03 MENS REA - Lecture notes 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

MENS REA  A blameworthy state of mind, a guilty mind, knowledge of wrongfulness of the act  Deduced / inferred from facts of the case  Includes i. Make a decision to break the law ii. Act realising there is a chance of their conduct causing the prohibited result iii. Do not anticipate causing any...

Description

MENS REA  A blameworthy state of mind, a guilty mind, knowledge of wrongfulness of the act  Deduced / inferred from facts of the case  Includes i. Make a decision to break the law ii. Act realising there is a chance of their conduct causing the prohibited result iii. Do not anticipate causing any harm, but really ought to have realised the risks involved in their actions  S39 Voluntarily  causes it by means whereby he  Intended to cause it  He knew / had reason to believe to be likely to cause it PP v Norazam bin Ibrahim  Accused stabbed deceased with a knife which caused deceased sustain several injuries  Mens rea is not capable of being established by way of direct evidence  Must be gathered from indirect evidence by reference to facts  Accused’s mens rea to cause bodily injury can be inferred from accused’s act  Inflicting bodily injuries on deceased’s head repeatedly  Causing 30 marks of severe bodily injuries to deceased

1. INTENTION  Aim / purpose to which an act is done to achieve the result  Intend the natural & probable consequences  Indicates a man is consciously shaping his conduct so as to bring about certain event Hyam v Director of PP  Intention  purpose / aim that a man is trying to achieve  Knew that consequence has high possibility to happen as result of his act R v Moloney  Intention can be proved by showing either accused 1. Desired a certain consequence to happen 2. Foresaw that it would probably happen Rajendra Prasad Singh  Accused had intention to kill when he shot at a near distance, reload & shot again PP v Sameer Klom Klom  Accused had intended to cause bodily injury to the girl by stabbing her 25 times PP v Tan Buck Tee  Accused had intended to kill deceased by inflicting 5 appalling wounds penetrating to heart & liver using an axe

CHONG JIA WEI LIA160020

1

2. KNOWLEDGE  Awareness of the consequences of the act  Court is entitled to infer knowledge on assumption that such person has ordinary understanding expected of persons in his line of business  2 stages to prove 1. Opportunities for knowledge on the part of person are proved 2. Nothing indicates there are obstacles to person acquiring relevant knowledge Roper v Taylor’s Central Garage (Exeter) Ltd  3 types of knowledge 1. Actual knowledge 2. Second degree knowledge (wilful blindness)  Shutting one’s eyes to obvious means of knowledge which amounts to deliberately refraining from making inquiries the result 3. Constructive knowledge  Knew / ought to have known as accused had means of knowledge William Tan Cheng Eng v PP  A was driving his car dangerously & collided with a motorcyclist, killing him.  To succeed under S300(d), prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that A knows that by driving his car in such a manner, it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death / bodily injury likely to cause death  A did not know that his dangerous driving would result in murder at the material time as there was no traffic at the moment Westminster City Council v Croyalgrange Ltd  Ds owned some premises which part of premises was used by sub-tenants as sex establishment without license.  Knowledge may be proved either by showing  Actual knowledge  Ds deliberately shut his eyes to obvious facts / refrained from inquiry when he suspected the truth but did not want to have his suspicion confirmed

3. REASONS TO BELIEVE  S26 Have reason to believe  has sufficient cause to believe that thing Ahmad bin Ishak v PP  Court must look into surrounding circumstances & consider whether a reasonable man in the circumstance has sufficient reasons to believe PP v Koh Hak Boon  Reasonable man test must be used but the test must be a subjective test  Expert in gold can know whether the gold was stolen, normal individual cannot

CHONG JIA WEI LIA160020

2

4. RASHNESS / RECKLESS  Acting with consciousness that mischievous & illegal consequences may follow but with hope & belief that he has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their heppening  Accused appreciates risk created by his conduct & realises that the criminal effect is a probable consequence, but he still persists in his behaviour & decides to run that risk  Advertence to possibility of consequence occurring Chamman Lal  Rashness  act has to be done with knowledge of the consequence of the act, but yet he refused to take note of the consequence Nga Min Tat  Recklessness  act done without due care R v Lawrence  Reckless involve 2 things 1. Act in a manner as to create an obvious & serious risk of causing physical injury / doing substantial damage to property  Whether risk created was obvious & serious depends on standard of ordinary prudent man 2. Having recognized that there was some risk but gone on to take it Subba Rao S.V.  Test for rashness under S304A Penal Code  what is the amount of care & circumspection which a prudent / reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case

5. NEGLIGENTLY  Acting without consciousness that illegal & mischievous will follow but actor has not exercised caution incumbent on him  Failure to exercise the proper care which a reasonable man in the circumstances would have exercised so as to guard against injury to other persons  Does not realise the fact that his conduct would bring about the proscribed harm but a reasonable man in his position would have realised this  Inadvertence to possibility of consequence Anthonysamy v PP  Objective test  whether a reasonable man in same circumstances would have realised the prospect of harm & stopped / changed his course to avoid it Adnan bin Khamis v PP  Whether a reasonable man under same circumstances would have been aware of likelihood of damage / injury to others resulting from such conduct & taken proper & adequate precautions to avoid causing such damage/injury

CHONG JIA WEI LIA160020

3

6. FRAUDULENTLY  S25 Fraudulently  with intent to defraud (economic loss) Seet Soon Guan v PP  A fraudulently used Police Diary which he knew was a false document in a disciplinary hearing in order to defend himself.  Fraudulent  act with intention that someone will be deceived & advantage should accrue to him / injury, loss, detriment should befall on someone else  Sufficient to show there is an intent to obtain advantage by deception PP v Li Chuan Pin  R falsely represented himself as company manager to obtain credit by false pretences.  Deceive  induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false & the person practising deceit knows / believes to be false  Defraud  by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury

7. DISHONESTLY  S24 Dishonestly  does anything with intention of causing wrongful gain / wrongful loss  S23  must be property 1. Wrongful gain  person not legally entitled gain by unlawful means of property 2. Wrongful loss  person legally entitled loss by unlawful means of property Yap Sing Hock v PP  A used Lien Hoe’s account to obtain overdraft facility in name of Holdings to pay the remaining sum for Holdings to purchase shares of Lien Hoe  A employed unlawful means to cause wrongful loss to Lien Hoe & wrongful gain to Holdings  guilty for criminal breach of trust Ang Teck Hwa v PP  A received money which must be transferred to car dealer but used it for own purpose.  To prove dishonestly, must show beyond reasonable doubt that A had intended to cause wrongful gain / loss & he must know that gain / loss is wrongful Mohammed Abdul Khoyer v Asgar Khan  Complainants entered into hire purchase agreement that if complainant failed to pay any monthly rents, the company / its employees could remove machine / its parts. Accused, employees of company, overlooking a single payment made by complainants, removed parts of the machine.  Accused did not intend to take machine parts dishonestly CHONG JIA WEI LIA160020

4

8. MALICIOUSLY  Wilfully & without lawful cause, does that which he knows will injure another  Acts are done wickedly, in a depraved / perverse / malignant spirit  Postulates foresight of consequence Bromage v Prosser  Malice  wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause / excuse R v Cunningham  A tore a gas meter & stole money from it. He did not turn off the gas at a stop tap nearby & gas escaped, seeped through the diving wall & partially asphyxiated victim, who was asleep in her bedroom.  Malice requires either 1. Actual intention to do particular kind of harm that in face was done 2. Recklessness  accused had foreseen that particular kind of harm might be done, yet had gone on to take the risk of it  ‘Maliciously’ postulates foresight of consequence 

Question should be whether A foresaw removal of gas meter might cause injury to someone but still do so, even if he did not intend injury to victim

CHONG JIA WEI LIA160020

5...