Criminal Law Consolidation Notes (Singapore) PDF

Criminal Law - Topics covered: 1. Preliminary matters - Court procedure, appeals, Trial (PG), Sentencing Framework and Principles, Prosecution (Role, duty and discretion) 2. Elements of an Offence and Strict Liability - Acts, omissions, v...

Criminal Law - Topics covered: 1. Preliminary matters - Court procedure, appeals, Trial (PG), Sentencing Framework and Principles, Prosecution (Role, duty and discretion) 2. Elements of an Offence and Strict Liability - Acts, omissions, voluntariness, automatism (insanity defence), causation, strict liability (inc. defence), murder and culpable homicide 3. Negligence, Recklessness & Rashness - Punishment, death by rash/negligent act, hurt and grievous hurt, defences 4. Offences Requiring Knowledge - General and specific knowledge, wilful blindness test, murder 300d test and punishment, drugs 5. Crimes of Violence - Private defence, sudden defence, unsoundness of mind (insanity), diminish responsibility, intoxication, provocation, sudden fight 6. Abetment and Attempts - Abetment, conspiracy, instigate, assist, attempts (inc. murder, culpable homicide, suicide) and their punishment 7. Joint Liability - Others such as riots, unlawful assembly etc - Tips 1. Jurisdiction → Must be in Singapore or Singapore regulated aircraft and not embassy Topic 1: Preliminary matters 1. Introduction to the Trial Process and Appeals a. In Singapore there is no trial by jury. b. An offence is tried before a magistrate, district judge or High Court judge depending on how serious it is. c. The General Division of the High Court may try all offences. [Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s.15] d. The State Courts (viz, the Magistrate’s Court or District Court) may only try offences within their jurisdiction, which is set out in the Criminal Procedure Code. [State Court Act s.50] 2. Criminal Court Procedure a. In general terms, the prosecution will prefer a charge against the accused setting out the offence. b. There will usually (though not invariably) also be a statement of facts annexed to the charge. c. Pleading/Start: i. The accused may elect to plead guilty, in which case the judge convicts him and proceeds to sentencing. (Note however that in capital cases the judge will usually reject a plea of guilt and require the prosecution to prove its case). ii. If the accused chooses not to plead guilty, the prosecution is obliged to adduce evidence to prove the facts relied upon. d. Middle: i. The golden rule is that the prosecution must prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. ii. After the prosecution has closed its case, the defence may lead evidence. e. End: i. At the end of the trial the judge must decide whether the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 1. If there is any reasonable doubt in his mind, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. a. Acquittal does not necessarily mean that the judge considers the accused to be innocent of the crime; all it means is that the case has not been proven to the standard required. 2. If the accused is convicted, the judge then proceeds to sentence him. a. In general, the judge has a discretion regarding sentences, within the limits provided in the relevant statute. f. Appeal → At the conclusion of the case the prosecution or defence may appeal. i. An appeal may be against conviction or sentence or both (however, an accused who has pleaded guilty may generally only appeal against sentence).  1. An appeal lies from the State Courts to the General Division of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction (Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, s19((a)) 2. Appeals from the General Division of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction are heard by the Court of Appeal (Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, s60D((a)) ii. On appeal, the appellate court may affirm or reverse the decision of the lower court, whether wholly or in part. 3. Trial or No Trial? a. Accused admit + plead guilty (PG) + Statement of Facts → No trial i. If PG, accused may have a lesser sentence/discount due to incentive since now it means that (a) less cost (b) less time (c ) indication of remorse ii. If accused PG, can only appeal sentence and not conviction b. Accused don’t admit + NO PG → Trial i. In guilty pleas, the accused must know all the facts on the basis of which he pleaded guilty. ii. Defendant must not manufacture facts (even if they ask you) c. End→ Judge can only convict or acquit → move to Sentencing i. If accused is acquitted, Prosecution may appeal to High Court 1. Prosecution may on appeal against conviction and sentence 4. Who are the prosecuting authorities? a. Attorney General Chambers (AGC), Departmental Prosecutor (N-Parks) i. AGC charges individuals and represented by Assistant/Deputy Public Prosecutor [DPP] – Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Art 35 and Art 35A 5. Sentencing Framework/Flowchart to charge and sentence. a. When deciding whether or not to charge a person and what sentence to ask for, a good prosecutor should consider the following: i. What happened? The basic facts will have been summarized by the Investigating Officer in the Investigation Paper (IP) but the DPP may need more information. ii. On the basis of the facts, has there been an offence? This will require general knowledge of various offences. The more experienced the DPP, the better he should be at this (one hopes). [If there is an offence, what is the offence?]  iii. Can the facts be proven? It is one thing to know what happened, quite another to prove it in court. Sometimes witnesses suffer from selective amnesia or just refuse to testify. Theoretically, a witness can be compelled to testify. In practice a reluctant witness is often worse than useless. [Evidence law] iv. Should there be a prosecution? This requires an appreciation of public policy applied to the circumstances of the case. Moral intuition often guides the decision. v. What sentence is appropriate? The DPP must decide which of the sentencing considerations are relevant. [if PP decide to prosecute] 6. Sentencing Principles → Why do we need them? a. Protection of the public (Imprisonment, disqualification, capital punishment ) b. Deterrence (discourage people from doing it either by Specific and General to offender) c. Retribution (consequences of breaking the law or ppl feel that justice has not been done) d. Denunciation (show that certain action that are not acceptable/tolerated in out society) e. Rehabilitation (give offender 2nd chance such as short detention order, community orders and conditional warning) 7. All about Prosecution a. Function of the Prosecution i. The function of the prosecution is to assist the judge to pass an appropriate sentence ii. At the sentencing stage, the prosecution will make submissions as to the appropriate sentence in the light of precedent, highlighting any aggravating or mitigating factors. iii. Prosecution must present all the relevant materials to enable the Court to come to its own conclusion as to what the just sentence should be. iv. All the relevant facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and in guilty pleas, the accused must know all the facts on the basis of which he pleaded guilty. b. Role of the Prosecutor [Sundaresh Menon at K Saravanan Kuppusamy v Public Prosecutor SGHC 166 (High Court)] i. 34 … The Prosecution owes a duty to the Court and to the wider public to ensure that the factually guilty and only the factually guilty are convicted, and that all relevant material is placed before the Court to assist it in its determination of the truth. This duty extends to the stage of sentencing where the Prosecution should place all the relevant facts of the offence and the offender before the Court. Furthermore, the Prosecution should always be prepared to assist the Court on any issues of sentencing.  c. What Prosecution MUST look at every case: i. The relevant sentencing precedents, benchmarks and guidelines; ii. The relevant facts and circumstances of the offence and of the offender that inform where in the range of sentences the case at hand may be situated; iii. The offender’s suitability and other relevant considerations that may bear upon whether particular sentencing options that might be available should be invoked; iv. The relevant aggravating and mitigating considerations; v. The relevant considerations that pertain to aggregating sentences[;] vi. Any particular interest or consideration that is relevant and that pertains to the victim; and vii. Where it may be appropriate to order compensation to be paid to the victim, the relevant considerations (including the appropriate quantum). d. Prosecutorial Discretion i. Under the Constitution, the Public Prosecutor has full discretion over the initiation and conduct of criminal proceedings. This is known as prosecutorial discretion. In general, the courts cannot interfere with the Public Prosecutor’s discretion. 1. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Art 35(8): The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence. ii. Certain aspects of the Public Prosecutor’s discretion have now been codified in Criminal Procedure Code Part 7A, which covers deferred prosecution agreements. iii. Defence can make representations to Prosecution e. Others: i. Mistake of law or ignorance of law not defence or an excuse – s.79A Legislation Section Statute Others Penal code 32 Words referring to acts include illegal omissions - In every What is an illegal omission part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions  43 “Illegal”, “unlawful” and “legally bound to do” – The word “illegal” or “unlawful” is applicable to every thing which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action: and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal or unlawful in him to omit. 26c A person is said to do an act intentionally where that person Meaning of intention does an act deliberately. 80 Accident in the doing of a lawful act – Nothing is an offence Meaning of Accident which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution. 121 Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Government – Whoever wages war against the Government, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or with imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to fine Penal code 1871 33 “Act” and “omission” Illustration 33.—(1) The word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a A gives Z small doses of poison single act; the word “omission” denotes as well a series of in Z’s food at different times omissions as a single omission. over the course of a few days, (2) To avoid doubt, where a person does a series of acts, one with intent to kill Z. Z dies from or more of which caused a certain effect, that person is poisoning, although it is not regarded to have caused that effect by that series of acts known which of those doses even if it is not known which of the acts in that series caused (individually or collectively) that effect. caused Z’s death. A has caused Z’s death by poisoning. 22A 22A.—(1) A fault element of an offence refers to any state of What is a fault element or mind, proof of which is needed to establish liability under physical element  that offence, including but not limited to intention, - Actus reus wilfulness, knowledge, rashness and negligence. (2) A physical element of an offence refers to any fact, proof of which is needed to establish liability under that offence, and that is not a fault element of that offence Evidence Act 103 Burden of proof - Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which the person asserts, must prove that those facts exist. 107 Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions Topic 2: Elements of an Offence and Strict Liability 1. Acts a. Omission – ‘Words referring to acts include illegal omissions’ - See S 32 above b. Every offence is created by statute in Singapore. No more common law offenses in Singapore. c. All cases of murder (300) have culpable homicide (299) however all elements in the statute must be considered d. Motive is irrelevant to guilt e. No offence of 2. Omission – S 202 and S 33 ‘Act” and “omission’ 3. Voluntariness a. Accused person entitled to be acquitted. 4. Automatism (volunteriness) a. What is it? A defence b. Type 1 - Insanity/unsoundness of mind – See S 84 (1)(c) specifically for automatism i. Accused can’t control actions due to an unsound mind→ Consequences: Acquitted but detain in a lifetime detention 1. CPC s.251 and s.252 (consequence of using this defence) → Full defence ii. Needs expert evidence to prove it. c. Type 2 – Sane – Not in penal code. i. E.g Epileptic, night terrors etc. d. Accident – S 80 for definition above 5. Causation [Factual vs Legal causation] must have fact before law a. What is causation? Causation is used to determine whether a particular action or event directly led to a specific outcome, like harm or damage. There are two main parts to causation: "factual causation" and "legal causation." i. Type 1: Factual (the ‘but for’ test) → This is about whether the action or event was the actual cause of the result. 1. For example, let’s say someone was hurt because another person was careless. To use the 'but for' test, you would ask, "But for the careless action, would the person have been hurt?" If the answer is "no," then the careless action was likely the cause of the harm. ii. Type 2: Legal (Nickson Huey) → This is about whether it’s fair to hold someone responsible for the outcome. 1. Look at intervening act  2. Even if the victim is at fault, can’t split causation. 3. Test: Whether there is sufficient nexus between the action and the acts of the accused → matter for judge a. Sometimes, even if an action caused harm, the law might decide that it’s not fair to blame someone if the harm was too indirect or if there were other factors that contributed more significantly. 6. Strict Liability a. Definition – see 26h i. Must exercise reasonable care when defending – S 26h4 ii. Defence of mistake (Only mistake of fact allowed NOT LAW!)– s 79(1) (SA of minor below 16 - 376A / 376B Commercial sex with minors) 1. Mistake of law is not a defence – S 79A 2. Mistake to age is not a defence in a sexual offence – S 377D b. Is there a fault element? Here, accused need to know that they are at fault! [Knowledge requirement] 7. Non-concurrence a. In simpler terms, in Singapore’s legal system, if someone doesn’t have both the action and the intention matching up, it can lead to an issue of non-concurrence. This means they might not be found guilty of the crime they’re being accused of, because the law needs both parts to be in agreement to establish guilt. i. Imagine a person accidentally causes harm to someone without meaning to. The "actus reus" (the harm caused) is there, but the "mens rea" (the intention to cause harm) isn’t. If the law requires both parts to be present for a specific crime, then the lack of alignment means that person might not be guilty of that crime. 1. if someone does a series of connected actions, like taking things from different places in a short time, the rule helps decide if all those actions should be treated as one big thing they did or if each action should be looked at separately. ii. False/No concurrence i.e Victim dies after the blow (no concurrence issue if it is a single action) iii. See Wang Wenfeng v PP 4 SLR 590 Legislation Section Statute Others Penal Code 202 Intentional omission to give information of an offence, by Elements: (a) believe an offence person bound to inform - Whoever, knowing or having has been committed (b) knows reason to believe that an offence has been committed, an offence has been committed  intentionally omits to give any information respecting that (c) he is legally bound to give offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished information (d) intentionally with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 omits to give any information months, or with fine, or with both. 299 Culpable Homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act - Elements: (a) V is dead, (b) with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of Accused caused V death (c) causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with Intended to cause the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, death/mortal injury (d) knew commits the offence of culpable homicide. he was likely to cause death 300 Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is - See 2A Interpretation Act murder — for - determining death (a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the - When culpable homicide is intention of causing death; not murder (b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily - injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; (c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or (d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid. 302 1. Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section Why? 300a as act is too 300(a) shall be punished with death. vicious/outrage community 2. Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section How to appeal? 300(b), (c) or (d) shall be punished with death or Petition for clemency from the imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not punished with President for the death penalty death, also be liable to caning 304 Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall — a. if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, be punished with — a. imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to caning; or b. imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning; or b. if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments. 300exp7 When culpable homicide is not murder- - Diminish responsibility Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering (DR) – IMH doctors will from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a (i) have to evaluate then condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or (ii) Prosecutor will ask for any inherent causes or (iii) induced by disease or injury) as DR substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts - 3 elements in red and omissions in causing the death or being a party to See case law causing the death 79 Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact - Defence of mistake – believing himself justified by law - Nothing is an offence See Strict Liability 26h which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who - ‘good faith’ – see 26b by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake  of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in - See other 79b/c/d below doing it. for illustrations 376A Sexual penetration of minor under 16 Strict liability – see 26h 376A.—(1) Any person (A) who — a. penetrates, with A’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a person below 16 years of age (B); b. sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis, if a man) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person below 16 years of age (B); c. causes a man below 16 years of age (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person including A; or d. causes a person below 16 years of age (B) to sexually penetrate, with a part of B’s body (other than B’s penis, if a man) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of any person including A or B, shall be guilty of an offence 376B Commercial sex with minor under 18 (prostitution) Strict liability – see 26h 376B.—(1) Any person who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a person, who is below 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both. (4) In this section, “sexual services” means any sexual services involving — a. sexual penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person by a part of another person’s body (other than the penis) or by anything else;  b. penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a person by a man’s penis; or c. touching which is sexual of another person or of himself or herself. 2A Criteria for determining death – For all purposes, a person has died when there has occurred either — (a) irreversible cessation of circulation of blood and respiration in the body of the person; or total and irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain of the person Interpretation Act 26h An offence of strict liability under this Code or any written Definition of Strict Liability law is one where, for every physical element of the offence, there is no corresponding fault element. Penal Code 1871 26h4 It is a defence for any person charged with a strict liability - Defence got Strict offence to prove that in committing all the acts or omissions Liability that are physical elements of the offence, he exercised - See 79 (1) for ‘defence reasonable care of mistake’ 26b Good faith - Nothing is said to be done or believed in good See 79 – mistake of fact only faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. 79A A person’s mistake of law or ignorance of the law is not a defence to a charge for an offence unless it is otherwise provided by written law. 84 Act of person of unsound mind Illustration (1) Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at A, while labouring under a the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is — delusion, believes that he has (a) incapable of knowing the nature of the act; received divine instructions to (b) incapable of knowing that what he is doing is wrong; or kill Z and that it is morally right (c) completely deprived of any power to control his actions. for him to do so. A however knows that it is contrary to law  (2) Subsection (1)(b) applies only if the person is incapable to kill Z. A kills Z. Here, the of knowing that his act — defence of unsoundness of (a) is wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and mind is not available to A as he honest persons; and is capable of knowing that it is (b) is wrong as contrary to law. contrary to law to kill Z 377D Mistake as to age in sexual offences The fact that the minor was 1. Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and despite section 79, observed to be participating in a reasonable mistake as to the age of a person cannot be activities which are restricted to a defence to any charge for a sexual offence. persons of or above 18 years of 2. (2) The presence of a reasonable mistaken belief that a age, such as smoking a minor was of or above 18 years of age is a valid defence cigarette or admission to to a charge for a sexual offence where the fact that a premises with access restricted minor is of or above 16 years of age but below 18 years to persons of or above 18 years of age is a physical element of the offence. of age (such as a nightclub) is neither sufficient to constitute a reasonable basis for the mistaken belief nor reasonable steps to verify that minor’s age. Criminal Procedure Code 251 Acquittal on ground of unsound mind - If an accused is See S 84 unsoundness of mind (CPC) acquitted by operation of section 84 of the Penal Code 1871, the finding must state specifically whether he or she committed the act or not 252 Safe custody of person acquitted – ‘order that the person - See S 84 Unsoundness concerned (called in this section the subject) be kept in safe of mind above custody in a psychiatric institution, a prison or any other - Acquitted goes to IMH suitable place of safe custody,’ 424 Duty to give information of certain matters - Every person aware of the commission of or the intention of any other person to commit any arrestable offence  punishable under Chapters 6, 7, 8, 12 and 16 of the Penal Code 1871 or under any of the following sections of the Penal Code 1871: Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 171, 211, 212, 216, 216A, 226, 270, 281, 285, 286, 382, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 402, 427, 435, 436, 437, 438, 440, 442, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 459, 460, 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 506, must, in the absence of reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which lies upon the person so aware, immediately give information to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to a police officer of the commission or intention. Virsa Singh v Punjap Case Must see 4 elements - What Prosecution must a. Prosecution must establish that bodily injury is prove present. - Murder 300c case for b. Nature of injury must be proven elements c. Prosecution must prove that there was intention to inflict that particular bodily injury was intended d. It must be proven that the injury of the type describe made up of the 3 elements above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature PP v Lim Poh Lye and The accused inflicted a stab wound on the victim’s thigh. This - Murder 300c case for Another happened to sever the victim’s femoral vein, leading to his intention SGCA 31 death. The particular injury was the stab wound on the victim’s thigh; whereas the precise injury was the severance of the victim’s femoral vein. CA held that the relevant intention under s 300(c) was present. In holding so, the key question is “whether the wounds that were caused were in fact wounds which [the accused] intended to cause”. Whether the accused knew about the seriousness and fatality of the wounds is not central to the inquiry. Given that the accused intended to cause the stab wound, the requirement was satisfied, and  the Court of Appeal held that the charge under s 300(c) was made out against the accused Ike Mohamed Yasin bin The accused committed burglary in the victim’s hut and upon - 300c not held due to Hussin v PP seeing the victim, a 58-year-old woman, threw her on the insufficient evidence on floor and raped her. After raping her, he discovered she was intention to inflict a dead. The cause of death was established to be cardiac 300c injury arrest, brought about by the accused forcibly sitting on the victim’s chest during the struggle. On appeal to the Privy Council the accused’s conviction for murder was set aside. The Privy Council held (at ) that the prosecution had failed to prove that when the accused sat forcibly on the victim’s chest during the struggle he ‘intended to inflict upon her the kind of bodily injury which, as a matter of scientific fact, was sufficiently grave to cause the death of a normal human being of the victim’s apparent age and build’. This case in fact came within the exception alluded to in Virsa Singh, ie, that the internal injury which caused cardiac arrest was accidental and unintended G Krishnasamy Naidu v PP There, the accused found out that his wife had been - DR 4 SLR(R) 874 repeatedly unfaithful to him. He then came up with an - 300exp7 elaborate plan to kill her. The court held that the accused could rely on the defence of diminished responsibility. It referred to the evidence of the expert witness and accepted that the accused’s morbid jealousy substantially impaired his ability to make rational decisions and caused him to believe that the only way to end his suffering was to kill his wife. The CA held that the expert witness’s evidence further supported the proposition that there was a distinction between one’s rationality and responsibility for deciding to commit the act and one’s rationality with executing that decision Chan Lie Sian vs PP Case The death penalty is warranted when the actions of the Non-concurrence issue where SGCA offender outraged the feelings of the community by showing the initial wound did not kill viciousness or blatant disregard for human life. Here, it is the victim, what happens later Prosecution who must show that the accused do the above would still be murder 300c even before the court impose the death penalty if Defendant tries to save victim later Wang Wenfeng v PP Wang Wenfeng was convicted of drug trafficking. He argued See concurrence principle 4 SLR 590 that the prosecution did not prove both necessary parts of [search non-concurrence) the crime: the action (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea). The court held that for a conviction under the relevant drug trafficking laws, it was necessary to prove not only that Wang was in possession of the drugs (actus reus) but also that he had the requisite intention or knowledge that he was involved in trafficking (mens rea). The court found that both parts were sufficiently proven and upheld his conviction. The case highlights the need for both elements to align for a criminal conviction. Topic 3: Negligence, recklessness and rashness 1. Negligence S 26f – Careless and not intentionally/ Doing something without thought. a. Test for negligence for crime is the same for civil law → ‘Reasonable man’ test i. ‘Inexperience’ is not defined/defence and may still be convicted but may lead to a lesser punishment → See Ng Keng Yong principles b. Reckless and negligence does include intentional acts c. Use objective test to determine ‘rashness’ and ‘negligence’ d. Prosecution can only charge one of these: i. Harsh to least punishment : 336, 337, 338 or 304 [use 336 for punishment first] 1. Hurt and grievous hurt definition: 319 and 320 for 337 and 338 2. Causing death by rash or negligent act – S 304A a. Rash definition – S 26e i. Rash and recklessness are the same → Jali case 1. Rash used in Penal code while ‘recklessness’ used in RTA s.64/65 ii. Additionally, ‘advertent to risk’ or don’t think about the risk is recklessness b. Negligence definition – S 26f 3. Prosecution must prove that accused knew about the risk but the risk is no blatantly obvious, the accused must prove why he didn’t know it was a risk 4. Defences a. Intoxication – S 85(1),(2),(2a) and S 86 (2) i. Involuntary intoxication (drugged/spiked) → possible to be acquitted. ii. Defence 1:Full defence if not self-induced and didn’t know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong iii. Defence 2: Intoxication leading to insanity is an insanity defence iv. Defence 3: Intoxication to the extent that the accused unable to have the knowledge v. Not a defence under Road Traffic Act (RTA) vi. Cases: Tan Chor Jin (PD nor intoxication were sufficient to alter the verdict or reduce his culpability), Jin Yugang b. Unsoundness of mind – S 84 See above c. Low intelligence  d. Necessity – s.81 e. Child – S 82, 83 Legislation Section Statute Others Penal Code 304A Causing death by rash or negligent act – Whoever causes - See 26e for definition of ‘rash’ the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act - See 26f for definition of not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished — ‘negligent’ (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term - Fines can be unlimited which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both; or - Someone charged with ‘rash’ (b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a can still be charge with term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both. ‘negligent’ - ‘Punishment’ defined 336 319 Hurt - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to - any person is said to cause hurt 320 Grievous hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”: a. emasculation; b. (aa) death; c. permanent privation of the sight of either eye; d. permanent privation of the hearing of either ear; e. privation of any member or joint; f. destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; g. permanent disfiguration of the head or face; h. fracture or dislocation of a bone; i. any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits;  j. penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain. 336 Punishment for act which endangers life or the personal Punishment for 304A FIRST safety of others - Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished — (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both; or (b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both. 337 Causing hurt by an act which endangers life or the personal - Punishment for 304A safety of others - Whoever causes hurt to any person by - Harsher than 336 doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human - See 319 and 320 for hurt life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished — definition (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both; or (b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both. 338 Causing grievous hurt by an act which endangers life or the - Punishment for 304A personal safety of others - Whoever causes grievous hurt to - Harsher than 336 and 337 any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to - See 319 and 320 for hurt endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall definition be punished —  (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine which may extend to $10,000, or with both; or (b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both. Road Traffic Act (RTA) 64 Reckless or dangerous driving - If any person drives a motor See ‘rashness’ 1961 vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, the person (called the offender) shall be guilty of an offence 65 Driving without due care or reasonable consideration Equivalent to negligence due to ‘due care’ Penal Code 1871 26e Rashly - Whoever does any act knowing that there is a real Knows there’s a risk and take risk that a particular circumstance exists or will exist is said to the risk unreasonably do that act rashly in respect of that particular circumstance, if it would have been unreasonable to have taken that risk. 26f Negligently - Whoever omits to do an act which a reasonable A ‘reasonable person’ is (a) the person would do, or does any act which a reasonable person Judge (b) accused person is not would not do, is said to do so negligently. up to the standard of a reasonable person - See Ng Keng Yong principles 81 Act likely to cause harm but done to prevent other harm - Defence necessity Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done in  good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. 82 Act of a child below 10 years of age - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child below 10 years of age. 83 Act of a child of or above 10 and below 12 years of age, who has not sufficient maturity of understanding - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child of or above 10 years and below 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion. 85 Intoxication when a defence- Intoxication shall be a defence - to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person - charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did - not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not - know what he was doing and — - Involuntary Intoxication (a) the state of intoxication was caused without his where accused could consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; not have knowledge. (a) or - Intoxication leads to (b) the person charged was, by reason of intoxication, insanity (b) insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission 86 (2) Effect of defence of intoxication when established - - Defence intoxication Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of general not RTA determining whether the person charged had formed any - Accused so drunk that intention or had any knowledge or belief, specific or he did not think of the otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of consequences the offence. Ng Keng Yong principles Principles 1. Need ‘substantial cause’ test Jali bin Mohd Yunos v To conclude, the Question referred to this court is answered Public Prosecutor as follows: SGCA 50 (1) A finding of rashness in sentencing in road traffic offences requires consciousness as to the risk by the accused (who is in charge of the vehicle concerned). In this regard, rashness and recklessness are treated as interchangeable concepts. (2) Such consciousness includes: (a) Situations in which there was in fact subjective appreciation of the risk by the accused; and (b) Situations in which the risk is so obvious that the accused ought, as a reasonable person, to have known of it inasmuch as had he paused to consider it, it would have been artificial to have ignored such a risk. (3) However, in Situation 2(b) above, there might nevertheless be no finding of rashness or recklessness on the part of the accused where there exist exceptional circumstances, for example, where the accused acted under some understandable and excusable mistake or where his capacity to appreciate risks was adversely affected by some condition not involving fault on his part. There may also be cases where the accused acted as he did in a sudden dilemma created by the actions of others. Tan Chor Jin v PP 4 Tan was convicted of multiple serious offenses, including Intoxication (did not sufficiently SLR(R) 306 murder. He appealed his conviction, raising issues of private impair his capacity to form defense and intoxication. intent ) and PD (not meet threshold) - Private Defense: Tan argued that he acted in self-defense during the commission of the offenses. He claimed that his - Conclusion: The court upheld actions were justified because he was defending himself Tan Chor Jun’s conviction and from an imminent threat. The court, however, found that sentence, finding that neither there was insufficient evidence to support his claim of private the claims of private defense defense. The situation did not meet the criteria for justifiable nor the arguments related to self-defense. intoxication were sufficient to alter the verdict or reduce his - Intoxication: Tan argue that his state of intoxication at the culpability. time of the crimes affected his mental state and ability to form intent. He argued that because he was intoxicated, he should be considered less culpable. The court acknowledged his intoxicated state but determined that it did not sufficiently impair his capacity to form the necessary intent for the charges, including murder. Jin Yugang v PP Jin Yugang was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Intoxication and PD to murder SGCA 22 [SCM p 1065] He appealed his conviction, arguing that his actions should Held: The court upheld his be reconsidered based on private defense and intoxication. conviction and death sentence, PD: Jin Yugang’s claim of self-defense was rejected. The court finding that neither private found that there was no immediate threat justifying his defense nor intoxication was actions. sufficient to change the Intoxication: Jin Yugang argued that intoxication affected his outcome. intent. The court acknowledged his intoxication but determined it did not significantly impair his ability to form intent for the murder. Topic 4: Offences Requiring Knowledge 1. Knowledge – S 26D a. Types: i. General knowledge: don’t need to prove/common sense don’t need to prove 1. However, Prosecution need to prove that accused know about the common sense 2. S 58 and 59 (i) of the Evidence Act ii. Specific knowledge: need to prove b. How to prove knowledge? Answer: Admission of the accused during police interviews or cross-examination in court. i. S 58, 59 (i) and 60 of the Evidence Act c. Defence → same as week 3 above d. Case: Govindasamy – See below and 300d 2. Wilful blindness (accused don’t want to know) → 3 test to establish wilful blindness I.e Misuse or Drugs Act – see Adili a. Adili (para 51(a-c)) – See test below for wilful blindness for general b. Gobi (para 57 (a-c)) -Test for wilful blindness in S 18 (2) MDA i.e drugs 3. All Murder – 300 a. Prosecutor must choose 1 charge between (a)-(d) b. 300a → Case: Chan Lie Sian vs PP [Illustrate when death penalty is used] c. (a-b) → intentional d. 300c → 4 Elements in Virsa Singh v Punjap , Intention present - PP v Lim Poh Lye, Insufficient evidence - Mohamed Yasin e. 300d → Prosecutor must prove that accused knows that it is imminently dangerous f. Punishment – S 302(1) for 300a and 302(2) for b/c/d ( death for 300a, death/imprisonment for 300b/c/d g. DR – ‘300exp7’ [3 elements], Case - Krishnasamy 4. Misuse of Drugs Act – see below S 5-18 a. Must be a controlled drug under the HAS and accused MUST know the name of the controlled drug I.e weed 5. Duress – S 94 Legislation Section Statute Others Penal Code 300b Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is Just S 300 murder extracted murder — into 300b (b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily See 302(2) for punishment injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; 300c Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is Just S 300 murder extracted murder — into 300c (c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury See 302(2) for punishment to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or 300d (d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so - Murder under 300d needs imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause knowledge death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and - Elements (a) cause death (b) commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of imminently dangerous (c ) causing death, or such injury as aforesaid. intention of causing bodily injury (d) offender knows it likely to cause death - Govindasamy case Penal Code 1871 302(1) Punishment for murder - (1) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(a) shall be punished with death. 302(2) Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder within Murder 300b, 300c, 300d the meaning of section 300(b), (c) or (d) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not punished with death, also be liable to caning. 26 Knowingly - (1) Whoever does an act with awareness that a Meaning of knowledge circumstance exists, will exist, or is virtually certain (barring an unforeseen intervention) to exist, is said to do that act knowingly in respect of that circumstance.  94 Act to which a person is compelled by threats Duress - Except murder and offences against the State Explanation 1.—A person who, punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is of his own accord, or by reason done by a person who is compelled to do it by of a threat of being beaten, threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably joins gang-robbers knowing cause the apprehension that instant death to that their character, is not entitled to person or any other person will otherwise be the the benefit of this exception on consequence: the ground of his having been - Provided that the person doing the act did not of his compelled by his associates to own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of do anything that is an offence harm to himself short of instant death, place himself by law. in the situation by which he became subject to such Explanation 2.—A person constraint seized by gang-robbers, and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law — for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the gang‑robbers to enter and plunder it — is entitled to the benefit of this exception. Evidence Act 58 Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved - No fact of which the court will take judicial notice need be proved. 59 (i) Facts of which court must take judicial notice - The court is to take judicial notice of the following facts (i) the ordinary course of nature, natural and artificial divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, the meaning of English words, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Gazette;  60 Facts admitted need not be proved - Misuse of Drugs Act 5 Trafficking in controlled drugs Trafficking (MDA) 7 Import and export of controlled drugs - Except as authorised Import by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person to import into or export from Singapore a controlled drug. 8 Possession and consumption of controlled drugs - Except as Possession and consumption authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person to (a) have in his or her possession a controlled drug; or (b) smoke, administer to himself or herself or otherwise consume — I. a controlled drug, other than a specified drug; or II. a specified drug. 12 Abetments and attempts punishable as offences Attempts Any person who abets the commission of or who attempts to commit or does any act preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission of any offence under this Act shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable on conviction to the punishment provided for that offence. 18(1) Presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs – Any person who is proved to have had in his or her possession or custody or under his or her control — a. anything containing a controlled drug; b. the keys of anything containing a controlled drug; c. the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or d. a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug,  is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have had that drug in his or her possession. 18(2) Presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled D must know that he is bringing drugs - Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a in a controlled drug. If D controlled drug in his or her possession is presumed, until believes that he brings in the contrary is proved, to have known the nature of that tobacco, charge under tobacco drug. import 33B Discretion of court not to impose sentence of death in Court discretion on death certain circumstances sentence for drugs 33B.—(1) Where a person commits or attempts to commit an offence under section 5(1) or 7, being an offence punishable with death under the sixth column of the Second Schedule, and the person is convicted thereof, the court — a. may, if the person satisfies the requirements of subsection (2), instead of imposing the death penalty, sentence the person to imprisonment for life and, if the person is sentenced to life imprisonment, the person shall also be sentenced to caning of not less than 15 strokes; or b. shall, if the person satisfies the requirements of subsection (3), instead of imposing the death penalty, sentence the person to imprisonment for life Govindasamy Case Four elements Knowledge elements for 300d 1. Accused performed an act with caused death (causation issue) 2. The act must have been so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death 3. Accused must know about this 4. No excuse for incurring the risk of causing death Adili Case To hold the accused wilfully blind, prosecution must prove: Test for wilful blindness - 1. Accused person must have a clear, grounded and General targeted suspicion of the fact to which he is said to be wilfully blind 2. There must be reasonable means of inquiry available to the accused person, if taken would have led him to discover the truth of his possession 3. The accused person must have deliberately refused to pursue the reasonable means of inquiry available to as to avoid negative legal consequences as might arise in connection with his knowing that fact. Gobi case In order to rebut s.18(2) MDA presumption, the accused Test for wilful blindness in s.18 - need only to establish that he did not know the nature of the drugs drugs in his possession. (a) He should be able to say what he thought he was carrying and a claim what he simply did not know would not usually suffice. (b) The inquiry his state of mind or knowledge is subjective. (c) The court will access the veracity of the accused evidence as to his state of mind against the objective facts. It is a matter of credibility. Topic 5: Crimes of violence 1. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – S 304 (a) See 299 for 4 elements (b) 304 for punishment. (c) Read with S 424 of the CPC 2. Murder → 300 above 3. Private defence [PD] (a) PD Scenarios [Full Defence] i. Right to defend body and property – S 97 ii. 102 (Scenarios you can kill the assailants – See comments) iii. 104 (PD of Property), iv. 105 (House-breaking time specific extend to cause death) v. 300 Penal Code Exception 2 and exception 4 (b) Golden rule: No right to PD under S 98 (1) & (2). i. 98 (1) → Can’t inflict more harm than necessary ii. 98 (2) → No vigilantism allowed iii. As long as there is no pre-mediation and no murder, there is a right to PD (c) When are you allowed to exceed PD? i. Exceeding PD general – S 300 exp 2 [last sentence] ii. Exceeding PD Public Servant – S 300 exp 3 (d) MISTAKEN PD scenario – S 79b,79c & 79d i. Defence 1 (mistake of fact S 79(1) only) (e) WHEN PD starts? S 101 [PD starts as soon as reasonably believe that there is a threat] 4. Sudden defence – 300e1 [Mitigating factor not defence] (a) No Provocation – S 300e1 (a), (b) & (c) under exception i. Provocation by verbal or conduct – S 300 exp1 for S 300ille for illustration (i.e the coil spring effect) (b) Key! → Loss of self- control, grave and sudden, immediate threat (See ‘300e1 Explanation 1 and 2’ for types of Provocation i.e age, gender, words, gestures & conduct)  (c) PP vs Kwan Chin Cheng (imminent/immediate threat and provocation) Tan Chor Jun v PP (imminent threat and intoxication ), Iskandar bin Rahmat (intended murder, DR not enough, PD not imminent) 5. Unsoundness of mind – See above s.84 [Full defence, acquitted] 6. Diminish responsibility [DR] See 300exp7 above for 3 elements of DR (a) Accused will not be punish for murder under 302 but culpable homicide under 304 (b) Cases: Iskandar Bin Rahmat, Nagaenthran (DR under intellectual and psychological issue failed threshold & drug trafficking) Ahmed Bin Salim (Mental impairment conditions), Lord Parker (abnormalities of mind), 7. Intoxication – S 85 and S 86 8. Sudden fight – s.300 exp 4 (a) If there was pre-mediation and provocation, not sudden fight, its murder (b) Premeditation – Found in S 300 exp 2 (PD) and 300 exp 4 (Sudden fight) i. The word “premeditation” means the offender’s intention, which was formed prior to the circumstances which gave rise to the act of private defence — a. to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or b. to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d) Legislation Section Statute Others Penal Code 300a See 300 murder 300e1 Culpable homicide is not murder if the - Sudden killing and loss of control offender whilst deprived of the power of self- - Explanation 1: Whether the provocation control by grave and sudden provocation, was grave and sudden enough to prevent causes the death of the person who gave the the offence from amounting to murder is a provocation, or causes the death of any other question of fact, having regard to whether person by mistake or accident. an ordinary person of the same gender and age as the offender, sharing such Exception.—The above exception is subject to characteristics as would affect the gravity of the following provisos: the provocation and placed in the same situation as the offender, would be deprived of self-control by the provocation.  a) that the provocation is not sought or - Explanation 2: Grave and sudden voluntarily provoked by the offender as an provocation may be in the form of words, excuse for killing or doing harm to any gestures or conduct or any combination of person; words, gestures or conduct. b) that the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; c) that the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 300ille A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of - Provocation by verbal or conduct – Coil the right of private defence, lays hold of A to spring effect prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence. 300 exp 2 Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder - Private defence (PD) if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of - Don’t lead to acquittal. the right of private defence of person or - Search ‘premeditation’ above if needed. property, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. 300 exp 3 Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant, or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of  public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant, and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. 300 exp 4 Culpable homicide is not murder if it is Sudden fight committed without premeditation in a sudden Search ‘premeditation’ above if needed. fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner 301 Culpable homicide by causing the death of a Transferred intent → Intended to cause death but person other than the person whose death hit another person → still murder was intended - If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause. Penal code 1871 79b Illustration (b) – Police officer kills someone he Mistaken PD scenario 79c thinks someone is carrying a bomb at the 79c airport.  Illustration (c) - Police officer kills someone he thinks someone is carrying a bomb at the train station that was behaving suspiciously and not stopping when ordered. Illustration (d) - X, a naval commander, fires on vessel A, which was speeding towards a cruise liner despite warnings. X believed in good faith that vessel A was a threat. Even if vessel A was not actually hijacked or dangerous, X is not at fault 96 Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. 97 Right of private defence of the body and of PD of body and property property - Every person has a right, subject to - This is a FULL DEFENCE. the restrictions contained in sections 98 and - If PD is established, defendant will be 106A, to defend — acquitted even though you have kill the a. his own body, and the body of any victim other person, against any offence - affecting the human body; b. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. 98 Extent to which right may be exercised Golden rule for PD:  (1) The right of private defence does not extend to the inflicting of more harm than it is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. (2) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is reasonable opportunity to have recourse to the protection of a public authority in the circumstances. 101 Start and continuance of right of private defence of body (1) The right of private defence of the body starts as soon as the defender reasonably believes that there is danger to the body (either his own or that of any other person) arising from any act which is an offence against the human body or an attempt or a threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed. (2) The right of private defence continues as long as the belief of danger mentioned in subsection (1) continues. 102 When the right of private defence of When can you kill during PD property extends to causing death – if - i.e somebody comes to you with a knife attempting - Potential death/grievous (a) an assault where the defender hurt/rape/penetration/kidnapping/wrongful reasonably believes that death will confinement otherwise be the consequence of such - Only men can commit rape under 376 assault; - 376(2) all gender (b) an assault where the defender reasonably believes that grievous hurt  will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; (c) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of committing rape as described in section 375 or causing such rape to be committed; (d) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of causing penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth as described in section 376(2); (e) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; (f) an assault that the defender reasonably believes to be done with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to believe that he will be unable to have opportunity for recourse to a public authority for his release 104 Commencement and continuance of right of Scenarios when you can start and continue private private defence of property – defence of properties 1. The right of private defence of property starts when the defender reasonably believes that there was a danger to property (either his own or that of any other person) arising from any act which is an offence falling under the  definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit such an offence. 2. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till — a. the offender has effected his retreat with the property; b. the assistance of a public authority is obtained; or c. the property has been recovered. 3. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. 4. The right of private defence of property against house‑breaking continues as long as such house‑breaking continues 105 When right of private defence of property Robbery and house breaking between 7pm to 7am, extends to causing death – if house-breaking mischief on fire, fear death/grievous hurt committed after 7 p.m. and before 7 a.m. PP vs Kwan Chin Kwan was convicted of culpable homicide not Imminent threat, provocation & loss of control Cheng SGCA, amounting to murder after fatally attacking his wife. - Private Defense: Kwan argued that his actions were in private defense. He claimed that he was acting to protect himself from an imminent threat posed by his wife. However, the court found that the evidence did not support his claim of self-defense. The situation  did not meet the criteria for private defense as there was no immediate or unlawful threat. - Provocation:** Kwan argued that he was provoked by his wife’s actions, which led him to lose self-control and commit the fatal attack. The court examined whether the provocation was sufficient to reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide. Held: The court found that while there was some evidence of provocation, it was not of such a nature to legally justify a complete defense or significantly mitigate the severity of the offense. - **Conclusion:** The court upheld the conviction of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding that neither private defense nor provocation sufficiently justified or mitigated Kwan Cin Cheng’s actions to alter the conviction. The case illustrates the limits of these defenses in reducing the charge from murder and emphasizes the need for clear, immediate threats or significant provocation to impact legal outcomes. Tan Chor Jun v PP Tan was convicted of murder and other Intoxciation under PD SGCA 32 offenses. He appealed his conviction, raising several defences related to intoxication and private defence. Private Defense: Tan argued that his actions were influenced by a form of self-defense or  private defense. Specifically, he contended that he acted under the mistaken belief that he was defending himself from an imminent threat. Held: Tan claim of private defense was not substantiated. The evidence did not support the assertion that he was acting in genuine defense against an imminent threat. Thus, the court rejected the private defense argument. Intoxication: Tan argued that his state of intoxication affected his ability to form the necessary intent for the crimes committed. They suggested that his intoxicated state should mitigate his culpability. Held: Court acknowledged that intoxication could impact the assessment of an individual's intent and mental state. However, the court determined that Tan level of intoxication did not sufficiently impair his ability to form the requisite intent for the charges, including murder. As such, intoxication did not provide a basis for reducing his culpability or altering the mandatory death penalty. Iskandar bin Rahmat v Iskandar bin Rahmat was convicted of murder Murder, PD (no imminent threat) and DR (due to PP 1 SLR 505 for killing his former employer and was mental health did not meet threshold) sentenced to death. He appealed, raising issues related to private defense, the nature of the murder, and diminished responsibility. - Private Defense:** Iskandar claimed he acted in self-defense during the attack. He argued that he was defending himself from a perceived threat. The court found that his claim of self-defense was not credible. The evidence did not support an imminent threat from the victim that would justify his actions under the private defense doctrine. - Murder: CA held that the accused had the intention to kill both victims. The Court found that since the first victim did not attack the accused, there was no reason for the accused to have been so vicious in his attack on the first victim other than to kill him. The congregation of injuries to vulnerable parts of the second victim’s body – the neck, face and scalp – demonstrated that the attacks were targeted. Coupled with the sheer number of times (17 times) he had stabbed and cut the second victim, the Court found that the accused must have intended to cause the second victim’s death. These factors led the Court to conclude that the offender had intended to cause the death of the victims - Diminished Responsibility: Iskandar also argued that he should be held less culpable due to diminished responsibility, suggesting he had a mental condition affecting his ability to control his actions. The court found that while there were indications of mental health issues,  they did not meet the legal threshold for diminished responsibility to reduce the charge from murder. Held: The court upheld Iskandar’s conviction and death sentence, rejecting his claims of private defense and diminished responsibility. Ahmed Salim v Public There are typically three ways in which a DR - Mental impairment conditions Prosecutor psychiatric condition may substantially impair a SGCA 6 person’s mental responsibility: (1) where it (Requirement for DR), affects the person’s perception of physical acts and matters; (2) where it hinders the person’s ability to form a rational judgment as to whether an act is right or wrong; and (3) where it undermines the person’s ability to exercise his will to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment. It remains open to an accused person to contend that there is substantial impairment by reference to other categories of mental capability and responsibility Nagaenthran a/l Naga was convicted of drug trafficking and DR (intellectual and psychological issue did not Dharmalingan v PP sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction meet threshold fr DR) & drug trafficking SGCA 37 and sentence, arguing, among other things, that he should not be held fully responsible for his actions due to his mental condition. - Diminished Responsibility: Nagaenthran claimed that he suffered from diminished responsibility because of his intellectual and  psychological impairments. His defense argued that his mental condition significantly impaired his ability to control his actions and understand the nature of his conduct. Held:. While the court acknowledged that Nagaenthran had mental health issues, it found that these issues did not meet the legal threshold for diminished responsibility under Singapore law. Specifically, the court determined that his mental condition did not sufficiently impair his cognitive functioning to reduce his culpability from murder or affect the application of the death penalty. The appeal was rejected, and the death sentence was upheld. The court concluded that despite Nagaenthran’s mental health issues, they did not warrant a reduction in responsibility or a change in the sentence. Lord Parker ‘Abnormality of mind is a state of mind so (abnormalities of different from that of the ordinary human mind) beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’ Topic 6: Abetments, attempts 1. Abetment - encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular, to commit a crime or other offense: (a) S.107 - Abetment of the doing of a thing (b) S.108A – Abetment in Singapore of an offence outside Singapore (c) 108B - Abetment out of Singapore of an offence in Singapore (d) S.305 - Abetment of suicide of a minor/no capacity (e) S.306 - Abetment of suicide (f) S. 12 MDA – Abetment of drug 2. Conspiracy (a) Definition of criminal conspiracy – s.120A (b) Everyone is liable for punishment for criminal conspiracy – s. 120B (c) Abetment by conspiracy 107(1)(b) 3. Punishment for abetment, conspiracy, instigate and assist depends on: (a) If offence has been committed – s. 109 (b) If offence not committed – s. 115 or 116 4. Instigate - bring about or initiate (an action or event) – s.107 (1)(a) See 107 (a) The person instigating another person to commit an offence is punish if he knows that it is a crime 5. Assist – s.107 (1)(c) See 107 (a) Intentional aiding is where you must know that an offence is being committed in order to be guilty (b) Specific intentional assistance (e.g Workers mass strike) s. 117 6. Attempts (a) Definition – s. 511 i. Must have ‘substantial steps’ + intention for strong collaboration for the offence – s. 511(2) (b) Punishment for attempts – s. 512 (c) Attempted murder – s. 307 i. Attempt to murder (307) has lower punishment than attempt (512) (d) Attempted culpable homicide – s. 308 (e) Attempt voluntarily causing hurt – 20 years  (f) Attempted suicide is not an offence. (g) Impossibility is not a defence (h) Case: Han Fang Guan Legislation Section Statute Others Penal Code 120A Definition of criminal conspiray Elements: