AY2010-11 Term 1 EXAMINATION November 2010

S.Chandra Mohan (G3, G51), Rathna Nathan (G1,G2), Kow Keng Siong (G4)

LAW 103 CRIMINAL LAW

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES 1 The time allowed for this examination paper is 3 hours. However, you are not permitted to write out your answers for the first 15 minutes. Use this time to think of and plan your answers. This examination paper contains a total of five (5) questions and comprises four (4) pages, including this instruction sheet. All questions carry equal marks. You are required to answer TWO questions, the question in Section A and one from Section B. DO NOT answer both questions from the Section B. This is an open book examination. Give reasons for all your answers having regard to the relevant statutes, case law and readings. Please indicate your student identification number on the cover page of your answer booklet. Do not write your name anywhere in your answer script. 1

3 4 5 6 7

LAW103

SECTION A
Daniel Vijay

(1)
Robbery

wilful blindness?

One day during a casual drinking session, Albert and Benny decided to rob Ever-Safe Freight Forwarders (Alberts employers) of an expensive cargo it was due to transport. As they had no experience in such criminal activities, they recruited Chezzy, an odd-job Chain labourer who had spent time in prison for various drug offences, to conspiracy: plan and execute the robbery. To minimize their complicity and 107b (A+B+C) believing that ignorance is bliss, Albert and Benny left the robbery entirely to Chezzy, and did not want to know any details of the Sinniah Pillay's robbery. Albert and Benny did not know of Danny and Emos broad interpretation involvement, or what the robbery plan was.
informant

Intoxication

chain conspiracy

until unconscious: hurt

On 20 November 2010, Albert informed Benny and Chezzy that Ever-Safe would be delivering one container load of LED TVs valued at about $500,000 the next day to a consignee, SMU, and that there would only be one driver in the truck. After obtaining the information, Chezzy went to Danny and Emos house to discuss about how to carry out the robbery. During the discussion Chezzy told his nephews that it was important to strike fast and hard and to ensure the driver of the container truck did not recognize them. To achieve this, they would drive off the whole container truck (rather than waste time transferring the TVs to another lorry), and the driver should be beaten up until he became unconscious. When Emo resisted the idea of using violence, Chezzy waved a baseball bat at him and shouted, If you respect me as your uncle, do as I say! Emo kept quiet after that. On 21 November, at about 5 am, Chezzy ,Danny and Emo met at the loading/unloading bay of the Administrative Block, SMU. Chezzy had brought along a baseball bat, while Danny and Emo were not armed with any weapons. Once again Emo pleaded with Chezzy not to use violence, to which Chezzy waved the bat at him saying, You are an embarrassment to my sister! If you are so afraid, you be a lookout!.

idea came from him (robbery with hurt)

lack of common intention

Chezzy: 299/300 GH

At about 6 am, the Ever-Safe container truck arrived at the Admin Building. When the door to the drivers compartment was opened, Chezzy and Danny immediately hopped onto the compartment. To their surprise, they found that the driver was Mathi, a family friend, and that he was not alone. Another Ever-Safe employee, Diego, was with him. Chezzy pounded Mathi on the head repeatedly with the bat, while Danny went for Diego. Diego instinctively took out a parang from the floorboard, and used it to strike Diego once on the 2

LAW103

Emo: PD

head to stop him from further slashing Danny. Seeing that his brother was in danger, Emo rushed to the drivers compartment, picked up a spanner on the floorboard, and used it to strike Diego once on the head to stop him from further slashing Danny. He did not know that Danny had a condition known as a thin skull or eggshell skull. Explanation 2 only for 299 Whilst all this was happening, Kea Soo, came upon the scene, on her way to the SMU exam hall. She immediately called 999 and Chezzy, Danny and Emo were apprehended by the Police soon therafter. Albert and Benny were arrested later, when Chezzy disclosed their complicity. Both Mathi and Diego were sent to the Changi General Hospital. Unfortunately they succumbed to their injuries on the same day. According to the pathologist, the cause of death in both cases was a fracture of the skull from a blunt object. The Police have approached you, a DPP, to seek your advice on the following: (a) What charges may be preferred against Albert, Benny, Chezzy, Danny and Emo? (b) What are the likely defences they may rely on?

SECTION B (2) The concept of automatism is simply too complex, ambiguous and unclear to be presently available as a defence to any person charged with an offence in Singapore. Discuss. Having regard to your knowledge of sentencing principles, comment on the following views expressed by the High Court in Fricker Oliver v PP [2010] SGHC 239, where the accused, a foreigner, was convicted and sentenced on charges relating to the spraying of graffiti on MRT trains:

(3)

Foreigners who visit or work in Singapore are accorded many rights, privileges, as well as courtesies by law. In return, all that is asked of them is that they respect and observe the law. The laws of Singapore proscribing vandalism are indeed severe. However, needless to say, these are the very laws that are largely responsible for a clean and graffiti-free environment, not to mention a low incidence of crime involving damage to public property and services. While some may regard graffiti as a stimulating and liberating activity that adds colour, spice and variety to a staid
3

LAW103

environment, many more in Singapore think otherwise. It is fair to say that in some countries, public transportation has been blighted by graffiti on an enormous and sometimes uncontrollable scale. This sort of behaviour, which I am confident does not resonate with the majority of the Singaporean public, must not be allowed to take root here. Individuals who intend to engage in similar acts here for their own self-indulgent gratification and self-aggrandisement must understand that this is an area of offending that - apart from the real damage and serious inconvenience caused - is often offensive to the sensibilities of the general public. As far as the courts are concerned, the parliamentary policy that undergirds the Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed) leaves no room for ambiguity. Vandalism, it is clear, merits a sentencing response that has, in the sentencing equation, a significant element of general deterrence.
(4) You have been engaged by the Criminal Lawyers Association for Singaporeans (CLASS) which is of the view that the general defences in the Penal Code are in urgent need of reform. Help CLASS in drafting a petition to the Minister of Law highlighting your concerns in respect of two defences and suggesting how these defences can be improved. The undue emphasis on the crime control model in Singapore leaves much to be desired. It is time we move more towards the due process model. Discuss.

(5)

----- End of Paper-----