2. Managing Mens Rea in Singapore - Singapore Academy of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 SAcLJ 314 Managing Mens Rea in Singapore 321that he would have applied to the larynx would have in all likelihoodresulted in a fracture of the larynx or more serious injuries. The degreeof force used would have been extreme as to be consistent only with anintent to do serious harm. [emphasis added]13 Again, as in Yasin, there was nothing particularly accidental aboutthe whole affair, but the court was persuaded to invoke the “preciseintention” approach – Ow may have intended to cause superficial injuriesto the face, but probably intended no more than that. Though it mayappear curious that Yasin was never mentioned, the mystery dissolveswhen we consider that the Court of Appeal in a then-recent decision, TanCheow Bok v PP, had apparently denounced Yasin when it was pressedupon the court on rather similar facts. 21 In the course of a robbery, Tansubdued his victim. In order to prevent the victim from shouting he stucka knife into her mouth. A particularly interesting facet of this case was theunchallenged forensic evidence that it was actually quite difficult to killsomeone that way – what happened was that the knife had entered themouth at a specific angle, gone through a narrow passage between thevertebra and the skull, and had severed the vertebral artery, leading tobleeding and death. At any other angle, the knife would have struck theskull or the vertebra, but the injury would not have been fatal. The Courtof Appeal, in convicting the accused of murder, expressly approved theHigh Court decision in Visuvanathan and refused to use the “preciseinjury” approach. The judges in Ow Ah Cheng wanted to do the oppositeand could not very well do so openly, and so soon after the Court ofAppeal had spoken in Tan Cheow Bok. The question is why the court inOw Ah Cheng decided to use the “precise injury” device when the judgesin Tan Cheow Bok refused. The only sensible distinction is the instrumentof the killing – one was a knife, the other a pillow. Instinctively that oughtto be a material difference, but exactly why should it be so? The onlysensible reason is that an accused who uses a knife is more likely to havecontemplated that death would be the result of his or her actions. Thus inTan Cheow Bok, even though the objective likelihood of death resultingfrom the knife being lodged in the mouth of the victim was small, thatpiece of forensic intelligence would probably not have been in the mindof the accused – he would have been likely to have contemplated death.On the other hand, what the pillow-wielding accused did in Ow Ah Chengwas the opposite – it was probably something very dangerous to indulgein, but that was not immediately obvious to the untrained mind. It wasplausible that the accused did not have death on his mind. A similar21 [1991] SLR 293 at 301–302, [32]–[33] (“Tan Cheow Bock”).
322Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2006)sentiment must have operated on the Privy Council in Yasin itself –sitting on the chest of a 58-year-old woman with a degree of force wasobjectively a potentially lethal thing to do, but that would not have beenapparent to a layperson: 22[T]o fall on someone’s chest, even forcibly, is something which occursfrequently in many ordinary sports, such as rugby football, and thoughit may cause temporary pain, it is most unusual for it to result in internalinjuries at all, let alone fatal injuries. [emphasis added]14 The Privy Council could not possibly have been pronouncing onthe objective forensic position – there was no expert evidence on recordfor the court to do that legitimately. What the court was more likely tohave intended to say is that the ordinary untrained layperson, as theaccused person in that case was likely to be, would probably not havecontemplated that sitting on the chest would have fatal consequences.15 The judicial choice between the broad and precise injuryapproaches was faced rather more squarely in another decision of theHigh Court. In PP v Lim Poh Lye, 23 it was yet another robbery attempt andthe accused had slashed the leg of the victim in order to prevent himfrom escaping. The femoral vein was severed and the victim died fromloss of blood. The accused was acquitted of murder, but again Yasin wasnot mentioned at all. Instead the High Court relied on an earlier decisionof the Court of Appeal, PP v Tan Chee Hwee 24 in this manner: 25But the crucial question was whether Lim intended to cause thoseinjuries, that is, the stab wounds, and not whether he intended to kill.Following Virsa Singh, the answer would certainly be “yes”, andconsequently, the accused would be guilty of murder should his victimdie from that intended injury. Tan Chee Hwee, however, ameliorates anaccidental specific injury (asphyxia) if the intended act (strangulation)was inflicted without an intention to cause mortal injury [but for] aspecific non-fatal purpose…[This exception to Virsa Singh] would not, inmy view … apply where an assailant stabs another in a vulnerable orsensitive region of the body, such as the chest, and claims that he did soto prevent escape. [emphasis added]16 This decision, probably the most significant in the field sinceYasin, was the first to openly recognise that there is a problem with22 Supra n 12, at 37, [10].23 [2005] 2 SLR 130 (“Lim Poh Lye”).24 [1993] 2 SLR 657 (“Tan Chee Hwee”).25 Supra n 23, at [15].
Page 1 and 2: (2006) 18 SAcLJ Managing Mens Rea i
Page 3 and 4: 316Singapore Academy of Law Journal
Page 7: 320Singapore Academy of Law Journal

2. Managing Mens Rea in Singapore - Singapore Academy of Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?