Differences between S.300(d) murder vs S.299 culpable homicide PDF

Preview

Summary

Differences between S(d) murder vs S culpable homicide.Foremost, it would be apt for us to classify S(d) and S into various limbs for easier comparison. S(d) of the Penal Code (PC) provides that if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability...

Description

Differences between S.300(d) murder vs S.299 culpable homicide. Foremost, it would be apt for us to classify S.300(d) and S.299 into various limbs for easier comparison. S.300(d) of the Penal Code (PC) provides that if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, he is committing murder. In other words, S.300(d) has two limbs: (i) knows that the act is so imminently dangerous; and (ii) knows that such bodily injury is likely to cause death. S.299 of the PC is formed by three limbs in which if a person causes death by committing any of them, he would be charged with culpable homicide: (i) doing an act with the intention of causing death; (ii) doing an act with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death; (iii) doing an act with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. There are four points of comparison: Firstly, mens rea of the accused. Intention is not a necessary element under S.300(d), as per PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee. Both limbs of S.300(d) provide for knowledge, i.e., knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. In comparison, only the third limb of S.299 provides for the need to prove knowledge. The first two limbs of S.299 provides for intention (to cause death or bodily harm). Both intention and knowledge will be evaluated from a subjective test. Secondly, the element of probability. The second and third limb of S.299 provides for the possibility that the act would cause death (i.e., intention that bodily injury likely to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death). The first limb of S.299 does not provide for such probability. In comparison, both limbs of S.300 provide for the probability that the act would cause death (i.e., act that in all probability cause death, bodily injury likely to cause death). When the element of probability is involved, the test would be an objective test. Thirdly, in comparing the third limb of S.299 and first limb of S.300(d), S.300(d) has an extra requirement which is that the act committed must be so imminently dangerous, while S.299 only requires proving the likelihood of death. In other words, the burden of proof for S.300(d) is much higher as it requires not only a likelihood of death, but for the act to be extremely dangerous that it would be almost certain that death would be a result. Fourthly, premeditated design to kill any individual. According to the case of Chan Kwee Fong v Public Prosecutor, the court interpreted illustration (d) and held that S.300(d) makes reference to a situation whereby the accused may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual. In support, PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee held that S.300(d) usually applies where the act of the offender is in general disregard for human life and safety. In comparison, all limbs of S.299 requires the accused to have a targeted individual, as supported in the illustrations and explanations under S.299. To recap on the subjective and objective components as aforementioned, both limbs of S.300 require for subjective test (knowledge) and objective test (act that in all probability cause death or bodily injury that is likely to cause death). In comparison, limb 1 of S.299 does not require the objective test and only require the subjective test (intention to cause death), but both limbs of S.299 requires for subjective (intention, knowledge) and objective test (bodily injury/act that is likely to cause death)....