Challenges to Establishing a Crime - Coincidence of AR and MR Flashcards
When can distinct acts be taken as forming part of a single transaction?
Can use Thabo Meli test if 1 of the 2 conditions are met:
there is a pre-conceived plan to kill; or
there is a clear intention to kill.
Will suffice if the accused had the necessary MR at some point in the transaction, even if it did not coincide precisely in time with the AR, the act which caused death [Shaiful Edham bin Adam].
Thabo Meli and Others v R [1954] 1 WLR 228
As, as part of preconceived plot to kill the deceased, took him to a hut where he was struck over the head with an instrument. Believing him to be dead, they rolled him over a cliff and dressed the scene to make it look like an accident. The medical evidence established that the deceased had died due to exposure when he was left at the foot of the cliff. As alleged, inter alia, that the 2nd act, while the cause of death, was not accompanied by MR.
Held: Impossible to divide up what was really one transaction in that way. No separation to reduce the crime from murder to a lesser crime merely because As were under some misapprehension during the completion of their criminal plot.
Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP [1999] 1 SLR(R) 442, SGCA
A caused injuries to V’s neck then, believing she had died, threw her into a canal.
If there is a series of distinct acts which form part of a larger transaction, it will suffice that the accused had the necessary MR at some point in the transaction.
Mohammad Radi v PP [1994] 1 SLR(R) 406
A convicted of murder. He had allegedly struck the deceased several times with a stick, dragged her into the kitchen and forcibly pushed her into a crouching position under the kitchen ledge. He then covered the body with a canvas sheet and she was left there. Judge found that A had committed acts which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Held: A’s acts of striking the deceased and his subsequent acts of concealing and abandoning the deceased constituted one single transaction and had resulted in the injuries suffered by the deceased which led to her death.
Wang Wenfeng v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 590, CA
A planned to rob a taxi driver. He attacked the deceased, stabbing him and rendering him unconscious. Thinking that the deceased was dead, A placed body amongst the undergrowth.
Held: Pre-conceived plan to kill and dispose of the body: Thabo Meli should apply.
Pre-conceived plan to inflict an injury: Thabo Meli should NOT apply unless injury under s 300(c).
Preconceived plan to kill, but method of disposal of decided later: Thabo Meli should apply.
Thabo Meli can also apply even if formed in the spur of the moment (Re Thavamani).
Position still unclear if there is only intention to inflict bodily injury under s299 limb 2 PC and s300(c) PC, or knowledge under s299 limb 3 and s300(d) PC.
3 Approaches to 1 Transaction Rule:
Moral Congruence?
Preferred in SG.
Regards culpable homicide as established when a person causes death through series of acts which are morally congruent.
D’s earlier culpability joined to his subsequent conduct on basis that they share the same moral character (i.e. MR must be attributable to AR).
3 Approaches to 1 Transaction Rule:
Same Transaction?
Series of distinct acts may in some circumstances be regarding as forming part of a larger transaction; and it will suffice if the accused had the necessary MR at some point in the transaction, even if did not coincide precisely in time with AR which caused death. [Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP [1999]]
3 Approaches to 1 Transaction Rule:
Causation?
Seeks to resolve the issue by regarding D’s initial act as a cause (both factual and imputable) of V’s death.
BUT D may be unjustly convicted if an independent 3rd party performs the fatal act.
Disregards the substantial cause test (i.e. if another subsequent act becomes so overwhelming it overrides initial act).
Uncertainty and confusion plaguing law regarding causation (i.e. heavily driven by policy construed on fair and moral grounds which are vague and imprecise).
Can work arbitrarily in favour or against D: dependent on how much weight the courts attaches to the facts.
