Criminal Law I

1. Introduction
General Principles of Criminal Law
Crime:
A wrong which affects the public;
An act or omission that can be punished under criminal law;
“an act which has been committed or an omission which threatens the general laws or
encroachment on the general laws that must be fulfilled towards the society”1;
“A body of rules prohibiting certain conduct on pain of punishment”2;
“An act or any offence that endangers the society and all acts or actions that are unlawful and
the person who does the act is responsible to receive the punishment of fine or punishment.”3

Offence:
A breach of law4;
An act or an omission which can be punished under criminal law.
The types of offences in Malaysia range from serious offences such as murder, culpable
homicide and causing death by negligence to non-serious offences such as assault, battery
and causing bodily harm.

Punishment:
A sentence;
A final order disposing off a court case.
The types of punishment imposed in Malaysia range from death penalty to life imprisonment,
caning, long and short terms of imprisonment and fine.

Theories on the Purpose of Punishment:

(a) Retribution: Revenge, to take something from the offender or hurt him as
punishment for committing crime, i.e. imposing pain, taking his money, his freedom,
or his life.
(b) Deterrence: Aims to prevent future crime by threats of punishment.
(c) Incapacitation: Takes the offender out of society, prevents him from doing more
crime.
(d) Rehabilitation: Reforms the offender through punishment so that he can resume a
normal and useful role in the society.

1
Blackstone
2
Clarkson
3
Osborn
4
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Offense#:~:text=Offense,as%20opposed%20to%20private
%20ones
1|Page
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea: Basis for the basic elements of criminal liability.
A Latin Maxim that states that an act does not make a person legally guilty unless his mind is
legally blameworthy.

Basic Elements of Criminal Liability:

i. Actus Reus: A guilty act or omission at the time the offence was committed.
ii. Mens Rea: A blameworthy state of mind.
iii. Causation: Both the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea must coincide. This is in order
establish a criminal liability against an accused for the crime resulting from his act or
omission to act. The types of causation include factual cause and legal cause.

Factual Cause: A sequence of events that results in an outcome being caused by one or more
actions or inactions. It requires proof that a person’s conduct was a necessary condition of the
consequence and it is established by proving that the consequence would not have occurred
but for a person’s conduct. It is also known as the “but for causation”.

Illustration of Factual Causation:

(a) If the accused had not fired first, the police officers would not have fired their
weapons, and then the hostage would not have died.5

(b) The accused tried to poison his mother by putting cyanide in her drink but she died of
attack and not because of the poison. The accused cannot be liable for an offence on
that consequence (murder), but he is still liable for an attempted offence (attempted
murder).6

Legal Cause: Proof that a person is liable in law for whatever happened. It requires proof
that a person’s conduct was sufficiently connected to its occurrence. It could be merely
established if the said person’s conduct was an operating and substantial (not trivial) conduct,
but not necessarily the only cause of the consequence when there are two or more legal
causes of the same consequence. It is also known as the “imputable causation”.

Illustration of Legal Causation:

(a) If a person received bayonet wounds during a fight and pierced his lung causing
haemorrhage and on the way to the hospital his friend tripped and dropped him twice.
Despite given bad treatment on arrival, the friend is still liable.7

Chain of Causation: To break the chain of causation it must be shown that

there is something which disturbs the sequence of events (new cause) and it must be

5
R v Pagett
6
R v White (1910)
7
R v Smith (1959)
2|Page
extraneous or extrinsic. An accused will not be liable to have caused the result if there was an
intervening act (Novus Actus Interveniens) which is sufficient to break the chain of causation.
However, not all intervening act can break the chain of causation. The types of intervening
acts include act of a third party, act of the victim, improper medical treatment, and unforeseen
natural event.

Main Defences in Criminal Law:

(1) General Exceptions (Complete Defences) – Provided under Chapter IV of the PC. If
the accused is successful in his defence, he would not be convicted for a criminal
offence and would be found not guilty.

(2) Special Exceptions (Partial Defences) – Provided under S.300 of the PC. It applies
only to murder cases and if successfully proved, reduces the crime of murder to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Burden of Proof for the Main Defences: Lies on the accused who must establish the
defence on the balance of probabilities under the Evidence Act.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Law

Civil Law: Branch of law that sets out private rights and remedies, and govern disputes
between individuals in various areas of private law.

Criminal Law: Branch of law that deals with crime, defences and punishment. It is an area
of public law that regulates criminal acts done by a member of the public.

Differences between Private Law and Public Law: Private Law deals with the rights and
obligations between individuals towards each other. It includes civil law, contract law, torts
law, property law, trust law, and family law. Public Law regulates the relationship between
the state and its people. It includes criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law.

Functions of a Jury and Judge in Criminal Trials

Jury: A person that listens to the evidence and decides who or what to believe. They decide
what the facts of the case are and whether the accused is guilty or not. When the jury reaches
a verdict, its role comes to an end.

Judge: A person that makes decisions about all questions of what the law is in relation to the
particular case and that ensures the proper procedures are followed. They decide the
appropriate sentence once the jury has decided a person guilty.

3|Page
 Standard of Proof of the Prosecution and the Exceptions to this
Standard

Burden of Proof: Obligation of a party to prove their case to whoever is weighing the
evidence. The burden of proof can shift from one side to the other during a hearing or a trial
depending on the kind of case. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proving
the defendant committed a crime while the defendant has the burden of proving certain
defences to that crime.

Standard of Proof: The extent to which a party with the burden of proof has to prove their
case. The higher the stakes, the higher the standard of proof. In criminal cases, opposing sides
can be held to have different standards of proof. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution,
the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof is on the defendant
(for instance when he is proving defences), the standard of proof is that of balance of
probabilities.

Different Standards of Proof: (1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Preponderance of
the evidence; and (3) Clear and convincing evidence.

4|Page
 2. Actus Reus
Guilty act or omission at the time the offence was committed.

Elements of Actus Reus

Can be divided into: (1) Conduct; (2) Consequence; (3) Circumstances; and (4) Causation.

(1) Conduct: Voluntary guilty act or omission at the time the offence was committed.

Act: Refers to not only a single act but also a series of acts under S.33 of the PC. This
means that even if the person’s act did not directly cause the death of someone, he can
still be liable under a series of act leading to the death.

Omission: Failure to act. It does not amount to criminal liability unless it falls under
several exceptions.

Voluntariness: Ability of a person to control his conduct. The law will not hold someone
criminally responsible for an involuntary act.

(2) Consequence: Outcome of a specific act. i.e. For a homicide, the consequence would
be the death of a human being.

(3) Circumstances: Relevant circumstances under which an act must occur to be

criminal. i.e. In the case of trespassing at night, the relevant circumstances would be
that the act occurred at night, on someone’s property other than your own and that you
entered the property without consent or lawful excuse.

(4) Causation: Conduct of the accused person must be shown to have caused the
consequence to occur.

When Can Omission Become Criminal and Exceptions to This

Rule
Omission: Failure to act. It does not amount to criminal liability unless it falls under several
exceptions.

5|Page
Criminal Omission: Occurs when the omission is illegal under S.43 of the PC or if there is a
failure to act when a duty to act is imposed.

Illegal Omission under S.43: Includes crimes listed under S.283-298 of the PC.

Duty to Act: Includes duty to act by a statute; duty to act by a contract8; duty to act by a
special status relationship9; duty to act by voluntary assumption10; and duty to act by causing
a risk or harm11.

Chain of Causation Raised as A Defence to Negate Liability

Causation: Connection between the accused’s conduct and the proscribed harm. It is
important in order to establish criminal liability and can only be established when there is a
factual cause and a legal cause.

Factual Cause: Tested by saying “BUT FOR the defendant’s intentional bad acts, the
harm/crime would not have occurred.” i.e. BUT FOR Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria’s
usual guard being sick on the day of his 1914 assassination in Sarajevo, Hitler likely never
would have become leader of Germany and the Holocaust would not have happened.

Legal Cause: Test that looks into whether the harm that occurred was an imminent, natural
and foreseeable outcome of the relevant conduct, and not too attenuated in time and/or space.
i.e. If you help a man onto a train car, and he drops his bag which is filled with fireworks,
they begin going off and hit a coin-machine which falls on someone, and they get hurt, you
are probably not liable for that person’s injuries. This chain of events is simply not a
foreseeable outcome of helping someone onto a train.

Chain of Causation: Series of events. A person will not be liable if there is an intervening act
within this series of events that breaks its chain of causation.

Type of Intervening Act:

1. Act of third party;
2. Act of victim;
3. Improper medical treatment;
4. Unforeseen Natural Event.

8
R v Pittwood
9
R v Gibbins and Proctor
10
R v Stone and Dobinson
11
R v Miller
6|Page
 3. Mens Rea
A blameworthy state of mind; or a guilty mind at the time of the offence was committed.
Each crime requires a different Mens Rea and to ascertain a Mens Rea one must refer to the
specific definition of an offence. This does not apply to strict liability as no Mens Rea is
required to prove it.

Various States of Mind that Constitutes A Criminal Act

Types of Mens Rea:

(1) Intent: Not defined in the PC. Cases have defined it as an aim or effort for one
object12; or purposely doing something to achive a particular end13. Under S.39 of the
PC, foreseeing or knowing is not the same as having intent. Intent needs to be
examined based on the types of offence and circumstances of the case.

(2) Knowledge: Not defined in the PC. It’s a forceful word that invites certainty and not
mere probability. It is differentiated from reason to believe and intent14.

(3) Voluntariness: Has the same definition as wilfully in English Law15. Listed under
S.39 of the PC and includes intent, knowledge and reason to believe.

(4) Recklessness: Not defined in the PC but other statutes such as the Road and Transport
Act. Subjective mental state of knowledge of a risk; or objective test of failure to

12
Bhagwant Appaji v Kedari Kashinath
13
Ram Kumar v State
14
Jai Prakash v State
15
PP v Mohamad Sabu
7|Page
 recognise an obvious risk.16

(5) Rashness and Negligence: Listed under S.304A of the PC. Rashness is knowingly
taking a reasonable risk whereas negligence is unintentionally taking an unreasonable
risk. The difference between negligence and culpable rashness is defined in Reg v
Nidamarti Nagabushanam.

Strict Liability Offence: An offence that does not need proof of Mens Rea. Several
examples include S.292, 293, 294 of the PC which deals with obscene publications, objects
and acts which affect public decency and moral.17

4. Doctrine of Transferred Malice and Other

Principles

General Principles of Doctrine of Transferred Malice

S.301 of the PC provides for this doctrine. If an offence is transmitted to another person than
the initial person, the offender is still liable. However, coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens
Rea must be established.18

Exception: If a person has intended to cause harm to a person but instead caused criminal
damage to a property, he cannot be liable for the intent to cause harm to a person.19

Exception: If a person commits a different act then intended, he cannot be liable for both
acts.20

Coincidence/Principle of Concurrence
General Rule: The accused’s mens rea must coincide with the actus reus in order for the
accused to be liable of the offence.21
16
PP v Zulkifli Bin Omar
17
Mohamed Ibrahim v PP (1963); KS Roberts v PP (1970); PP v Tee Tean Siong & Ors (1963)
18
R v Mitchell; R v Latimer
19
R v Pembliton
20
PP v Mohd Khayry Ismail
21
Fowler v Padget; Mohd Isa v PP
8|Page
Exception: It does not need to be at the same time but is sufficient as long as it is within the
transaction or series of events.22

Strict Liability Offence

An offence that does not need proof of Mens Rea but that of Actus Reus alone. Several
examples include S.292, 293, 294 of the PC which deals with obscene publications, objects
and acts which affect public decency and moral.23

Illustration of Strict Liability Offence: If a person was charged for carrying extra bags of
rice, in excess of that allowed by their permit, the offence is one of strict liability in which the
mental element is ignored.24

English Law Approach on the Strict Liability Offence:

(i) Presumption of Mens Rea Approach – The mens rea is presumed by courts.25

(ii) Literal Approach – Literal interpretation of the statute unless there is something to show
you that mens rea is required26. Where a statute forbids the doing of an act, the doing of it in
itself supplies Mens Rea27.

Malaysia Approach on the Strict Liability Offence:

(i) Chapter IV Approach – Defences is used in order to presume Mens Rea.28

(ii) Presumption of Mens Rea Approach – Same as above. Presumes Mens Rea where the
statute does not state it. As long as it is only a strict liability offence and not an absolute
liability offence, defences are available.29

22
Thabo Meli v R
23
Mohamed Ibrahim v PP (1963); KS Roberts v PP (1970); PP v Tee Tean Siong & Ors (1963)
24
PP v Osman b Apo Hamid (1978)
25
Sherrasv De Rutzen; Sweet v Parsley
26
Hobbs v Winchester Corporation
27
Kat v Diment
28
Arumugam & Anor v R
29
Lim’s case; PP v Zainal Abidin b Ismail; Sulong bin Nain v PP
9|Page
Homicide: When one human being kills another.

Types of Homicide:
(a) Lawful Homicide: A non-criminal homicide ruling usually committed in self-defence
or in defence of another. A homicide justifiable or excusable under certain situations
under the law.
(b) Unlawful Homicide: A homicide criminal in nature.

Homicide Offences Under English Law: Generally, includes murder and manslaughter. The
main difference between them is that murder requires intent whereas manslaughter does not.
Simply, the difference is the state of mind of the killer.

Homicide Offences Under the Penal Code:

1. Murder;
2. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
3. Causing death by rash or negligent conduct.

Actus Reus of Homicide: Causing the death of a human being.

10 | P a g e
Mens Rea of Homicide: Different for each type.

Burden of Proof of Homicide: Beyond reasonable doubt30.

5. S.300 Murder31
1. An Act
2. Done with the intention to cause death or knowledge that he is likely to cause death;
3. Death.

Actus Reus of Murder

An act that causes the death of another.

Mens Rea of Murder

Any one of the four limbs of S.300 of the Penal Code, generally intent or knowledge.

Differentiating the 4 Limbs Under S.300

Limb (a): Intent can be deduced where a killing is committed in a gruesome, violent, savage
manner or when extensive wounds are found on the body of a victim32. Deliberate use of
dangerous weapons leads to an irresistible deduction that their intent is to cause death33.

Limb (b): This limb requires that it is proven that the death of the victim is caused by
intentionally inflicting injuries which is fatal for a person. It must be shown that the killer
was certain that his act would result in the death of another and that the certainty came from
his knowledge of the victim’s situation or health condition34.

Limb (c): This limb requires that an injury intentionally inflicted by the killer must be
sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death35.

Limb (d): This limb requires knowledge. The killer must have known what he did would
result in death36.

30
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecution
31
https://www.umlawreview.com/lex-omnibus/a-guide-to-understanding-culpable-homicide
32
Mohd Yazid Bin Hashim v PP (1999)
33
Ghazali Bin Mat Ghani v PP (1998)
34
Mohd Naki v PP (2014)
35
Mohd Isa v PP (2013); PP v Visuvanathan (1978)
11 | P a g e
Exceptions that Reduce Murder to Culpable Homicide:
(a) Grave and Sudden Provocation;
(b) Exceeding Private Defence/Self-defence;
(c) Exceeding Public Power/Within duty;
(d) Sudden Fight/Heat of the Moment;
(e) Consent/Self-Harm.

S.302 Sentence for Murder

Death.

6. S.299 Culpable Homicide37

1. An act
2. Done with intention to cause death or knowledge that his act would cause death;
3. Death.

Actus Reus of Culpable Homicide

An act that causes the death of another.

36
William Tan Cheng Eng v PP (1970)
37
https://www.umlawreview.com/lex-omnibus/a-guide-to-understanding-culpable-homicide
12 | P a g e
 Mens Rea of Culpable Homicide
Generally, intent or knowledge.

Difference Between Murder and Culpable Homicide: The line between culpable homicide
and murder is thin but identifiable. Both offences require an act that causes the death of
another but differ in intent and knowledge. Simply, when a death is a likely result of an act, it
is culpable homicide. If the death is imminent or a probable result, it is murder. Hence, one
must determine if a person has a high level of knowledge as to whether his act will cause
death to determine murder or culpable homicide.

Threshold of Murder and Culpable Homicide: The Mens Rea (knowledge) of a killer must
reach a certain threshold to make it a murder. Otherwise, it will fall under culpable
homicide.38

Exceptions that Reduce Murder to Culpable Homicide

(a) Grave and Sudden Provocation;
(b) Exceeding Private Defence/Self-defence;
(c) Exceeding Public Power/Within duty;
(d) Sudden Fight/Heat of the Moment;
(e) Consent/Self-Harm.

7. S.304A Causing Death by Negligence

1. An act;
2. Done with rashness or negligence;
3. Death.

Actus Reus of Causing Death by Negligence

38
Tham Kai Yau v PP
13 | P a g e
 An act that causes the death of another.39

Mens Rea of Causing Death by Negligence

Generally, rashness or negligence. Rashness and negligence are not the same thing. Rashness
refers to knowingly take on a reasonable risk. Negligence refers to unintentionally taking an
unreasonable risk.

Rashness and Negligence Under Case Law

PP v Mahfar Bin Sairan (2000): A crime in which exists rashness or negligence does
not fall under culpable homicide.

Rashness:

Reg. v Nidamarti Nagabhushanam (1872): Culpable Rashness is acting with the

consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that
they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to
prevent their happening.

Empress v Idu Beg AIR (1881): Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton
act with the knowledge that is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause
injury, or knowledge what it will be probably be caused.

Negligence:

Reg: Acting without the consciousness that the illegal or mischievous effect will follow,
but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon
him, and that, if he had, he would have had the consciousness.

Empress: Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect of failure to exercise
that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public
generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of
which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have
adopted.

Standard of Negligence: There are several positions positions taken by courts.

1 – The standard of negligence is equivalent to the English Offence of manslaughter by gross

negligence – high degree of negligence beyond tortious negligence.

2 – The standard equivalent to negligence in tort cases.

3 - Intermediate standard.
39
PP v Moo He Hong & Anor (2018)
14 | P a g e
Gross Negligence Standard: The courts have relied on this approach on the basis that the
application of English manslaughter standard clearly distinguished between civil and criminal
liabilities; and that S.304A was designed to fill the gap in the law where matters fall short of
culpable homicide which requires subjective intention or knowledge and not negligence,
however gross. This test was abandoned later40.

Civil Standard: The approach equated the civil and criminal standards of negligence.

Woo Sing & Sim Ah Kow v R (1954): The only difference between negligence and
criminal offences is standard of proof.

Lim Poh Eng v PP (1999): The standard of negligence in criminal cases should be the
civil standard of negligence. An intermediate standard of negligence was too elusive a
concept to be workable.

Intermediate Standard: This approach is used to make a demarcation between civil and
criminal law41.

PP v Joseph: Malaysian courts have clearly rejected the gross negligence standard but
is unclear whether the civil standard or intermediate standard will be adopted.

Test Applied In Malaysia: Currently, the test that need to be applied in determining whether
one had acted negligently is that whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances
would have been aware of the likelihood of damage or injury to others resulting from such
conduct and taken adequate and proper precautions to avoid such damage or injury42.

Chapter 8: Non-Fatal Offences

Offences where violence or force is directed against another person which results in an injury.
It includes: (1) Voluntarily causing hurt; (2) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt; (3) Assault;
(4) Criminal force; and (5) Criminal intimidation.

40
Cheow Keok v PP
41
Dabolkhar v King AIR (1948)
42
Adnand v P
15 | P a g e
 S.321 Voluntarily Causing Hurt
1. An act
2. Done with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person,
3. And does thereby cause hurt to any person, i.e. bodily pain, disease or infirmity.

S.320 Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

1. An act
2. Done with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person,
3. And does thereby cause grievous hurt to any person, i.e. emasculation, loss of sight,
hearing, use of any limb, permanent disfiguration, fracture of a bone, any hurt which
endangers life, or causes severe bodily pain.

S.351 Assault

1. An act
2. Done with the intention or knowledge of causing contact or reasonable fear of offensive
contact; and
3. Offensive contact or apprehension of offensive contact.

Offensive Words: Words alone cannot constitute an assault. They need to be accompanied by
some action which makes the fear of an assault reasonable

S.349 Criminal Force

16 | P a g e
1. The use of force without a person’s consent,
2. Done with intention or knowledge of illegally causing an injury, fear or annoyance; and
3. An injury, fear or annoyance.

S.503 Criminal Intimidation

1. An act
2. Done with intention to alarm a person or cause them to act or omit from acting; and
3. Threatens a person with injury to him, his reputation or property

9. General Defences (I)

17 | P a g e
 Listed under Chapter IV or Sections 76-106 of the Penal Code. If the accused successfully
pleads one of these defences, he will be not be guilty of the offence in question.

Mistake of Fact

S.76: A person is not liable if by reason of a mistake of fact he believes he is acting in good
faith and is bound by law to do it.

S.79: A person is not liable if he is justified by law or believes by reason of mistake of fact
that he was acting in good faith and was justified by law.

Chirangi v State of Nagpur Air: By reason of mistake of fact, the offender was
justified in destroying the deceased as he thought was a dangerous animal.

S.80 Accident and Misfortune

Available if an act is lawful, unintentional and carried out with proper care and caution.
Where an accused intentionally causes harm or does an act with the knowledge that it is
likely to cause harm, there can be no accident or misfortune. Re:

Accident: Something unintentional; unexpected and surprising that injures others and not the
accused.

Misfortune: Something unintentional; unexpected and surprising that injures others and the
accused.
Effect of Successful Defence: Acquittal. Re: Ratnam v R.

S.81 Necessity
Act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, or done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding
greater harm.

Harm: Can be actual or perceived (mistakenly believe).

When Does Necessity Arise: When an accused deliberately breaks the law but claims that it
was necessary for him to do so in order to avert some greater evil. Re: R v Dudley &
Stephens; US v Holmes; and PP v Ali b. Umar.

Infancy

S.82: Nothing is an offence if it was done by a child of age of 10 and below.

S.83: Nothing is an offence if it was done by a child above the age of 10 but below the age of
18 | P a g e
12 who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequence of his action.

Ulla Mahapara v King: The 11-year-old child threatened to cut the victim to bits with
a knife and he did. The child was said to have attained a sufficient maturity of understanding
to judge the nature and consequence of his action and it liable for murder. Defence under S.83
failed but courts took it into consideration.

S.84 Insanity
The accused must prove that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such a
defect of reason, from the disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he
was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

McNaghten: Everyone is presumed sane until the contrary is proven; and to prove legal
insanity, it is necessary to show that the accused was, at the time of committing the crime,
having a disease of mind, did not know the nature and quality of his act, or did not know that
his act was wrong.

Disease of Mind: Any mental illness or physical illness which affects the mind.

R v Sullivan: Mind meant faculties of reason, memory and understanding. Any disease
impairing these are considered disease of mind including diseases like epilepsy,
arteriosclerosis, and diabetes.

Did Not Know The Nature And Quality Of His Act: Refers to being unaware of his or her
act.

Did Not Know That His Act Was Wrong: Refers to being aware of his or her actions but
not the consequences of it. In this scenario, the accused did not know what he was doing was
wrong.

Intoxication
Listed under S.85 and 86. It can be divided into (1) Involuntary intoxication; and (2)
Voluntary intoxication.

Involuntary Intoxication: Refers to situations where a person did not know he was taking an
intoxicating substance. If the person has mens rea, he would be guilty. If the person does not
have mens rea, he would not be guilty.

Voluntary Intoxication: Refers to situations where the person chooses to take a substance
that he knows will cause intoxication.

Crimes of Specific Intent: Crimes that can only be committed intentionally and in which the
mens rea goes further than the actus reus. i.e. S.354 of the PC.

19 | P a g e
Crimes of General Intent: The mens rea does not extend further than the actus reus. i.e.
S.351 of the PC.

Voluntary Intoxication and Crimes of Specific Intent: Voluntary intoxication sometimes

does not give rise to defence. i.e. If a person has formed an intention to commit an offence
and he drinks in order to give himself courage, he cannot use voluntary intoxication as a
defence. A drunken intent is still intent. Re: Attorney General for Northern Ireland v
Gallagher.

DPP v Beard: If a person was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent
required, he cannot be convicted of a crime.

Voluntary Intoxication and Crimes of General Intent: Recklessness is sufficient to prove

mens rea. A person who is voluntarily intoxicated cannot use this as a defence. Re: DPP v
Majewski.

S.94 Duress
Founded on the rationale that a person forced to commit crimes through threats had no
choice; his actions are “morally involuntary” and he deserves no blame. Duress can be used
as a defence for all offences except murder, attempted murder and possibly treason.

Nature of Threat: Must be reasonable fear at the very time of instant death. Re: Mohamed
Yusof b. Haji Ahmad v PP.

Effect of Defence of Duress: Acquittal.

Slight Harm
Applies to offences of causing hurt only.

S.95: Nothing is an offence if it is intended to cause or known to be likely to cause any harm
that is slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Actus Reus of Slight Harm: Listed under S.319 of the PC.

Mens Rea of Slight Harm: Listed under S.321 of the PC.

Aw Sei Kui v PP; Teo Geok Fong v Lim Eng Hock: Harm does not necessarily mean
actual harm. Even the feeling of pain can constitute harm. A subject test was formed in order
to distinguish whether a person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
The standard of the test is that of a reasonable man in the same circumstances,

Private Defence (Self Defence)

20 | P a g e
Contained in S.96-106 of the PC and extends to persons and property whether of one’s own;
or of another within defined limits. It commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger arises from an attempt to commit the offence and continues as long as such
apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Restrictions on rights of private defence of person: The right to private defence in no case
extends to the inflicting of more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence.

Restriction on right of private defence of property: Does not apply if the offender has
affected his threat with the property; if assistance of public authorities is obtained; or if the
property has been removed.

21 | P a g e