Part A Bar Examinations 2015

Criminal Law
Subject Coordinator:
Dr S. Chandra Mohan
School of Law, Singapore Management University
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Part A Bar Examinations 2015
Criminal Law
(Version: 14 May 2015)

INTRODUCTION

The Part A Bar Examination in Criminal Law is designed to test whether overseas law
graduates have obtained sufficient knowledge of the fundamental principles of criminal law
in Singapore and understand how these are applied within Singapore’s criminal justice
system. It is important that students keep in mind the relevant local legislative provisions
and the court decisions that have interpreted these provisions (see the detailed Reading
List).

Singapore’s criminal law is codified and is principally contained in the Penal Code which was
enacted in 1870. It is based on the Indian Penal Code and its provisions are not always
similar to the English Criminal Law which its drafter, Lord Macaulay, sought to improve. Two
core values of such a written Code that students must bear in mind are accessibility of the
penal provisions and comprehensibility so that the layman can obtain and understand the
law better. The use of ‘explanations’ and ‘illustrations’ in the sections, which give examples
of the application of the provisions, are unique to the Penal Code. As the Penal Codes of
India and Malaysia are similar to our Code, cases from these jurisdictions are of persuasive
value in interpreting identical provisions. There are other statutes which provide for specific
offences such as the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Students should begin by examining the history and nature of our criminal laws, their aims
and objectives, the purpose of crime control and punishment in society and the various
challenges to our criminal justice system. They should then study the various ingredients of
a crime as established under the Penal Code, in local legislation and as explained in judicial
decisions. This should lead them to the major offences (against the person and property)
and the defences to these offences under the Penal Code and some selected statutes.

RECOMMENDED TEXT

Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan and Chan Wing Cheong

Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore
LexisNexis, 2nd ed., 2012

S. Chandra Mohan
Understanding Criminal Law (Cases, Comments and Materials)
LexisNexis, 2014

1|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

OTHER REFERENCE BOOKS

Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan and Chan Wing Cheong

Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore: A Casebook Companion
LexisNexis, 2nd ed., 2012

Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2009)

Mallal’s Penal Law

(Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd, 2002)

Chan, Yeo and Hor, Criminal Law for the 21st Century: A Model Code for Singapore (Academy
Publishing, 2013)

SINGAPORE LEGISLATION (Selected)

Penal Code (Cap. 224, Rev. Ed. 2008)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, Rev. Ed. 2012)
Evidence Act (Cap. 97, Rev. Ed. 1997)

LEGAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET

Free access to local statutes is available at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg and also at LAWNET.

Reports of Singapore, Malaysian and UK cases can be obtained on LAWNET. There is also a
wealth of legal literature available on LAWNET, Singapore Law Watch
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg and the Singapore Law Blog
http://www.singaporeblog.sg. Students should also keep abreast with reports of new
legislation, court hearings and decisions and legal news.

2|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

LIST OF TOPICS

1. Introduction to the Singapore Criminal Law

• Sources of Criminal Law and Procedure
• Differences between the Penal Code and English common law
• Interpreting the Penal Code

2. The Singapore Criminal Justice System

• The Singapore Criminal Process
• (Crime Control v Due Process)
• Components of the Criminal Justice System
• Challenges to the Criminal Justice System
• Burden of Proof

3. Aims of Punishment and the Sentencing Process

• Aims of Punishment
• Principles of Sentencing
• Sentencing Options of the Courts
• Determining the Appropriate Sentence

4. The Anatomy of a Crime

• Actus Reus
a. Voluntary Acts
b. Illegal Omissions
• Mens Rea
a. Intention
b. Knowledge & Wilful Blindness
c. Recklessness
d. Rashness
e. Negligence
• Strict Liability
a. Rationale for Strict liability
b. Approaches of the Courts towards Strict Liability Offences
 Presumption of Mens Rea
 Exercise of Reasonable Care/Due Diligence
 Chapter 1V (Penal Code) Approach

5. Challenges to Establishing a Crime

• Coincidence of Actus Reus & Mens Rea
• Causation
• Attempts

6. Offences Against Property

• Robbery/Theft
• Cheating

3|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Criminal Misappropriation
• Criminal Breach of Trust

7. Offences Against the Person

• Hurt
• Sexual Offences

8. Offences Against the Person (cont’d)

• Culpable Homicide : Murder
• Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

9. Accessorial and Joint Liability

• Abetment and Conspiracy
• Common Intention
• Common Object

10. Introduction to Criminal Defences

• Denial of Criminal Liability
• Burden of Proof
• General Defences
a. Accident
b. Mistake of Fact
c. Insanity
d. Intoxication
e. Duress
f. Private Defence
• Special Defences (Special exceptions to Murder)
a. Excess of Private Defence
b. Diminished Responsibility
c. Provocation
d. Sudden Fight

READING LIST

The Reading List below gives an indication of the areas that may be examined. The
prescribed case books should make the reading of cases and materials easier but if in doubt
you should always read the original case report. The texts also contain a more
comprehensive list of cases and materials for your further reading and reference. The
Reading List also provides a useful guide to reading the cases and materials by raising
questions you should consider when reading the cases. It is advisable to read about the
topic you are examining before reading the cases or materials. When reading a case, ask
yourself how the case provides a better understanding of the issues at hand. You are,
however, urged to read beyond the reading list as this will improve your understanding of
the law and result in more enlightened answers.

4|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

VIDEO COMMENTARIES

For the topics covered in the Reading List, there will be short video commentaries to
supplement the reading list and guides. These have been kept short to assist you in
focussing on and understanding the subject being discussed. Do not expect the video
commentaries to be a comprehensive discourse on the law in the nature of a recorded
lecture.

EXAMINATION

There will be a 2-hour open book examination at the end of the course. This means that
students will be permitted to make reference to their notes, text books and other materials
during the course of the examination.

Dr S. Chandra Mohan
Associate Professor (SMU)
Criminal Law Course-Coordinator

5|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

READING LIST
Principal Statutes:

Penal Code [PC], Cap. 224, Rev.Ed.2008

Criminal Procedure Code, Cap.68, Rev.Ed. 2012
Evidence Act, Cap.97, Rev.Ed.1997

Recommended Text :

Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan, Chan Wing Cheong, Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore. Lexis
Nexis (2nd ed., 2012) [YMC];

S. Chandra Mohan, Understanding Criminal Law (Cases, Comments & Materials) Lexis Nexis
(2014) [SCM]

[Unless indicated otherwise, all cases, statutes and materials listed below are available
online on LawNet or on Westlaw or LexisNexis. For some background information on specific
areas of the law and a better understanding of the issues that are raised in the readings,
please consult the recommended texts.]

1. Introduction to Criminal Law

• Yeo, Morgan & Chan, Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore [YMC], Chapter
1,pages 5-21
• Chan Wing Cheong & Andrew Phang, “The Development of Criminal Law and
Criminal Justice” in Essays in Singapore Legal History (Marshall Cavendish, (2005)
SCM 19-27

Further Reading
• S Sornarajah, “The Interpretation of the Penal Code” [1991] 3 MLJ cxxix-cxlvi

Cases
• PP v Kwan Kwong Weng [1997] 1 SLR (R) 316 at [17], CA
• PP v Low Kok Heng [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183, CA

Questions to Consider
• Are there any advantages in having a codified criminal law like the Penal Code?
• How different is the Penal Code from the English Common Law?
• What principles govern the interpretation of the Penal Code provisions?

2. The Singapore Criminal Process

• SCM, Chapter 3; YMC, Chapter 1

6|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Chan Sek Keong CJ, “From Justice Model to Crime Control Model”, (2006)
International Chief Justices’ Conference on Criminal Justice Under Stress, New
Delhi, India SCM 145
• Michael Hor, “Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process,”(2001) 12 Criminal Law
Forum 25 SCM 152
• Chan Sek Keong, New Challenges to the Criminal Justice System in ‘Rethinking
the Criminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21st Century’ in The Singapore
Conference : Leading to the Law and Lawyers into the new millennium @ 2020
(2000) SCM 139
• The Exercise of the Prosecutorial Discretion : Attorney-General Chambers’ Press
Release (20 January 2012) SCM 125
• Gary Chan Kok Yew, “Prosecutorial Discretion and the Legal Limits in Singapore”
(2013) 25 SAcLJ 15 SCM 127

Further Reading
• Michael Hor, ‘The Future of Singapore’s Criminal Process’, [2013] 25 SAcLJ 847
SCM 159

Cases
• Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 at , CA SCM 169
• Jagathesan s/o Krishnasamy [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 at SCM 171

Questions to Consider
• What should the fundamental aims of a criminal justice system be?
• How do we strike a balance between the crime control and due process models?
• What is the Singapore criminal justice system model and is it a satisfactory
model?
• What do you consider to be the challenges to Singapore’s criminal justice system
to-day?
• What are the components of our criminal justice system and what are their
respective roles?
• What is the difference in the burden of proof in a criminal case and a civil case?
• What are the challenges to our criminal justice institutions and how are these
resolved: e.g. presumption of innocence, prosecutorial discretion, proof of guilt,
rehabilitation and deterrence.

3. The Aims of Punishment

• Yeo, Morgan, Chan, Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore [YMC], pages 52-65
• S.Chandra Mohan, Understanding Criminal Law [SCM], chapter 2
• “General Objects of Sentencing - Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts”
in Subordinate Courts Guide to Sentencing, volume 3, (3rd edn., Lexis Nexis,2013)
chapter 3 SCM 63
• Sentencing Options of the Singapore Courts SCM 78

7|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

[For the sentencing powers and options of the courts generally, see Parts XVl and
XVll of the Singapore Criminal Procedure Code.]

Further Reading
• Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore, Chapter 6: “Sentencing
Objectives”.

Selected Cases:
• PP v Kwong Kok Hing [2008] 2 SLR 684, CA SCM 81 (Factors to be Considered)
• Tan Fook Sum [1999] 2 SLR 523 SCM 85 (Approach to Sentencing)
• PP v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah) [2013] 1 SLR 699, CA SCM 88 (Sentencing
Considerations)
• PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR 814 SCM 92 (Deterrent Sentencing Policy)
• PP v Goh Lee Yin and Anor [2008] 1 SLR 824 SCM 104 (Balancing of Interests)
• PP v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR 449 SCM 109 (Young Offender)
• PP v Adith Sarvotham [2014] SGHC 103 SCM 109 (Young Offender)
• Kalaiarasi d/o Marimuthu Innasimuthu v PP [2012] 2 SLR 77 SCM 117(CBS)

Questions to Consider
• What is the purpose of punishment?
• What are the main principles of sentencing that are applied by the Singapore
courts?
• What factors determine which sentencing principle ought to apply in a given
case?
• Do you agree that the dominant choice of sentencing principle in Singapore
appears to be a deterrent sentence? Are there any difficulties in applying this
principle?

4. Anatomy of a Crime

(A) Actus Reus

• YMC, Chapter 3; SCM, Chapter 4

a. Voluntary Acts
• Bratty v AG for Northern Island [1961] 3 All ER 523,HL SCM 192
• Queen v Falconer [1990] HCA 49 SCM 198

b. Automatism
• PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee [2002] 2 MLJ 563 SCM 213
• Abdul Razak bin Dalek v PP [2011] 2 MLJ 237, CA SCM 216
• R v Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347 SCM 205
• AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982 SCM 224
• PP v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR 566 SCM 242

c. Illegal Omissions

8|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Q v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450 SCM 246

• R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 SCM 248
• Lim Poh Eng v PP [1999] 2 SLR 116 SCM 257
• Ngiam Chin Boon v PP [1999] 1 SLR 119 SCM 254
• R v Taktak (1988)14 NSWLR 226 SCM 264
• DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 SCM 273

Questions to Consider
• What is the difference between a ‘voluntary’ act and an ‘involuntary’ act
for purpose of criminal responsibility?
• Consider the meaning of ‘automatism’ and examples of automatism.
• What is an illegal omission and in what circumstances can a failure to act
be considered ‘criminal’?

(B) Mens Rea

• YMC, Chapter 4; SCM, Chapter 5
• Chan and Simester, “Four Functions of Mens Rea”, (2011) 73 Cambridge
Law Journal SCM 281

Further Reading
• Chan, “Culpability in the Misuse of Drugs Act: Willful Blindness, the
Reasonable Person and a Duty to Check” [2013] 25 SAcLJ 110 SCM 289

Cases
a. Intention
• Yeo Ah Seng v PP SCM 295
• Jai Prakash v State (Delhi Administration) [1991] 2 SCC 32 SCM 297

b. Knowledge and Wilful Blindness

• PP v Hla Win [1995] 2 SLR 424,CA SCM 302
• Chiaw Wai Onn v PP [1997] 3 SLR 445 SCM 309
• PP v Tan Kiam Peng [2008] 1 SLR(R)1,CA SCM 319
• Khor Soon Lee v PP [2011] 3 SLR 201,CA SCM 331
• Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP [2011] 4 SLR 1156,CA SCM
337
• Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v PP [2012] 2 SLR 903,CA SCM 341
• Mervin Singh &Anor v PP [2012] 2 SLR 903 [22]-[28] SCM 344

c. Recklessness
• Seah Siak How v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 53 SCM 356
• PP v Zulkifli Bin Omar [1998] 6 MLJ 65 SCM 357
• Madhavan Peter v PP [2012] 4 SLR 613 SCM 365

d. Rashness
• Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v PP [2006] 4 SLR 440 SCM 371

9|Page
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• PP v Tiyatun [2002] 2 SLR 246 SCM 374

• S Balakrishnan & Anor v PP [2005] 4 SLR 249 SCM 377
• PP v Teo Poh Leong [1992] 1 SLR 15 SCM 382
• Lim Hong Eng v PP [2009] 3 SLR (R) 682 SCM 384
• PP v Hue An Li v PP [2014] SGHC 171

e. Negligence
• Ng Keng Yong v PP [2004] SGHC 171 CHR 389
• Lim Poh Eng v PP [1999] 1 SLR (R) 428 SCM398
• PP v Hue An Li v PP [2014] 4 SLR 661

Questions to Consider
• Consider the various terms that are used to describe the mental element
of a crime in the Penal Code.
• What does the term ‘intention’ mean and how is a man’s intention to be
proved in a court of law?
• What is ‘wilful blindness’, and what is its significance in determining
knowledge?
• Distinguish between ‘recklessness’ ‘rashness’ and ‘negligence’ for purpose
of criminal liability.
• What is the degree of negligence required in criminal cases in Singapore?

(C) Strict Liability

• YMC, Chapter 7; SCM, Chapter 6

Defences to Strict Liability Offences

a. Presumption of Mens Rea

• Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 SCM 405
• Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] 1 MLJ 50 SCM 421
• PP v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR 566 SCM 242
• Teo Kwang Kiang v PP [1992] 1 SLR 9 SCM 417
• Tan Cheng Kwee v PP [2002] 2 SLR (R) 122 SCM 428
• PP v Yue Mun Yew Gary [2013] 1 SLR 39 SCM 457

b. Exercise of Reasonable Care/Due Diligence

• Tan Cheng Kwee v PP [2002] SLR (R) 122 SM 475
• Chng Wei Meng v PP [2002] 4 SLR 595 SCM 486
• MV Balakrishnan v PP [1998] SGHC 416 SCM 480

c. Chapter IV Approach [PC : ss. 6, 40(2) 79, 80]

• Abdullah v R [1954] MLJ 195 SCM 462
• Buergin Juerg v PP [2013] 4 SLR 87 SCM 465
• Lie Xing-Long v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1024

10 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Tan Kheen Wan Iris v PP [1995] 2 SLR 63 SCM 467

• Comfort Management Pte Ltd v PP [2003] 2 SLR 67 SCM 471

Questions to Consider
• What is ‘strict liability’ and how is it to be distinguished from ‘absolute
liability’?
• Are there examples of both in our law?
• What is the rationale for the creation of strict liability offences by
Parliament?
• Are there any defences to strict liability offences?
• What has been the approach of the courts to the defences for these
offences and why?

5. Challenges to Establishing a Crime

(A) Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

• SCM, Chapter 7; YMC Chapter 6
• Chan Wing Cheong, “The Requirement of Concurrence of Actus Reus and
Mens Rea in Homicide” [2000] SJLS 75 SCM 519

Cases
• Thabo Meli & Others v R [1954] 1 WLR 228 SCM 503
• Mohammad Radi v PP [1994] 1 SLR(R) 406 SCM 506
• Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP [1999] 1 SLR(R) 442 SCM 508
• Wang Wenfeng v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 590,CA SCM 513

Questions to Consider
• Why must there be a concurrence between the mens rea and actus reus
for an offence to be established?
• In what circumstances can two separate acts with different mens rea be
said to satisfy the one transaction rule?
• When would the Thabo Meli principle be inapplicable?

(B) Causation
• YMC Chapter 5; SCM Chapter 7

• R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 SCM541

• R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446 SCM 547
• Ng Keng Yong v PP [2004] 4 SLR(R) 89 SCM 551
• R v Maybin [2012] SCC 24 SCM 528

Questions to Consider
• How would you distinguish factual causation from legal causation?
• What would be necessary to break the chain of causation?

11 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Would the intervening act or omission of the victim of the crime be

relevant in ascertaining criminal responsibility?

(C) Attempts
• YMC Chapter 36; SCM Chapter 7

• Thiangiah & Anor v PP [1977] 1 MLJ 79 SCM 555

• Chau Kian Kok v PP [1999] 1 SLR(R) 826 SCM 558
• PP v Mas Swan bin Adnan [2012] 3 SLR 527,CA SCM 570
• Law Society v Bay Puay Joo Lilian [2008] 2 SLR(R) 31 SCM 566

Questions to Consider
• How would you distinguish between a preparatory act, an attempt to
commit an offence and the offence itself?
• What is the significance of this distinction?
• In what circumstances would an impossible attempt, that is, an attempt to
commit an offence that is unlikely to succeed, constitute an offence?

6. Offences against Property

• (Penal Code : Chapter XVII);

• YMC, Chapters 13-15; SCM, Chapter 8

(A) Theft (PC : Ss 22-24, 378, 379)

‘Intention to take dishonestly’
• Mustaza bin Abdul Majid v PP [2004] SGHC 18 SCM 594
• Ward and Anor v PP [1953] MLJ 153 SCM 599

‘Moves’
• Raja Mohamed v R [1963] MLJ 339 SCM 599
• PP v Ramiah [1959] MLJ 204 SCM 600

(B) Robbery : (PC : S. 390)

• PP v Chia Poh Yee [1992] 2 SLR 804 SCM 615

(C) Criminal Misappropriation : (PC : S.403)

• Wong Seng Kwan v PP [2012] 3 SLR 12

(D) Criminal Breach of Trust (PC : S.405)

‘Entrustment’
• Gopalkrishnan Vanitha v PP [1999] 4 SLR 307 SCM 618
• PP v Koh Beng Oon [2001] 1 SLR 276 SCM 625
• Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R)435 SCM 637

12 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

‘Dominion’
• Lai Ah Kau V PP [1988] 2 SLR 128 SCM 630
• Hon Chin Wan Colman [2002] 2 SLR (R) 821 SCM 640

‘Violation of any Direction of Law’

• Tong Keng Wah v PP [1977-78] SLR (R) 578 SCM 646
• Cheam Tat Pang v PP [1996] 1 SLR 541 SCM 654

‘Express or Implied Contract’

• Cheam Tat Pang v PP [1996] 1 SLR 541 SCM 654

(E) Cheating (PC : Ss 415-420)

Elements of Offence
• Seaward v PP [1994] 3 SLR(R) 89 SCM 663
• Gunasegeram s/o Pavadaisamy v PP [1999] 2 SLR (R) 946 SCM 675
• Chua Kian Kok v PP [1999] 1 SLR (R) 626 SCM 680
• Rahj Kamal bin Abdullah v PP [1997] 3 SLR 227 SCM 697
• Seet Soon Suan v PP [1955] MLJ 223 SCM 701
• PP v Li Weiming and Others [2012] 2 SLR 393,CA SCM 708

Questions to Consider
• What are the various ingredients of these property offences?
• What is the mischief that the relevant provisions of the Penal Code are aimed at
curbing?
• Is the mens rea and actus reus of each offence easily identifiable?
• How is one offence different from the other and why?
• Is there a common element in all these property offences?
• How are the cases helping to understand the law on property offences?

7. Offences Against the Person

• YMC, Chapter 11; SCM Chapter 9

(A) Voluntarily Causing Hurt (PC Ss 39, 319, 321 – 323)

Elements of the Offence
• Sim Yew Thong v Ng Loy Nam Thomas & Ors [2000] 3 SLR(R) 155 SCM 738
• Faridah Begam v PP [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592 SCM 735
• PP v Kwong Kok Hing [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684,CA SCM 744

(B) Assault (PC : S-351)

• Mohamed Abdul Kader v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 86 SCM 721

(C) Use of Criminal Force (PC : Ss 349-352)

• Ng Eng Huat v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 417 SCM 732
• Goh Ang Huat v PP [1996] 3 SLR(R) 1 SCM 725
• Mohamed Abdul Kader v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 86 SCM 721

13 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

Questions to Consider
• What is the rationale in having offences against the person as part of the
criminal law?
• What are differences between the various offences eg assault, use of criminal
force, voluntarily causing hurt? Are these in need of reform?
• Can you identify the actus reus and the mens rea of these offences?

8. Offences Against the Person (Continued)

(A) Sexual Offences

• YMC, Chapter 12 (from part 7, p.364); SCM Chapter 10

a. Outraging Modesty (PC : S.354)

(Distinguished from Insulting Modesty (PC : S.509)
“Modesty” – Meaning of :
Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill [1996] Cr. L.J. 81, SC SCM 756

Elements of the Offence

• Teo Keng Pong v PP [1996] 2 SLR (R) 890 SCM 758
• PP v Heng Swee Weng [2010] 1 SLR 954 SCM 760
• Soh Yang Tick v PP [1998] 1 SLR(R) 209 SCM 763
• John Benjamin Cadawaltherayil v PP [1995] 3 SLR(R) 478 SCM 769
• Tan Boon Hock v PP [1994] 2 SLR(R) 32 SCM 777

b. Other Sexual Offences

(Rape, Carnal connection with a girl below 16 years, Sexual penetration of
a minor below 16 years, commercial sex with a minor below 18 years [see
the cases of Buregin Juerg and Lie Xing-Long above], outrage of decency)

c. Absence of Consent
• PP v Victor Rajoo [1995] 3 SLR(R) 189 SCM 784
• Augustine Foong Boo Jang v PP [1990] 1 MLJ 225 SCM 787
• Siew Yit Beng v PP [2000] 2 SLR(R) 785 SCM 790
• PP v Teo Eng Chan [1987] SLR(R) 567 SCM 804

Questions to Consider
• What are the ingredients of the main sexual offences in the Penal Code?
• What constitutes outraging modesty and can the modesty of a male
person be outraged?
• Examine the nature of consent to sexual offences under the Penal Code
and the circumstances in which it can be vitiated.
• What are the defences that are available to sexual offences under the
Penal Code?

14 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

(B) Culpable Homicide

• YMC Chapter ; SCM Chapter 11

a. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Ss 299,304,PC)

Cases
• Chung Kum Moey v PP [1965-1967] SLR(R) 421,PC SCM 831
• Tham Kai Yau v PP [1977] 1 MLJ 174 SCM 834
• State of Andhra Paradesh v Rayavarappu Punnayya AIR [1977] SC 45
SCM 837
• Yeap Boon Hai v PP [2010] 2 MLJ 433,FC SCM 843
• PP v Thenegaran a/l Murugan [2013] 3 MLJ 328, CA(M) SCM 845

b. Murder (Ss 300,302,PC)

• M Sornarajah, “The Definition of Murder under the Penal Code”,
[1994] SJLS 1 SCM 913
• Alan Tan Khee Jin, “Revisiting Section 300 (c) Murder in Singapore”,
[2005] 17 SAcLJ 693
• S. Chandra Mohan, “The Discretionary Death Penalty for Murder :
Guidance at Last” (2015)
http://www.singaporelawblog.sg/blog/article/87

Further Reading
• Jordan Tan Zhengxian, “Murder Misunderstood : Fundamental Errors
in Singapore, Malaysia and India’s Locus Classicus on s300(c)”, [2012]
SJLS 7 SCM 920

Cases
Section 300(a), PC
• Tan Buck Tee v PP [1976] MLJ 176 SCM 849
• Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 SCM 851

Section 300(b), PC
• Anda & Others v State of Rajasthan AIR [1966]SC 148 SCM 854
• Karu Marik v State of Bihar AIR [2001] SC 2266 SCM 856

Section 300(c), PC
• Virsa Singh v State of Punjab [1958] AIR465 SCM 857
• Mohamed Yasin bin Hussin v PP [1974-1976] SLR(R) 596,PC SCM 861
• PP v Tan Cheow Bock [1991] 2 SLR(R) 608,CA SCM 870
• Tan Chee Hwee & Anor v PP [1993] 2 SLR(R) 493,CA SCM 875
• PP v Lim Poh Lye & Anor [2005] 4 SLR(R) 582, CA SCM 879
• PP v Astro bin Jakaria [2010] 3 SLR 862 SCM 886
• PP v AFR [2011] 3 SLR 653 SCM 889

15 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Kho Jabling & Anor v PP [2011] 3 SLR 634,CA SCM 899

• PP v Ellary bin Puling [2011] SGHC 214 SCM 901
• Wang Wenfeng v PP [2012] 4 SLR 590,CA SCM 904

Section 300(d)
• Tan Cheng Eng William v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 244,CA SCM 907
• Kenneth Fook Mun v PP [2007] MLJ 334, CA(M) SCM 909

Questions to Consider
• What do you understand by the words “Culpable Homicide”?
• When does ‘Culpable Homicide’ become ‘Murder’ under the Penal Code?
• Is the distinction between the two clear?
• In determining whether or not an accused person has committed murder
under the Penal Code, must the court embark upon a subjective or an
objective enquiry?
• Do you agree with the Indian decision in Virsa Singh that the accused need
not know that the intended injury would be sufficient ‘in the ordinary
course of nature’ to cause death? Should this not be judged, for example,
in the light of the knowledge of the “ordinary man”?
• Is the approach that our courts have previously taken in the interpretation
of section 300 (c), a rational one? Has its interpretation caused uncertainty
in the law?
• Have recent cases attempted to introduce a sense of rationality in the
interpretation of section 300(c)?

9. Accessorial and Joint Liability

(A) Accessorial Liability

a. Abetment (S 107,108 PC)

‘Instigates’
• PP v Lim Tee Hian [1992] 2 SLR(R) 393 SCM 940
• PP v Ng Ai Tiong [2000] 1 SLR(R) 1 SCM 942
• S. Balakrishnan v PP [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249 SCM 947
• Chan Heng Kong v PP [2012] SGCA 18

‘Conspires’
• Er Joo Nguang & Anor v PP [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756 SCM 950
• Nomura Taiji&Ors V PP [1998] 1 SLR(R) 259 SCM 957
• Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v PP [2005] SGHC 195 SCM 961
• Goh Kah Heng v PP [2010] 4 SLR 258 SCM 966

‘Intentionally Aids’
• Jimina Jacee v PP [1999] 3 SLR(R) 826 SCM 969
• Chan Heng Kong & Anor v PP [2012] SGCA 18 SCM 972

16 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

b. Criminal Conspiracy [Ss 120A,120B, PC]

• Kannan s/o Kunjiraman v PP [1995] 3 SLR(R) 294 SCM 999
• DPP v Nock [1998] AC 979 SCM1008
• Emperor v SG Hiremath AIR 1940 Bom. 365 SCM1013
• Quek Hock Lye v PP [2012] 2 SLR 1012, CA SCM 1001

(B) Joint Liability

• Chen Siyuan, “The Final Twist in Common Intention” SJLS (2011) 237 SCM
1107

a. Common Intention [S 34, PC]

• Lee Chez Kee v PP [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447, CA SCM 1027
• Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and Others v PP [2010] 4 SLR 1119,CA
SCM 1044
• Kho Jabing v PP [2011] 3 SLR 634,CA SCM 1076
• PP v Ellary bin Puling [2011] SGHC 214 SCM 1080
• Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v PP [2014] 3 SLR 721,CA SCM 1088

b. Common Object [Ss 141,142,146, PC]

• Chandran & Ors v PP [1992] 2 SLR(R) 215,CA SCM 1096
• Fan Meng Siong & Anor v PP [2012] 5 MLJ 464, CA (M) SCM 1105
• Thongthot Yonda Art v PP [2002] 2 SLR(R) 412 SCM 1098
• Lee Chez Kee v PP [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447, CA SGCA 20 SCM 1027

Questions to Consider
• What are the essential differences between ‘Aiding and Abetting’ and ‘Joint
Liability’?
• What do you consider to be the important elements of ‘common intention’?
• Having regard to the latest decisions, have the courts finally resolved the
problems in the interpretation of the term ‘common intention’ in section 34 of
the Penal Code?
• Distinguish between ‘common intention’ in section 34 and ‘common object’ in
section 149 of the Penal Code?

10. Defences

(A) General Defences (Selected)

• YMC, Chapters 16-26;SCM, Chapter 14

Applicability: Penal Code : ss 6, 40(2)

Burden of proof (Evidence Act, Cap 97, ss 103,107)

Cases
• J.A.H.N Gamini & Anor v PP [2011] 3 SLR 689 SCM 1124

17 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

• Jayasena v Queen [1970] AC 618,PC SCM 1139

• Eu Lim Hok Lai v PP [2011] 3 SLR 167,CA SCM 1129

a. Accident (PC : Section 80)

• Kong Poh Ing v PP [1977] 2 MLJ 199, FC(M) SCM 1150
• Ismail Bin Abdul Rahman v PP [2004] 2 SLR 74, CA SCM 1152
• Tan Chor Jin v PP [2008] 4 SLR 306,CA SCM 1158
• Leu Xing-Long v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1024

b. Mistake of Fact (PC : Ss 52, 79)

• Lim Chin Aik v Queen [1963] MLJ 50, PC SCM 1162
• PP v Koo Cheh Yew & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 235 SCM 1164
• Iris Tan Khee Wan v PP [1995] 2 SLR 63 SCM 166
• Abdullah v R [1954] MLJ 195, CA SCM 1172
• Leu Xing-Long v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1024

c. Intoxication (PC : Ss 85 (2), 86 (2))

• Jin Yugang v PP [2003] SGCA 22 SCM 1240
• Tan Chor Jin v PP [2008] 4 SLR 306,CA SCM 1243
• PP v Astro bin Jakaria [2010] 3 SLR 862 SCM 1250
• Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v PP [2002] 1 SLR(R) 138 SCM
1254
• Kenneth Fook Mun Lee [2007] 2 MLJ 130 SCM 1256

d. Unsoundness of Mind (PC: S.84; CPC, Cap 96 : s315)

• M’Naghten’s Case [1843] 8 ER 718 SCM 1225
• PP v Rozman bin Jusoh & Anor [1995] 2 SLR 317 SCM 1228
• PP v Boon Yu Kai John [2004] 3 SLR 226 SCM 1234
• Lim Chwee Soon v PP [1997] 2 SLR 60 SCM 1237

e. Duress (PC : s94)

• Mohd Sairi bin Suri v PP [1997]SGCA 57,CA SCM 1189
• PP v Ng Pen Tine [2009] SGHC 230 SCM 1192
• PP v Nagaenthran [2011] 4 SLR 1156,CA SCM 1196

f. Private Defence (PC : Ss 96-106)

• Soosay v PP [1993] 3 SLR 272, CA SCM 1200
• PP v Seow Khoon Kwee [1988] SLR 871 SCM 1207
• Sainal Abidin bin Madang v PP [1999] 3 MLJ 497, CA SCM 1211
• Lim Chin Chong V PP [1998] 2 SLR(R) 278,CA SCM 1209
• Roshdi v PP [1994] 3 SLR 282 SCM 1212
• PP v Lim Twe Jeat [1994] 2 SLR 219 SCM 1216
• Tan Chor Jin v PP [2008] 4 SLR 306. CA SCM 1218

18 | P a g e
 Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Part A Bar Examinations 2015

(B) Special Defences (Selected)

• YMC, Chapters 27-30; SCM, Chapter 15

a. Provocation (PC : S.300, Exception 1)

• KM Nanavati v State of Maharahrashtra AIR [1962]SC 605 SCM1315
• Ithnin bin Kamari v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 547, CA SCM 1323
• PP v Kwan Cin Cheng [1998] 2 SLR 345,CA SCM 1327
• Lim Chin Chong v PP [1998] 2 SLR 794 CA, SCM 1335
• Seah Kok Meng v PP [2001] 3 SLR 135,CA SCM 1337
• PP v Sundari Supriyanto [2004] 4 SLR 622 SCM 1341
• Mohamed Ali bin Johari v PP [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058,CA SCM 1351
• Astro bin Jakaria [2010] 3 SLR 862 SCM 1355
• PP PP v Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran [2012] 4SLR 453, CA SCM 1361

b. Sudden Fight (PC : S.300 (Ex. 4))

• Soosay v PP [1993] 3 SLR 272 389,CA SCM 1370
• Mohamed Kunjo v [1977-78] SLR (R) 211,PC SCM 1369
• Asogan Ramesh & Others v PP [1997] 3 SLR(R) 201,CA SCM 1372
• Tan Chun Seng v PP [2003] 2 SLR 506,CA SCM 1374
• Tan Chee Wee v PP [2004] 1 SLR(R) 479, CA at [50]-[76]
• PP v Awang Raduan Awang Bol [2005] 1 CLJ 649, FC(M)
• T Paramasparan v PP [2012] 2 MLJ 545, CA(M) SCM 1381

c. Diminished Responsibility (PC : S. 300, Exception 7)

• R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 SCM 1265
• Mimi Wong & Anor V PP [1992] 2 MLJ 75 SCM 1268
• Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy V PP [1998] 2 SLR 22, CA SCM 1275
• PP v Chia Moh Heng [2003] SGHC 108 SCM 1280
• Zailani bin Ahmad [2005] 1 SLR 356, CA SCM 1283
• PP v Took Leng How [2006] 2 SLR 70,CA SCM 1289
• G Krishnasamy Naidu v PP [2006] 4 SLR 474,CA SCM 1294
• Ong Pang Siew v PP [2011] 1 SLR 606, CA SCM 1299
• Muhammad bin Kadar & Anor v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205,CA SCM 1306
• PP v Wang Zhijian [2012] SGHC 238 SCM 1308

Questions to Consider
• Distinguish between the general and special defences in the Penal Code?
• To what offences are these applicable?
• Consider the manner in which each defence may be established.
• Examine critically how the Singapore courts have approached these defences
which have been provided by the law.

COPYRIGHT
© 2015 Singapore Institute of Legal Education. All rights reserved.

19 | P a g e