Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
(3) non fatal offences
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

(3) non fatal offences

1,737
views

Published on

disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation

disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation


0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,737
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
116
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. NON-FATAL OFFENCESASSAULT 1 The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here iswhether B can be held liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code andpunishable under Section 352 of the same code for pointed a water pistol to B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 351 defines assault as gesture or preparation in conveying the threat of violence thatcauses the apprehension that constitute the offence. In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whether his act fallswithin the meaning of assault. The 2 elements to an assault are physical gesture and the intention tocause threat that the victim will apprehend. The physical gesture need not be an actual force andrequires no contact with the body. In the case of Sammy Pillay, the accused was charged for anoffence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver at the complainant in a coffee shop.In this situation, there is an issue to the effect of liability since A is a prankster. If Section 351 is read literally, it states that an act amounts to assault as long as there isgesture or preparation and no bodily contact. Then, in Jashanmal Jhamatmal, the court held thatwhen the accused put on his hand towards the woman in a menacing manner so as to cause her toapprehend that he was about use criminal force, it was an assault. However, the court’sinterpretation was differs in the case of Dato Sri S Samy Vellu v S Nadarajah, the accused went on ameeting and in that meeting he tried to hit the victim. The court stated that whether a certain actamounts to an assault depends upon the reasonable apprehension which a person entertains aboutcriminal force being imminent. If there is no present ability to use criminal force, there cannot bereasonable apprehension.APPLICATION In applying the law to the situation, there is a physical gesture directed by A to B when hepointed the water pistol. If the literal interpretation is applied, A can be held liable even if there is nointention to either use criminal force or make no bodily contact. However, in this case, the court’sinterpretation shall apply. A pointing a water pistol does not cause reasonable apprehension to B.CONCLUSION In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351.
  • 2. ASSAULT 2 The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue here is whether A can beheld liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code for rolling up her sleeves anduttered words of threat to B and punishable under Section 352 of the same code.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 351 defines assault as gesture or preparation in conveying the threat of violence thatcauses the apprehension that constitute the offence. In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whether his act fallswithin the meaning of assault. The first element of assault is there must be a physical gesture. Thephysical gesture need not be an actual force and requires no contact with the body . In Sammy Pillay,the accused was charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver atthe complainant in a coffee shop. Secondly, there must intention that the victim will apprehend. In this situation, there is anissue whether words can amount to an assault. The general rule is that words cannot amount toassault. However, words can colour gestures to indicate intention. In Read v Coker, the plaintiff wasfired by the defendant. Two days later, the plaintiff returned to the premises owned by thedefendant and refused to leave. The defendant gathered up some of his men and threatened himthat if he didn’t leave, they would break his neck. The plaintiff left fearing the men would strike him.The court held that it was an assault. Gesture and intent locked the deal. In Illustration (c), A takesup a stick saying to Z “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the words used by A could in no caseamount to an assault and though mere gesture is unaccompanied by any other circumstances mightnot amount to an assault, the gesture explained by the words amounts may amount to an assault.APPLICATION In applying the law to the situation, A conducted a mere act of rolling up her sleeveaccompanied by words of assault. Thus, eventhough the threats uttered by A may not amounting toassault as in general rule, but her threats was accompanied by her gesture by the act of rolling upher sleeve.CONCLUSION In conclusion, A can be held liable for assault under Section 351 and punishable under 352.
  • 3. ASSAULT 3 The parties involve are A the accused and B the victim. The issue here is whether A can beheld liable for assault as defined under Section 351 of the Penal Code for pointing a sharpenedbamboo stick to B and punishable under Section 352 of the same code.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 351 defines assault as gesture or preparation in conveying the threat of violence thatcauses the apprehension that constitute the offence. In determining whether A can be held liable for assault, we must see whether his act fallswithin the meaning of assault. The first element of assault is there must be a physical gesture. Thephysical gesture need not be an actual force and requires no contact with the body . In Sammy Pillay,the accused was charged for an offence of assault in respect of his action in pointing a revolver atthe complainant in a coffee shop. Secondly, there must intention that the victim will apprehend. In this situation, there is anissue whether words can amount to an assault. The general rule is that words cannot amount toassault. However, words can colour gestures to indicate intention. In the case of Tuberville v Savage,the accused had a sword in his hand and uttered “if it is not assize time, I would take such languagefrom you”. The court held that the words negative the intention and therefore no assault. Thus,words can also negative an intention.APPLICATION In applying the law, eventhough A made physical gestures by pointing a sharpened bamboostick to B. But, he had uttered words that negative his intention to cause apprehension whichprevent him from doing the threat which he said that he will execute the threat if B is not hisbrother.CONCLUSION In conclusion, A cannot be held liable for assault under Section 351.
  • 4. CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A can be heldliable for criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of the Penal Code and punishable undersection 506 of the same code for causing threat to B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 503 defines criminal intimidation as a threat which intent to cause alarm to thatperson as the means of avoiding the execution of threat. In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal intimidation, we must see whetherhis act falls within the meaning of the offence. There are two (2) elements that must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be a threat to cause an injury to persons, reputation or property. Section44 defines injury as any harm illegally caused to any person, body, mind, reputation, or property. Inthe case of Sinnasamy v PP, the accused threatens to kill the victim with a parang, the court heldthat there is sufficient evident to support a criminal intimidation because the parang is sufficient toconstitute a threat. However it is not essential to have a weapon as mere would suffice. The second element is that there was an intention to cause alarm. The person have to bealarmed by the threat and the accused must have the intention to cause alarm which is to cause aperson to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit any act which that person islegally bound to do so . In the case of Lee Yoke Choong v PP, the important requirement toconstitute criminal intimidation is the intention of the maker and the nature of threat, in which itwould be enough to conclude that the maker of the threats had the intention to cause alarm. Then, in the case of PP v Aziz Bin Wee, the accused had picked up a dangerous weapon andshouted ‘try if you want to get it’ as the staff of Ministry of Health was trying to remove the accusedgood as he has no license to operate a food stall. The court decided that, anyone who had faced withthe accused while holding the knife near to him must have been gravely alarmed. Thus, the accusedwas guilty of criminal intimidation.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal intimidation under section 504 of the PenalCode and punishable under section 506 of the same code for causing threat to B.
  • 5. CRIMINAL FORCE The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A can be heldliable for criminal force as defined under Section 350 of the Penal Code and punishable undersection 352 of the same code for spittle on B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 350 defines criminal force as if an accused caused motion, change of motion orcessation of motion to any substance as to bring it into contact to body as to create feeling, by hisown bodily power, disposing substance or inducing animals to move. Force is further defined in section 349 as a person is said to use force on another if he causesmotion, change of motion or cessation of motion. In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must see whether his actfalls within the meaning of the offence. The first element which is the actus reus of this offence isthat the force must be intentionally inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if forcewas accidently or recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. InNg Eng Huat v PP, there was no direct force but the movement was affected when the appellantintentionally reversed his car to collide with the other car. The court held that the appellant’s actwas an intentional and deliberate act and he had used criminal force. The second element is that the force must be used on a person. The person must be theultimate object of the force. No offence of criminal force is committed when the lock of a house isbroken or where a ladder is removed leaving the victim stranded on the roof of a house. Its showsthat the purpose of doing such acts is to directly affect the person. In the case of Raja Izzuddin Shahv PP, the accused was convicted with the offence under section 353 when he had slapped thecomplainant who was a police officer, dragged him by shirt and pushed him against the wall. Then, the third element of this offence is the force must be without the victim’s consent.Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no offence.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal force under section 350 of the Penal Codeand punishable under section 352 of the same code for causing threat to B.
  • 6. CRIMINAL FORCE TO OUTRAGE MODESTY The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue is whether A can be heldliable for criminal force to outrage modesty as defined under Section 354 of the Penal Code andpunishable under the same section for using force to outrage the modesty of B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 354 of the Penal Code provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to anyperson, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty ofthat person. Force is further defined in section 349 as a person is said to use force on another if he causesmotion, change of motion or cessation of motion. In determining whether A can be held liable for criminal force, we must see whether his actfalls within the meaning of the offence. The first element which is the actus reus of this offence isthat the force must be intentionally inflicted, as it is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if forcewas accidently or recklessly inflicted or that the offender knew his action was likely to cause force. InRajeevan v PP, the accused was convicted of this offence for slipping his left hand through the gapbetween the bus’s window and the victim’s seat. He then pressed the victim’s blouse twice at theleft breast region. The second element is that the force must be used on a person. The person must be theultimate object of the force. In the case of Tan Beng Chye v PP, the accused had taken the victim tosome bushes, removed his short and inner pants. He then made the victim take off her coat andtrousers leaving her in knickers, which she refused to take off. The accused then arrested, chargedand convicted for attempted rape. The appeal court held there was no sufficient evidence in the actto constitute rape but his attempt to remove her knickers was evidence of use of force to outrageher modesty. Then, the third element of this offence is the force must be without the victim’s consent.Where the victim consents to the use of force, there is no offence.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for criminal force to outrage modesty under section 354of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for causing threat to B.
  • 7. HURT The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue here is whether A can beheld liable for hurt as defined under Section 321 of the Penal code for punching B and punishableunder Section 323 of the same code.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 321 defines voluntarily causing hurt as an act done with the intention of causing hurtto another person or with knowledge that he is likely cause hurt the person and the hurt caused issaid to be voluntarily. Section 319 further defines hurt as person who causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity toanother person. Then, infirmity was defined in the case of Anis Beg as inability of an organ toperform its normal function which may be either temporary or permanent. In determining whether B can be held liable for causing hurt, we must see whether his actfalls within the meaning of the offence. The actus reus of this offence is causing bodily pain, diseasesor infirmity to any person. Then, the mens rea is the intention or knowledge to cause hurt. The first element needs to be proved is the act must be done voluntarily. Section 39 definesvoluntary act as when one causes it by means he intended to do it or at that time, knew and believeto likely to cause it. Then, in the case of Jashanmal Jhamatmal v Brahmanand, it was said that therewas nothing in the provision to suggest that hurt should be caused by direct physical contactbetween the accused and the victim. Secondly, the act must be accompanied with knowledge and intention to cause and therebycaused hurt. In PP v Mahfar bin Sairan, it was held that where an action lacked intention orknowledge, it also lacks the essential element of voluntary. Then, in Manzoor Ahmad v State ofAllahabad, the accused, after an argument with a 15 year old boy, fed him with copper sulphatewhich led to his collapse and subsequent admission to hospital for a stomach wash. The court heldthat hurt can be either temporary or permanent. So long caused infirmity, it is sufficient.APPLICATIONCONCLUSIONIn the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing hurt towards B under Section 321 of the PenalCode and punishable under section 323 of the same code.
  • 8. GRIEVOUS HURT The parties involve are A, the accused and B, the victim. The issue here is whether A can beheld liable for hurt as defined under Section 322 of the Penal code for punching B and punishableunder Section 325 of the same code.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 322 defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt as an act done with the intention ofcausing grievous hurt to another person or with knowledge that he is likely to cause grievous hurtthe person and the grievous hurt caused is said to be voluntarily. In determining whether B can be held liable for causing grievous hurt, we must see whetherhis act falls within the meaning of the offence. In the case of PP v Sng Siew Ngoh, it was providedthat for an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it is necessary to show: 1. The hurt was caused voluntarily; 2. The accused intended or knew he was likely to cause grievous hurt; and 3. The hurt caused was grievous hurt. For the first element, the offender must voluntarily commit the act. Secondly, the accusedmust intended or knew he was likely to cause to cause grievous hurt. In the case of PP v Mahfar binSairan, it was held that where an action lacked intention or knowledge, it also lacks the essentialelement of voluntary. Then, lastly hurt becomes grievous hurt when hurt takes one of the forms stated in section320 of the Penal Code. [State any of the forms applicable according to the question].APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In the conclusion, A can be held liable for causing grievous hurt towards B under Section 322of the Penal Code and punishable under section 325 of the same code.