Raising the Bar for the Mens Rea Requirement in Common Intention Cases
Recently, the Court of Appeal in Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor took the view that the law on common intention was not adequately settled in Singapore despite the 138-year history of s.34 of the Penal Code. It went on to give an extensive review of the cases interpreting the sectio...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1767 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3719/viewcontent/Raising_the_Bar_for_the_Mens_Rea_Requirement_in_Common_Intention.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Recently, the Court of Appeal in Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor took the view that the law on common intention was not adequately settled in Singapore despite the 138-year history of s.34 of the Penal Code. It went on to give an extensive review of the cases interpreting the section as well as its Indian equivalent, before setting out the proper approach to take in "twin crime" common intention cases, focusing specifically on the mens rea element required in order to establish constructive liabilityfor the secondary crime. This case note seeks to highlight the changes brought about by Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor and to comment on the significance of these changes. |
|---|