantive - Defines crimes & outlines their nature. law - Includes criminal acts like theft, murder, fraud. Sources : - In MY, Penal Code & other statutes define substantive criminal law. - Ex. : The law prohibiting murder is substantive criminal law bcs it defines what constitutes murder. 2. Procedural - Deals with process through which criminal laws are enforced, including : law Detection : the process of discovering a crime. Prosecution : the legal proceedings initiated against the accused. Punishment : the penalty imposed after conviction. Administration of justice : the procedure for conducting criminal cases in court. Sources : - In MY, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) governs procedural law. - Ex. : the method of gathering evidence & prosecuting a murder case is procedural. Codification of Criminal law codifies rules relating to : Rules The commission of crimes. The punishment for those crimes. Ensuring the offender suffers consequences for the offence, as per the law. Functions of Punishment serves several purposes in criminal law : Punishment Retribution : punishing the offender as payback for the crime he did. Deterrence : discouraging the offender & others from committing similar crimes. Incapacitation : removing the offender from society to prevent further harm. Rehabilitation : reforming the offender to reintegrate them into society as a law-abiding citizen. 2 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Criminal Law in Main sources : MY - Penal Code & various statutes (laws) govern criminal law. Types of Crime : - General crimes (e.g. : theft, murder) - Drug-related offences (possession / trafficking of drugs) - Corruption & Bribery - Road transport offences (reckless driving, drunk driving) Criminal Criminal Proceedings : Proceedings & - Aim to determine criminal liability — whether the accused is guilty of the Legal crime. Punishment - Penal sanction : the legal penalty imposed after conviction. - Once a case instituted (filed in ct), the proceedings may be discontinued at any stage (e.g. : through settlement / pardon). - This could happen for various reasons, such as the need to review new evidence, legal issues / a decision to discontinue the case. ★ Case : Long bin Samat v. PP 2 MLJ 152 Legal Punishment : - Punishment is awarded after a criminal proceeding, typically initiated by the AG as the prosecutor. (AG or prosecutor is responsible for initiating criminal proceedings, then the court, after hearing the case, decides on the appropriate punishment). - YDPA, the Ruler, Yang di-Pertua Negeri may remit (reduce, cancel/pardon) the punishment under special circumstances. - Punishment must be in line with relevant statutes & judicial principles. Purpose of Primary goal is to protect society by : Criminal Law - Ensuring that crimes are detected & prosecuted. - Upholding justice while respecting the rights of the accused. Penal Code - PC (main statute) in MY went through several stages. - Before PC, the law which applied in most states was Islamic law. - case - development of ★ Case : Suffian L.P. in Che Omar bin Che Soh v. PP PC in MY 1. Historical Background of Law in Malaya (Bfr British Rule); Sultan’s role : - Before the British arrived, the sultans were both the religious and political leaders of their respective states. - The sultans were regarded as God's viceregents (representatives) on Earth. - The law applicable in these states was Muslim law because the rulers and their subjects were Muslims, and the system was considered Islamic in the true sense. 2. British Influence & Changes ; British Treaties & Advices : - The British, through treaties with the sultans and so-called "British advice," introduced a division between public and private aspects of Islam. - This caused the religion of Islam to be regarded as an adjunct (subordinate part) to the sultan's power and sovereignty. 3. Shift from Religious to Secular Sovereignty : Loss of the Religious Role : 3 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I - The sultans were no longer regarded as God's viceregents on Earth but were now seen as sovereigns within their territories. - In Islam, sovereignty belongs to God alone, and the concept of attributing sovereignty to humans (such as the ruler) is alien (incompatible) to the religion. Secularisation of the Legal System : - By ascribing sovereignty to the ruler, the divine source of legal validity was severed. - The British turned the legal system into a secular institution, meaning all laws, including the administration of Islamic laws, had to derive their validity from a secular authority rather than a religious one. Development of PC in MY : 1. The Straits Settlement Penal Code (1871) Penang & Malacca 2. Penal Code (1936) – Federated Malay States 3. Penal Code Amendment Ordinance (1948) – Federation of Malaya 4. Penal Code Amendment Act (1976) – throughout Malaysia (Peninsular, Sabah & Sarawak) 5. 1936 Code was revised in 1997 – present Penal Code 6. Latest amendment made by Act A1471 came into operation 31 Dec 2014. Criminal law in Limb 4 of the Federal List (Ninth Schedule) : FC This section of the Federal List covers civil law, criminal law, procedure, and the administration of justice. These are matters under federal jurisdiction, meaning the Federal Government has the power to legislate on these areas. Criminal Law Application : The PC serves as the primary legal framework for criminal law in MY and applies to all individuals within the Federation. Section 2 of the Penal Code : This provision asserts that every person within the Federation is subject to punishment under the Penal Code for any act or omission that is contrary to its provisions. This means that any individual found guilty of violating the Penal Code is liable to be punished under its terms, ensuring that criminal law applies uniformly across the Federation of Malaya. Core values of Carbon Copy from the Indian Penal Code: PC The Malaysian Penal Code is largely modelled after the Indian Penal Code, reflecting a shared colonial legal history & similar legal foundations. Comprehensibility: The PC is designed to be easily understood by ordinary people who may be subject to its offences. This ensures that the general public can recognize what actions are considered criminal. 4 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Accessibility: The PC is readily accessible in the form of a well-organised legal code. Explanations and illustrations are included to enhance the understanding and accessibility of the law, making it easier for people to follow and interpret. Precision: The language and expressions used in the Penal Code are precise and not vague, ensuring that the legal terms are clearly defined to avoid misinterpretation or ambiguity in enforcement. Democracy: The Penal Code reflects the democratic nature of a country by providing a specific, written code of laws. This written and precise structure upholds principles of justice and transparency, making it clear what behaviour is acceptable or punishable. Structure of PC Total : 511 sections in 26 chapters. 1. Chapter I (Sections 1-5) - Preliminary Introduction and scope of the Penal Code. 2. Chapter II (Sections 6-52B) - General Explanations and Definitions of Core Concepts Provides key definitions and explanations that apply throughout the Penal Code. 3. Chapter III (Sections 53-75A) - Punishment Relates to various types of punishments for offences. Some provisions have been replaced by the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) or other laws. 4. Chapter IV (Sections 76-106) - General Defences/Exceptions Discusses defences and exceptions that may exempt individuals from criminal liability. 5. Chapter V (Sections 107-120) - Abetment Covers the act of aiding, encouraging, or assisting in the commission of a crime. 6. Chapter VA (Sections 120A-120B) - Criminal Conspiracy Addresses the crime of conspiracy to commit illegal acts. 7. Chapter VI (Sections 121-130A) - Offences Against the State Deals with treason and other crimes that threaten the state. 8. Chapter VIA (Sections 130B-130T) - Offences Relating to Terrorism Contains provisions relating to acts of terrorism. 9. Chapter VIB (Sections 130U-130ZC) - Organised Crime Focuses on offences related to organised criminal activities. 10. Chapter VII (Sections 131-140B) - Offences Relating to the Armed Forces Criminal acts involving or affecting the armed forces. 5 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 11. Chapter VIII (Sections 141-160) - Offences Against Public Tranquility Includes offences like rioting, unlawful assemblies, and breaches of peace. 12. Chapter IX (Sections 161-171) - Offences by or Relating to Public Servants Criminal misconduct by public officials. 13. Chapter X (Sections 172-190) - Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants Covers disobedience & contempt against the lawful authority of public officials. 14. Chapter XI (Sections 191-229) - False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice Pertains to perjury, fabricating evidence, and other crimes against the justice system. 15. Chapter XII (Sections 230-263) - Offences Relating to Coin and Government Stamps Crimes involving counterfeiting or forgery of coins and stamps. 16. Chapter XIII (Sections 264-267) - Offences Relating to Weights and Measures Offences involving fraudulent use of weights or measures. 17. Chapter XIV (Sections 268-294) - Offences Affecting Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency, and Morals Crimes like public nuisance, negligence in handling hazardous substances, and immoral behaviour. 18. Chapter XV (Sections 295-298A) - Offences Relating to Religion Crimes involving disrespect or harm to religious beliefs or practices. 19. Chapter XVI (Sections 299-377E) - Offences Affecting the Human Body Covers offenses such as murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping. 20. Chapter XVII (Sections 378-462) - Offences Against Property Includes theft, robbery, extortion, and other crimes related to property. 21. Chapter XVIII (Sections 463-489D) - Offences Relating to Documents, Currency Notes, and Bank Notes Crimes involving forgery, fraud, and counterfeit currency. 22. Chapter XIX (Section 491) - Criminal Breach of Contracts of Service Deals with criminal breaches of service contracts. 23. Chapter XX (Sections 493-498) - Offences Related to Marriage Includes crimes like bigamy, deceit in marriage, and related offences. 24. Chapter XXI (Sections 499-502) - Defamation Covers offences related to harming someone's reputation through false statements. 25. Chapter XXII (Sections 503-510) - Criminal Intimidation, Insult, and Annoyance Crimes involving threats, harassment, and insults. 26. Chapter XXIII (Section 511) - Attempts to Commit Offences Deals with the legal consequences of attempting to commit a crime. 6 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 2. ELEMENTS OF CRIME / CRIMINAL LIABILITY Definition of → Crime as an Illegal Act: A crime is an illegal action, omission, or event that crime breaks the law. → Different from Other Wrongdoings: It may also be a tort (civil wrong), a breach of contract, or a breach of trust, but what makes it a crime is its distinct consequence. → Prosecution by the State: A crime is prosecuted by or in the name of the state. If the offender is detected and a decision to prosecute is made, the case is taken forward by the state. → Punishment: If found guilty, the offender can be punished, regardless of whether they are also ordered to compensate the victim. Every crime has Crime Definitions Vary: its own definition Murder (Section 300 of Penal Code) has a different definition compared to Rape (Section 375 of Penal Code) or Cheating (Section 415 of Penal Code). Types of Wrongs: A wrong is a breach of a rule, which can be: ○ Moral: Based on moral rules. If it violates moral or ethical principles (e.g., dishonesty, being unkind). ○ Legal: Based on laws. If it breaks a law or legal rule (e.g., theft, fraud). Legal Wrongs: Legal wrongs are divided into two categories: ○ Civil wrongs: Involves disputes between individuals concerning their rights and duties. ○ Criminal wrongs: Involves breaches of duties owed to society as a whole. Civil vs. Criminal Law: Civil Law: Primarily concerned with the rights and duties individuals owe to each other. Criminal Law: Defines duties individuals owe to society and prescribes punishment for violations. Elements of Criminal liability is typically imposed if a person : crime - Commits a prohibited act, or - Causes a forbidden harm, and - Acts with a blameworthy state of mind. Maxim of Criminal law : - Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is blameworthy. Criminal liability General rule : Criminal liability exists only when 2 elements are present. equation 1. Actus reus – the physical element (the conduct / action of the accused, which produces / constitutes the forbidden act). 7 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 2. Mens rea – the mental element (a blameworthy state of mind). Equation : Actus reus + Mens rea = CRIME. Actus reus Actus reus : vs. - The action / conduct constituting the prohibited act. Mens rea - E.g., the act of killing in a murder case. Mens rea : - The intention / mental state accompanying the act. - E.g., intention to kill in a murder case. Examples : - Murder: Actus reus is causing the death; mens rea is the intention to kill. - Theft: Actus reus is acting dishonestly; mens rea is the intention to permanently deprive someone of property. Exceptions to Strict liability offences : Mens rea - In some cases, criminal liability can be imposed w/o the need for mens rea. - Definition : the accused may be liable to punishment even without a blameworthy state of mind (intentional or reckless conduct is absent). - Strict Liability: imposes punishment without the existence of mens rea. Actus Non Facit - An act does not make a person guilty unless accompanied by a Reum, Nisi blameworthy mind. Mens Sit Rea - Actus Reus: Commission of a guilty act or omission (failure to act where required). - Mens Rea: Involves intention, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, or malignancy. - Strict Liability: Liability without the need to prove mens rea. Actus reus - No single definition for actus reus; it varies based on the specific offence. - Refers to the act (or omission) that is part of the definition of the offence, excluding the accused's mental state. - Surrounding Circumstances: Includes any relevant circumstances indicated by the offence, as well as consequences of the act. Types of Crimes: 1. Conduct Crimes: ○ Criminal liability arises from the action itself, regardless of the result. ○ Example: Possession of drugs or reckless driving – no need for a harmful outcome; the act alone constitutes the offence. 2. Result Crimes: ○ Criminal liability arises when the accused's conduct…results in a prohibited outcome. ○ Example: Murder or culpable homicide – the result is death. Understanding Actus Reus in Context: The act or omission, alongside any circumstances or results specified in the legal definition of the crime, forms the actus reus. Examples of Conduct Crimes: offence classification Example: Reckless driving – the focus is on the manner of driving, regardless of any accident or result. 8 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Result Crimes: Example: Culpable homicide – the accused’s conduct leads to the result, which is death. Ambiguity in Crimes: Example: Obtaining property by deception – could be considered both a result crime (if deception results in loss of property) and a conduct crime (the act of deception itself). Governing 1. Commission (Act): principles of Actus reus (2) The conduct must be voluntary. If a person causes harm involuntarily, they cannot be held criminally responsible. Section 33 of the law defines an "act" as including both a series of acts or a single act. 2. Omission: Refers to failing to do something that is legally required. Failure to act in a situation where there is a legal obligation to do so can be an offence. Section 33 defines "omission" as encompassing both a series of omissions or a single omission. Section 32 states that unless a different intention is clear from the context, the term "acts" also includes illegal omissions. Section 43 clarifies that a person is legally obligated/bound to take action in situations, where their failure to act would be considered illegal. Failure to act – S. 289 : A person may be guilty of an offence if they knowingly or An offence negligently omit (failure to act) to take required action. ★ Case : Lee Sai Yan v PP (1980) - Example of a case involving failure to act leading to criminal liability. Actus reus Commission of an Act: (guilty act) Actus Reus can be an affirmative act or an omission (failure to act where there is a legal duty). Voluntary Conduct: The act must be voluntary to hold the accused liable. Prosecution’s Task: Prove that: 1. The accused committed the prohibited act, or 2. The accused committed an illegal omission. 3. The state of mind of the accused falls within the definition of the crime. 4. The accused is not entitled to any legal defence. Circumstances The prosecution must prove the external elements of the crime, which include: required by the definition of Positive act of the accused. crime Omitting to act where legally required. Relevant state of affairs at the time of the offence. 9 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Actus reus Example: Theft vs. Result of Actus Reus: The physical act of taking someone’s property. conduct crimes Mens Rea: The intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Question: If the property was abandoned, can theft still be charged? ○ Answer: No, theft cannot be charged if the property is truly abandoned. Theft requires the property to be in the possession or ownership of another person. If the property is abandoned, it is no longer under someone’s possession, meaning the necessary element of taking the property from another person is missing. However, if the property only appears abandoned but still belongs to someone, theft may still be charged. Example: Rape Actus Reus: The physical act of sexual intercourse. Mens Rea: The knowledge or recklessness regarding the lack of consent. The focus is on whether the act was done with or without consent. If consent is absent, both the actus reus and mens rea for rape are present. Conclusion: Both actus reus and mens rea must be proven for criminal liability. However, understanding the nature of the crime (whether it is a conduct crime or result crime) is important to determine what elements the prosecution needs to prove. Conduct crime - A crime where the accused's conduct alone is enough to constitute the offence, regardless of any result. ★ Case : Miller (1983) – Lord Diplock: - "The crime is not complete unless and until the conduct of the accused has caused property belonging to another to be destroyed or damaged.” Examples of Conduct Crimes: - Reckless driving is a crime, even if no one is injured. It's a conduct crime, meaning the dangerous driving itself is illegal, regardless of the outcome. - If reckless driving causes injury to others, it is also considered a crime. Requirement for Voluntary Act: Actus reus As Lord Denning stated in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland, a voluntary act is essential in every criminal case. Example: If someone is driving recklessly but suffers a heart attack and crashes, the act is involuntary, so the actus reus is missing. Mens rea (guilty - Refers to the mental state required for a particular crime. mind) Forms of Mens Rea: 1. Intention: Purposefully doing the forbidden act. 2. Recklessness: Knowing the risk but ignoring it. 3. Knowledge: Awareness of certain facts (e.g., in murder or culpable homicide). Criminal Liability: Only imposed on an actor with a blameworthy state of mind who causes a 10 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I prohibited harm. Mens rea terms under the Penal Code: ○ Intention: Section 142 (intentionally joins an unlawful assembly). ○ Knowledge: Section 275 (knowing a drug is adulterated and still selling it). ○ Voluntarily: Section 39 (causing an effect intentionally). ○ Recklessness/Rash or Negligent Acts: Section 304A (causing death by rash or negligent act). Actus reus, In cases of strict liability, the prosecution does not need to prove mens Mens rea, & rea or negligence. Strict liability Strict Liability: Offences where liability is imposed simply based on the act, regardless of intent or mental state. Actus reus, Actus reus constitutes a crime only when accompanied by the appropriate Mens rea, & mens rea. Defence A crime exists when both actus reus and mens rea coincide. D.J. Lanham describes, a crime has three ingredients: 1. Actus Reus – The physical act. 2. Mens Rea – The guilty mind. 3. Absence of a valid defence. 11 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 3. CAUSATION FOR HOMICIDE Actus reus in Definition : Actus Reus refers to the physical component or outward act in a crime. homicide Components of AR in homicide :- Commission/Omission: Acting or failing to act in a way that results in harm. Bodily Injury/Death: Resulting harm to the victim. Causation: The connection between the act and the harm caused. Mens Rea: The mental component or intent. Intention: Desire to cause death or bodily harm. Knowledge: Awareness that the act could result in death or injury. Causation 1. Requirement : - The accused’s conduct must not only involve a particular behaviour but also cause a specific result (i.e., injury or death). 2. Legal cause : - Whether the accused conduct is to be regarded as a legal cause of the injury or death. Examples of Medical treatment refusal : causation in - The victim refuses treatment that would have saved them. homicide - Ex : The victim of an attack refuses to have medical treatment which would certainly save his life, or Negligent treatment : - Medical treatment is provided but is negligent; proper treatment would have saved the victim. - The treatment he is given turns out to be negligent in circumstances where he would have been saved by proper treatment. Safety negligence : - Safety Negligence (Injury due to neglecting safety standards): The manufacturer fails to maintain the machinery according to the required safety standards. As a result, the machinery is unsafe, and the victim gets injured. Here, the manufacturer’s negligence in not maintaining safety standards is a cause of the injury. The causation is direct: the unsafe machine caused the victim’s injury. - Victim's own action (falling asleep at the machine): The manufacturer still fails to maintain the machinery to the required safety standards. However, the victim falls asleep while operating the machine. Even though the manufacturer’s negligence made the machinery unsafe, the victim’s action (falling asleep) is a new intervening cause. It might be argued that the victim’s own actions (falling asleep) contributed to the injury, and this could break the chain of causation from the manufacturer’s negligence. Cases ★ R v. White (1910) F : The accused attempted to poison his mother. She died with a glass containing poison beside her, but she had not drunk any of it. She had died of a heart attack brought on her by other causes. H : Accused was convicted of attempted murder (due to intent) but not actual murder (since causation was not proven). 12 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Causation under “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not S 304A amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine or with both.” If someone causes another person's death by acting carelessly or without caution, but not intentionally, they can be punished with up to 2 years in prison, a fine, or both. Questions 1. Distinction Between Rash and Negligent Act Rash Act: ○ A reckless act done with disregard for its potential consequences. ○ Involves a person who foresees the possible harm but acts anyway. ○ Example: Speeding in a crowded area despite knowing it could cause an accident. Negligent Act: ○ Involves a lack of due care where a reasonable person would have acted differently. ○ The person fails to take precautions that a prudent individual would, without necessarily foreseeing the specific harm. ○ Example: Failing to check if a machine is properly maintained, leading to injury. Key difference : - Rashness: Implies a deliberate risk-taking with awareness of possible harm. - Negligence: Stems from a lack of proper care without necessarily realising the potential harm. 2. How to Prove the Mental Element in Section 299(3) and Section 300(d) from the Concept of Rashness Section 299(3) (Culpable Homicide): ○ Mental Element (Mens Rea): To prove this, it must be shown that the accused acted with knowledge that their actions could likely cause death. ○ Concept of Rashness: A person may act with recklessness, knowingly endangering someone’s life. This reckless attitude aligns with the mental element of Section 299(3). Section 300(d) (Murder): ○ Mental Element (Mens Rea): This section requires proving that the accused acted with extreme recklessness or indifference to human life. ○ Rashness as Evidence: If the act demonstrates a high degree of recklessness, where the accused was aware of the risk but chose to proceed with their actions, it can elevate culpable homicide to murder under Section 300(d). Application of Rashness: The more severe the risk knowingly taken, the stronger the proof of the required mental element, especially if the act reflects gross disregard for human life. 3. Standard Applied to Determine That the Accused is Negligent 13 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Reasonable Man Test : ○ Negligence is determined by assessing whether a reasonable man in the same situation would have acted differently. This is known as the reasonable man test. ○ Expectation: The accused is expected to exercise the level of caution that a prudent, careful person would. Breach of Duty: ○ If the accused had a duty to act or prevent harm (like ensuring safety standards), and failed to do so, it is negligence. Foreseeability of Harm: ○ The court considers whether the accused could have reasonably foreseen the harm caused by their actions (or lack of action). 4. How Causation is Understood Under the Section Direct Causation: ○ The accused’s action (or inaction) must be the direct cause of the harm. If there is a chain of events, the accused’s behaviour must have significantly contributed to the outcome. Legal vs. Factual Causation: ○ Factual Causation: “But-for” test, meaning “but for” the accused’s conduct, would the harm have occurred ? ○ Legal Causation: In cases of intervening factors (such as a victim’s own actions or third-party involvement), the court evaluates if the accused’s conduct is still the legal cause. Standard Applied: ○ Causation requires a connection strong enough to link the accused’s behaviour with the resulting harm, without significant breaks in the chain of events. The court looks for a substantial and operating cause that is directly linked to the harm. Cases ★ Lee Kim Leng v R (1964) 30 MLJ 285 F : The deceased was crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing when they were struck and killed. The appellant’s car collided with a stationary taxi, causing the taxi to lurch forward and hit the deceased. The taxi driver had stopped without signalling, which may have contributed to the accident. H : The court referred to the Indian case Omkar Ram Pratap (1902), which established that for criminal liability under Section 304A (causing death by a rash or negligent act), the accused's actions must be the direct cause and the proximate and efficient cause of the death, without significant intervening negligence from others. In this case, the court found insufficient evidence to prove that the appellant’s actions were wholly or mainly responsible for the accident and the death of the pedestrian. The lack of signalling by the taxi driver was seen as a significant factor. Therefore, without clear proof that the appellant’s negligence was the predominant cause, criminal liability could not be imposed on the appellant. ★ Re Nidamarti Nagabhushanam 7 MHC 119 F : This case established distinctions between culpable rashness and culpable negligence within the framework of criminal liability. H : The court defined culpable rashness as acting with consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow (awareness of the possibility of 14 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I illegal or harmful consequences) but hoping they will not occur, possibly believing precautions have been taken. In contrast, culpable negligence involves (a lack of such awareness) acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances that show the actor failed to exercise the necessary caution incumbent upon him. If proper care had been exercised, the actor would have been aware of the potential for harmful consequences. The imputability for both rashness and negligence arises from a failure in expected standards of care or foresight. ★ PP v Teo Poh Leng 1 SLR 15 F : The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 304A of the Penal Code for causing death by a negligent act and was fined $5,000 with a five-year driving disqualification. The PP appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. H : Referring to Idu Beg’s case, the court differentiated between criminal rashness and criminal negligence. Criminal rashness was defined as performing a dangerous act with awareness of the risk, though without an intent to cause harm. Criminal negligence, meanwhile, was seen as a failure to adopt necessary precautions, a duty incumbent upon the accused to prevent harm to others. The Idu Beg distinction highlights recklessness vs. a severe lack of care, both of which entail a serious breach of responsibility. ★ Mills (1971) F : In this case, the main issue was determining the direct causal connection between the accused’s actions and the death of the victim, specifically whether the rash or negligent act was an immediate cause of death. H : William CJ – for criminal liability, it is essential that the accused’s rash or negligent act be the immediate cause of death (directly attributable). If the act is merely a remote cause and not directly responsible for the fatal outcome, criminal responsibility cannot be established. This principle emphasises the requirement for a clear, proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the resulting harm for culpable liability to be imposed. Causation under Actus Reus and Mens Rea Distinctions S 299 / 300 1. Actus reus : - Under Sections 299, 300, and 304A, the actus reus is defined as causing the death of a human being. 2. Mens rea : Mens rea determines whether the act of causing death constitutes : - Culpable Homicide under S 299 (which may result in imprisonment), - Murder under S 300 (potentially leading to the death penalty), or - Rash and Negligent Act under S 304A (punishable by imprisonment). Cases ★ Leong Siong Sun v PP 2 MCLJ 250 F : The deceased was hospitalised with a lacerated arm wound and abdominal swelling, later found to have a ruptured intestine. Despite the severity, he left the hospital voluntarily without receiving necessary surgery. He subsequently died from peritonitis (inflammation caused by the ruptured intestine). 15 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I H : Peh Swee Chin J – the appellant could be convicted of causing the death despite the deceased’s decision to leave the hospital. The act of injuring the deceased, which led to his death, was considered the proximate cause. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was found guilty of causing death, underscoring that causal connection can hold even when the victim contributes to the fatal outcome by not seeking adequate medical treatment. ★ R v Smith 2 QB 35 F : During a fight, the deceased was stabbed with a bayonet, resulting in a lung injury and haemorrhage. While being taken to a medical station, he was dropped twice, and received poor medical treatment. H : Parker LCJ – causation was not broken, despite the subsequent poor treatment. For causation to break, a new, external cause must be so significant and unreasonable (referred to as “ultranous”) that it disrupts the chain of causation. The appeal was dismissed, indicating that the initial stabbing remained the primary cause of death, even if the medical care was substandard. Illustrative 1. Example 1: Pre-existing Condition (Eggshell Skull Rule) : Examples under S 299 If a person inflicts an injury on someone with a pre-existing condition (e.g., disease or bodily infirmity) and this injury accelerates their death, the assailant is deemed to have caused the death, regardless of the victim’s health vulnerability. Eggshell Skull Rule: The accused is liable for the victim’s death even if a healthy person would not have died from the same injury. 2. Example 2: Failure to Obtain Medical Treatment : Under S 299, if a person causes an injury that ultimately results in death, they are held to have caused that death even if proper treatment could have saved the victim. This reinforces the principle that the original act remains the primary cause if it directly led to the fatal outcome, irrespective of potential medical intervention. Case ★ D Yohannan v State of Kerala (1958) AIR Ker 207 F : The woman was stabbed by her husband and that injury caused her paralysis in the lower body, and she ultimately died seven months later. Given the serious nature of the injury and surrounding circumstances, the court concluded that the accused had the intention to kill. H : PT Raman Nayar J – the long interval between the injury and the death, which might suggest that causation could be too remote. However, he clarified that any act of causing death through injury is essentially an acceleration of an inevitable event — the delay does not necessarily sever (memutuskan) the causal link. The court found that both factually and legally, the injury was the cause of death. Despite the seven-month delay, the initial injury remained the proximate cause without intervening events altering the outcome. Question What is the legal implication if a victim does not receive any medical treatment or receives inadequate treatment that could have potentially saved their life? Explanation 2, Section 299 : Explanation 2 under Section 299 of the Penal Code clarifies that 16 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I causation is still established even if medical treatment might have prevented the death. This means that if a person causes an injury resulting in death, the person is deemed to have "caused" the death, regardless of whether the victim received proper medical intervention or not. This provision upholds the "but for" causation principle, which attributes responsibility to the original act of injury. It recognises that the failure to provide or receive adequate medical care does not break the causal chain established by the accused's initial act. Practical Application : - In cases where medical treatment was not given, or was inadequate, the accused cannot escape liability solely because the death might have been averted with different or timely medical intervention. The initial injury caused by the accused remains the legal cause of death. This interpretation reinforces accountability by focusing on the primary act that caused the injury, regardless of subsequent medical factors. Causation ★ Morcha (1979) principles in homicide cases F : The possibility of survival with expert treatment does not negate the accused’s liability for causing death. & H : Even if the deceased might have survived with expert emergency treatment, this victim’s refusal does not absolve the accused of responsibility. The initial injury remains the cause of treatment of death. Victim’s refusal to receive treatment Legal Principle: If the victim refuses treatment that could potentially save their life, the accused remains responsible for the death. ★ R v Blaue 61 Cr App R 271 F : The victim, Jehovah, refused a blood transfusion that could have potentially saved her life. She had been stabbed by the prisoner, and despite the high likelihood of survival with the transfusion, her religious beliefs led her to decline it. As a result, she died from her injuries. H : Lawton LJ – the refusal of medical treatment, based on personal beliefs or otherwise, does not sever the causal chain between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death. Drawing on Holland (1841), where a victim refused an amputation despite medical advice and later died from lockjaw, the court confirmed that the initial injury remains the legal cause of death. The court ruled that the accused must “take the victim as they find them” - (egg-shell skull rule), including their physical conditions and personal choices. Therefore, Blaue’s actions were the direct cause of death, and the refusal of treatment did not negate his responsibility. Third-Party and General Rule: Voluntary actions by the victim or medical interventions by third Voluntary Victim parties are unlikely to break the causal chain unless they are completely extraneous Interventions and unforeseeable. ★ R v Halliday (1889) 61 LT 701 F : Whilst drunk, the appellant threatened his wife. She attempted to escape through a window and broke her leg in the fall. 17 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I H : If a man creates in another man’s mind an immediate sense of danger in another, leading them to attempt to escape and injure themselves, the person who induced the fear is responsible for the resulting injuries. ★ R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 F : The appellant made unwanted sexual advances towards the victim, a passenger in his car. She jumped from the moving car, resulting in injuries. H : The court held the appellant responsible for actual bodily harm. The victim’s action was seen as a natural response to escape danger, not breaking causation. Assessment of Differences between S 304A and S 299/300 Causation for Homicide under S 304A (Negligent Homicide) the Penal Code - Requires that the accused’s conduct is the “proximate and efficient cause of death”. - The accused must be “wholly or mainly” responsible for the death. - The death must result “without the intervention of another’s negligence”. S 299 & 300 (Culpable Homicide and Murder) - Causation is often less strict in requiring “wholly or mainly” responsibility. - If the act of causing injury leads to death, even if the death is hastened by factors like refusal of treatment or inadequate medical intervention, the accused remains liable under S 299 or 300. 18 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 4. STRICT LIABILITY History Since the 19th century, efforts have been made to improve working and safety standards in factories. Proving mens rea (intent) of factory owners was hard, leading to few prosecutions. Initially under administrative control, it was later felt that criminal law would be more effective in enforcing these regulations. Criminal law, as a traditional tool for social control, helps prevent harm. Introduction Strict liability (SL) offences don't require mens rea (guilty mind). Normally, criminal liability requires intention or foresight of a crime, but strict liability is an exception. In Lim Chin Aik’s case, it was decided that for public welfare activities, like regulating the sale of food and drink, strict liability can be applied as intended/determined by the legislature. Definition A strict liability offence is one where mens rea is not required. There’s no need to prove mens rea for such offences. If the PC is silent on the need for mens rea , the offence is treated as SL. Strict liability - The requirement of intention is dispensed/not necessary because proof of rationale behind blame could have undermined the efficacy/effectiveness of the law Argument Many argue that strict liability is unjust because, generally, criminal liability is only imposed on someone who is blameworthy and has caused harm. Example of SL 1. Public Nuisance offences Definition: A public nuisance occurs when a person's actions interfere with the rights of the public or the community as a whole. It can involve anything that causes harm, inconvenience, or discomfort to the public. Example: Blocking a public road or creating excessive noise that disturbs the community can be considered a public nuisance. In these cases, the individual can be held liable regardless of whether they intended to cause the nuisance. 2. Blasphemous Libel Definition: Blasphemous libel involves making statements or publications that insult or show contempt for a religion or its doctrines. It can lead to criminal liability without the need to prove intent or knowledge. Example: Publishing material that is deemed offensive to a religious group can result in prosecution. The law focuses on the content of the publication rather than the intent of the publisher. 3. Criminal Contempt of Court Definition: Criminal contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or disobey the authority of the court. This can include behaviours that disrupt court proceedings or undermine the court's dignity. Example: Refusing to follow a court order or behaving disruptively in court can lead to charges of contempt. In these cases, the focus is on the act itself, not on whether the individual intended to show disrespect to the court. 19 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Cases ★ Melan Bin Abdullah v. PP (1971) 2 MLJ 280 F : - The accused served as the editor-in-chief of a group of newspapers. Melan - This - One of his newspapers published an article concerning the abolition of Tamil and ruling highlights Chinese medium schools. the importance of - The prosecution argued that the accused committed an offence of absolute mens rea in liability, where only the actus reus (the act itself) was needed for conviction. determining - He was convicted under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for publishing a liability, even in seditious article and subsequently appealed the conviction. cases of strict liability offences. H : - The court held that Section 6(2) of the Sedition Act provides a defence for individuals who can prove that the act constituting the offence was done without their knowledge and without negligence. - This indicates that the language of the statute implies that mens rea (guilty mind) is required to establish guilt under Section 4(1)(c). - Ong CJ stated that “an offence of strict or absolute liability is one where proof of Alphachell - In actus reus alone suffices for a conviction, however morally free from blame the certain defendant may be.” environmental laws, SL may apply, meaning ★ Alphachell Ltd v Woodward that the act itself (causing F : - The appellants operated premises located by a river. pollution) is - Polluted water from their tanks overflowed and entered the river. sufficient for a - The relevant section of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 stated that it conviction, even is an offence to "cause" polluted effluent to enter the river. if there is no - The appellants argued that the prosecution needed to prove mens rea (MR) for proof of intent or their conviction, claiming they did not intentionally or knowingly cause the pollution. knowledge on the part of the H : - The wording of the statute distinguishes between "causes" and "knowingly offender. permits," suggesting that knowledge is not a required element for the offence of "causing" pollution. - This indicates that liability can be established based on the act of causing the pollution, regardless of whether the appellants had any intent or knowledge of the act. M. Ibrahim - This case illustrates the ★ Mohamed Ibrahim v. PP principle that F : - The appellant was convicted under Section 292 of the Penal Code for individuals possessing 65 copies of the book Tropic of Cancer for sale. engaged in - The book was determined to be obscene, which is defined as offensive to morality selling products or decency, inciting uncontrolled sexual desire. have a duty to be - The appellant appealed his conviction, claiming he could neither read nor write aware of the English and therefore did not know, nor had any reason to know, that the book was nature of those obscene. products, and H : - The purpose of Section 292 is to protect the public, particularly younger ignorance — individuals, from the corrupting influence of obscene materials. whether due to - Ignorance of the English language could not be used as a defence in this case. language or - The court stated that it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the items he otherwise—does sells do not expose the public to harmful material. not absolve them - The prosecution did not need to establish that the appellant actually knew that the of responsibility, book Tropic of Cancer was obscene. Instead, they only needed to demonstrate that especially in the appellant had the opportunity or means to learn about the book's contents and matters determine its nature. concerning - The appellant had previously utilised the assistance of an English-speaking clerk public morality to order books and could have sought clerk’s help in understanding their contents. and decency. 20 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Determining SL 1. Language of the Provision: offences (3) Examine how the offence is worded in the law. The specific language used can indicate whether the legislature intended to impose strict liability. If the statute explicitly states that mens rea (guilty mind) is not required, it suggests that strict liability applies. 2. Nature of the Act: Assess whether the act in question is considered criminal in the usual sense or if it is more of a regulatory nature aimed at protecting public interest. Strict liability is often applied to regulatory offences that serve to protect the community rather than traditional criminal acts. 3. Mischief Addressed by the Provision: Consider the problem or mischief the law aims to prevent. If imposing strict liability can effectively deter or suppress that mischief, this supports the application of strict liability. The goal is to promote public welfare and safety. Cases ★ Lim Chin Aik v. R MLJ 50 F : - The accused, Lim Chin Aik, was charged under Section 6(2) of the Immigration Ordinance 1952. This section prohibits anyone other than citizens of Singapore from entering the country. Issue : whether the offence in question was one of strict liability. H : - The court held that determining whether the offence was one of strict liability was primarily a matter of statutory interpretation. - It emphasised the necessity of examining the intention of the legislature in making the statute. - The court concluded that when the statute regulates public welfare activities, it can be inferred that the legislature intended for such regulations to be enforced under strict liability. - Furthermore, the court noted that imposing strict liability would assist in effectively enforcing the regulations to protect public welfare. ★ PP v Osman B. Apo Hamid 2 MLJ 38 Lord Morris: “It is open to Parliament to legislate in such a way that an offence may be created of which someone may be found guilty though mens rea is lacking” - Parliament can enact laws that allow for strict liability offences, which can facilitate effective legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas concerning public interest. ★ Pearks, Gunston & Tee Ltd v Ward Court: “….the legislature has thought it so important to prevent the particular act from being committed, therefore it (that particular act) is absolutely forbids to be done; and if it is done, the offender is liable to the penalty whether he had any mens rea or not, and whether or not he intended to commit a breach of law. - The law can make certain actions strictly prohibited, meaning you can be punished for doing them even if you didn’t mean to or realise it was illegal. This is an example of a strict liability offence. 21 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I ★ 2. PP v Osman B. Apo Hamid “The nature of crime, the punishment, the absence of social obloquy (Whether the crime carries social shame or stigma), the particular mischief (specific harm or problem the law aims to prevent) and the field of activity in which it occurs, and the wording of the particular section and its context, may show that Parliament intended that the act should be prevented by punishment regardless of intent or knowledge.” - If these factors are present, it suggests that Parliament intended to punish the act itself, regardless of whether the person had criminal intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Presumption of Strict Liability Offences: When the law is silent about mens rea (guilty Mens Rea mind), it might be a strict liability offence. Presumption of Mens Rea: If there's any uncertainty, it should be assumed that mens rea is required. Examining the Statute: You can look at the whole statute, not just the specific offence, to see if mens rea is implied or required. Circumstances 1. Quasi-Criminal Offences: Offences that are not fully criminal in nature Where MR is Not and carry no social stigma. Required (SL) 2. Omitted by Statute: When the law clearly or indirectly excludes the need for mens rea. 3. Social Concern: For issues like public health, safety, welfare, and traffic regulations, strict liability may apply. 4. Strict Liability to Prevent Harm: Even for social concern issues, mens rea is required unless strict liability can prevent the offence. 5. Light Punishment: If the offence only results in minor penalties, like a fine, mens rea may not be necessary. Cases ★ Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895-9] All ER Rep 167 F : -The appellant supplied liquor to the constable with no knowledge and had no reason that the constable was on duty. By supplying liquor it breached the prohibition under the Licensing Act 1872, which forbids serving alcohol to on-duty police officers. H : - Wright J : there is a presumption that mens rea (guilty mind, evil intention, or knowledge of wrongdoing) is a necessary element in every offence. However, this presumption can be displaced by either: - The wording of the statute creating the offence, or - The subject matter of the offence. In this case, the court found that the appellant was not guilty because there was no knowledge or intent to breach the law, and the presumption of mens rea applied. ★ Sweet v Parsley 1 All ER 4 F : The D was a landlady who occasionally visited her premises. She was unaware that her lodgers were smoking cannabis, an illegal activity. H : The court held that when a law is silent on mens rea, there is a presumption that it is required to respect the will of Parliament. The words of the law must be interpreted to require mens rea unless explicitly excluded. 22 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I ★ 2. Lim Chin Aik v The Queen MLJ 50 F : The accused was charged under the Immigration Ordinance for entering Singapore, violating a law that prohibited non-citizens from entering. The issue was whether this was a strict liability offence. H : The court emphasised the presumption of mens rea or knowledge of wrongdoing in every offence. However, this presumption could be displaced either by the wording of the statute or the subject matter. In this case, the court found that the language did not exclude mens rea, so it was required for the offence. Rebuttable General Concept: presumption of MR The presumption of mens rea (mental intent) can still be contested or argued. Rebuttable: This presumption is rebuttable, meaning it can be challenged. Rebuttal can occur based on: ○ Clear wording of the statute. ○ Necessary implication drawn from the law. Social Welfare Exception: The presumption of mens rea can be rebutted in favour of societal interests, especially when public welfare or safety is involved. This exception focuses on protecting people, such as in public health and safety laws, where proving intent may not be necessary. Case ★ PP v Osman Bin Abo Hamid F : - The case revolves around a violation of the Lembaga Padi Negara (LPN) Act 1971, which regulates padi (rice) production and pricing. - Osman was accused of breaching provisions of the LPN Act. - The issue was whether Osman could be held liable without proof of mens rea (intention), or if the offence fell under strict liability, where intent is not required. H : - The court held that certain offences under the LPN Act are SL offences. - The rationale was that the government aims to stabilise prices of padi and rice for the benefit of both consumers and planters. - The intention behind the Act was to ensure stable pricing, which justified imposing strict liability without the need to prove mens rea. - As a result, Osman was held liable even though there was no proof of his intent to violate the law. Defences 1. Strict Liability Bound by General Exceptions: available in SL Even though strict liability removes the need to prove mens rea, it is still subject to the general exceptions outlined in Chapter IV of the Penal Code. Section 6 states that every definition of an offence must be understood in light of these general exceptions, even if they are not explicitly repeated in each offence's definition. 2. Section 40(2): Defines an offence as anything punishable under the Penal Code or any 23 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I other applicable law. 3. Section 76: Mistake of Fact: Provides a defence for a person who commits an act due to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law. If the person, in good faith, believes they are legally bound to act in a certain way, the act does not constitute an offence. This defence can be applied if the person genuinely misunderstood the facts surrounding their legal obligation. *** While strict liability negates the need to prove intention, defences like mistake of fact or acting in good faith under a legal duty are still applicable under the general exceptions provided in the Penal Code. Case ★ Abdullah v Regina MLJ F : - The accused, Abdullah, was charged with statutory rape, an offense considered to be of strict liability under the law. - Abdullah's defence was based on a mistake of fact: he claimed that he thought/believed the girl was above the age of 16. - However, it was established that the girl was actually under 14 years old. H : - The court held that the age of the girl was decisive in this case. Since the girl was under 14, her consent to the sexual act was legally irrelevant. - The provisions under Section 366 (kidnapping) and Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code were applied. - As a result, Abdullah's thought/belief about the girl's age, even if in good faith, was not a valid defence due to the strict liability nature of the offence. The law does not consider mistake of fact in cases of statutory rape. ★ Tan Khee Wan Iris v PP 2 SLR 63 F : Tan Khee Wan Iris was charged under Section 18(1) of the Public Entertainment Act (Cap 257), which imposes strict liability for conducting public entertainment without a valid licence. The issue arose from a discrepancy in the licence documents: - The attached document allowed the entertainment to end at 6 a.m. on January 1, 1994. - However, the actual licence stated it was valid only until December 31, 1993. The licensing officer made this mistake, and Tan Khee Wan Iris claimed a defence of mistake. H : Yong Pung How CJ accepted that the defence of mistake under Section 79 of PC could apply in strict liability offences unless expressly excluded by law. (if the legislation clearly indicates that no defence of mistake can be used for a particular offence, then it would be expressly excluded). - The prosecution conceded that Section 79, which allows for a defence of mistake of fact, applied in this case. Despite this, the court dismissed the case because the accused failed to prove good faith. - The burden of proof was on Tan Khee Wan Iris to show she acted in good faith, but she did not sufficiently demonstrate this. 24 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I Advantages of 1. Simplifies Proof in Complex Cases: SL The increasing complexity of products and ingredients makes it challenging to prove a manufacturer's or merchant's knowledge of non-compliance with standards. If mens rea (MR) had to be proven in such cases, enforcing the law would be nearly impossible. Strict liability eliminates this difficulty. 2. Encourages Higher Standards of Care: Strict liability encourages businesses to be more diligent and efficient. Enterprises, such as chemists or manufacturers, are more likely to invest in safety measures to avoid liability. The burden of preventing harm is placed on those best positioned to do so, rather than on the innocent public. 3. No Injustice, as SL Offences Are Quasi-Offenses: Strict liability offences are generally not considered real crimes but rather regulatory violations or quasi-offenses. Penalties are typically light (but not all light), ensuring no significant injustice is caused. (These penalties are generally intended to correct behaviour rather than impose harsh punishment). 4. Efficiency in Enforcement: Requiring proof of blameworthiness (intent) in every case would be time-consuming. For minor offences like parking violations or littering, strict liability allows for quick enforcement, reducing administrative burden and promoting public order. Disadvantages of 1. Injustice to the Blameless: SL It is unjust and morally indefensible to convict someone who has taken all reasonable precautions or genuinely did not know they were committing an offence. Even though strict liability offences might be minor, they still result in criminal convictions, which can tarnish reputations. 2. Not All SL Offences Are Minor: While some SL offences carry minor penalties, it is not true for all. Some can lead to severe punishments, making it harsh to impose without proving fault. 3. Limited Effect on Deterrence: There is little evidence to suggest that strict liability makes people more careful. In some cases, offenders may treat the fines as the cost of doing business rather than being deterred by the penalties. 4. Administrative Convenience vs. Justice: Although SL simplifies enforcement, using it for administrative convenience compromises justice. For example, it would be absurd to apply strict liability 25 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I to serious offences like theft just because proving mens rea is difficult or time-consuming. 5. Doubtful Time and Cost Savings: The supposed time and cost savings from SL may not be significant. Even after conviction, courts often need to assess blameworthiness to impose an appropriate sentence, negating some of the efficiency gains. DISCUSSION WHETHER LAW ON STRICT LIABILITY IS NEEDED IN A CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY ? Answer : Arguments for the Necessity of Strict Liability Laws 1. Public Safety and Welfare: ○ Strict liability laws can help ensure public safety, particularly in industries where the risks of harm are high (e.g., food production, pharmaceuticals, environmental regulations). By imposing liability regardless of intent, these laws compel businesses to adhere to strict safety standards and minimise risks. 2. Encouragement of Precautionary Measures: ○ The knowledge that strict liability applies can motivate businesses and individuals to take proactive measures to prevent harm. This can lead to higher standards of care and increased investment in safety measures, ultimately benefiting society. 3. Efficiency in Legal Enforcement: ○ In a fast-paced and complex society, strict liability can simplify the legal process. It allows for quicker resolutions of regulatory violations, reducing the burden on courts and law enforcement agencies. This can be particularly beneficial in dealing with minor infractions, such as traffic violations or environmental breaches. 4. Focus on Regulatory Compliance: ○ Strict liability emphasises the importance of compliance with regulations rather than the intent behind actions. This focus can be crucial in ensuring that businesses take their obligations seriously, as non-compliance can lead to significant legal and financial consequences. Arguments Against the Necessity of Strict Liability Laws 1. Injustice to the Innocent: ○ Critics argue that strict liability can lead to unfair penalties for individuals and businesses that take reasonable precautions or genuinely do not know they are violating the law. This can disproportionately affect those who act in good faith. 2. Potential for Overregulation: ○ There is a concern that the application of strict liability may lead to overregulation, stifling innovation and entrepreneurship. If businesses are excessively burdened by the fear of liability, they may become overly cautious, potentially hindering economic growth and development. 3. Limited Deterrent Effect: ○ The argument that strict liability effectively deters harmful behavior 26 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I is questioned. Some offenders may view fines as a cost of doing business, leading to a lack of genuine change in behavior. If individuals believe they can absorb the financial penalties, the intended deterrent effect may be diminished. 4. Complexity in Application: ○ Implementing strict liability laws can be complex, especially in determining what constitutes a reasonable precaution. This complexity can lead to inconsistent applications and potential unfairness in enforcement. Conclusion → The debate over the necessity of strict liability laws in contemporary society hinges on balancing public safety and justice. While strict liability can enhance regulatory compliance and promote safety, it also raises concerns about fairness and the potential for unjust penalties. A nuanced approach may be required, where strict liability is applied in contexts that clearly benefit from it, such as public health and safety, while ensuring that adequate defences and considerations for good faith actions are available in cases where the potential for unjust penalties exists. Ultimately, the need for such laws should be assessed based on the specific circumstances and risks associated with different areas of regulation. 27 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I 5. CRIMINAL DEFENCES IN MALAYSIA Criminal Not everyone who commits an act fitting the definition of a crime is defences necessarily guilty of that crime. Criminal law defines both offences and defences that justify or excuse certain acts that would otherwise be criminal. Defences in Some defences apply generally to all crimes, while others are specific to statutes particular offences. General defences may apply to any crime. Types of criminal Justifications & Excuses : defences Both justification and excuse defences recognise that the actus reus and mens rea of the crime are met, but they differ in rationale. Justification : The conduct of the accused was the right thing to do – it was acceptable, even though it satisfied the definition of the offence. The accused admits that when he committed a criminal act, his actions were justified by certain reasons. Examples: Duress, necessity, self-defence, and provocation. Excuse : The conduct of the accused is unacceptable and wrong, but there is a reason why the accused should not be blamed – he or she should be excused or forgiven. Excuse defence is when the accused admits to committing a criminal act but believes that he or she cannot be held responsible because there was no criminal intent. Examples: Infancy, insanity, involuntary intoxication. Comparison → Justification Example: A man kills an assailant to save his family’s lives (justified). Justification vs. Excuse Excuse Example: A nine-year-old child commits a killing (excused due to age). Mental Mental disorder : impairment and - Mental disorder, also known as disease of the mind, includes any illness criminal or abnormal condition impairing normal cognitive functioning. responsibility - Excluded: Temporary states from alcohol, drugs, hysteria, or concussion. - Examples of conditions: Schizophrenia, paranoia, severe depression. Implications for criminal responsibility : - If a mental disorder affected the accused’s comprehension of their actions at the time, they may not be deemed fully responsible. Age & responsibility : - Criminal Responsibility: Law sets an age threshold below which children are not held criminally responsible, based on the belief that they lack the knowledge or intent required for criminal guilt. General (Chapter IV of Penal Code) exceptions as defences - Chapter IV provides "general exceptions" to criminal liability, offering a full defence against charges. 28 [NAAY]  CRIMINAL LAW I - Section 6 clarifies that all offence definitions, penalties, and illustrations in the PC are subject to these general exceptions. - “Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled “general Exceptions” though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration.” Scope : - Sections 76 – 106 define the specific general exceptions, including defences based on mistake, judicial acts, accidents, lack of criminal intent, consent, and private defence. Key categories 1. Mistake of Fact : of general exceptions S76: Acts done by a person bound by law or by mistake believing themselves bound by law. S79: Acts done by a person justified by law or by mistake of fact, believing themselves justified by law. 2. Judicial Acts : S77: Actions of a judge while acting judicially. S78: Acts done following a court’s judgement or order. 3. Accident : S80: Defences for accidental acts that occur during lawful activities. 4. Absence of criminal intent : S81 - 86 cover acts likely to cause harm but , committed without criminal intent, covering children (under 10 years or between 10 & 12 with insufficient maturity), persons of unsound mind, and intoxication. 5. Consent-based exceptions : S87-93 covers acts done with consent, including acts not intended to cause death but done in good faith for the benefit of a person, children, or those of unsound mind. Also addresses consent given under fear, misconception, or by a minor. 6. Private defence : S96 - 106 outline the right to defend oneself, others, and property. Includes when and to what extent a person can exercise this right, and limitations against specific acts or persons (e.g., the mentally unsound or innocent third parties). Special Diminished responsibility : exceptions as S300 outlines specific situations that reduce a murder charge to culpable defence (Partial