special defences

Question 1

sudden fight (300 exception 4) requirements

Answer 1

1. likely requires a sudden quarrel to precipitate the sudden fight. Note the PC explanation tells us that quarrels do not nec have to be an exchange of words; may be gestures or even staring each other down.
2. the sudden fight has to be physical - the fight has to have an exchange of blows, although the blows may not accurately land on the victim.
3. privity of the fight - only between A and V
4. without premeditation. this would tie in with the fact that the fight had occurred suddenly, so much so that the offender didnt have time to reflect on his actions thereafter. Lack of premeditation would also negate the MR of intention since premeditation and planning are factors to prove the presence of intention (to kill). Premeditation is inferred from direct and circumstantial evidence.
5. without undue advantage - this is based on facts of the case as well as the physical disparity between A and V. For instance, V could have turned away and A took advantage of the fact that he wasnt paying attention to stab him in his back.
6. not in a cruel or unusual manner - death wasnt caused in a malicious fashion.
7. killing occurred during the duration of the fight- this means that A cannot have killed V when V had already given up or waved a “white flag” of defeat. This would also mean that the fight ends when a clear victor has emerged.
8. does NOT matter who started the sudden fight - that requirement is for provocation

Question 2

successful sudden fight cases

Answer 2

1. soosay (transgender case) –>NO undue advantage, victim was very formidable and aggressive and kept chasing after accused, 2 out of the 5 stab wounds were fatal so there was no cruel manner of killing, and the fatal wounds were inflicted during the cours eof the fight
2. tan chun seng (hit the car) –> sudden fihght defence was given by CA,defence of provcation rejected by HC–> NO undue advantage though because of physical disparity, but noted that victim was not aggressive. HC stated there was incomplete evidence that an exact version of the weapon used, a wooden gardening pole, was found in the accused’s friend’s car, therefore this could have hinted at some element of premeditation - making the “provocation” no longer sudden. HC held that the provocation was when the victim’s friend hit Tan’s car.

Question 3

unsuccessful sudden fight cases

Answer 3

1. iskandar –> clear premeditaiotn that fulfilled the intention as per 300a charge, undue advantage

Question 4

provocation - subj and obj test

Answer 4

subj - did he really lose self control?
○ Premeditation
○ Mental state
○ Whether post-killing conduct shows loss of self-control

obj - was it a sudden and unexpected provocation? and was it so grave that the ORM affixed with the killer’s traits, that affect the gravity of the provocation, have done the same?

○ Sudden
■ Brief interval between provocation and act
■ Unexpected provocation
○ Grave
■ Whether ordinary person sharing client’s characteristics would be provoked

Question 5

sundarti supriyanto (maid case classic provocation)

Answer 5

• last straw that broke the camel’s back
• prlonged periods of physical and psychological abuse
• final provocation would not pass muster for the oibjective test of gravity, but the entire series of abuse was seen as a cumulative provocation
• stabbed employer with so much force and in haphazard manner; suggest loss of self control
• did not eat for three days but still could stab with so much force

Question 6

thereme vejayan (throw wife down building)

Answer 6

• neither grave nor sudden
• used to seeing her wear revealing clothes and it was the sourve of their marital dispute
• he did not lose self control
• had a presence of mind iin thw way he committed the crime
• knew how to avoid CCTVs and public attention
• disposal of clothes aafter killing
• called friend and gave clear instructions to pick him up
• had long cooling off time btn seeing his wife at bus stop and killing her by throwing her off the parapet.

Question 7

conditions for DR

Answer 7

1. had AOM during killing
2. AOM arose from inherent condition or internal disease of the mind; must be an inherent and internal cause
3. AOM caused him to experience diminished responsibility, as evinced by the following:
   - substantial impairment of ability to know nature of act; ie his perception of matters, or
   - subt impairment of ability to know wrongfulness or unlawfulness of act; ie his rational judgment, or
   - subt inability to control actions and decisions

Question 8

3 subconditions under 3rd limb of DR

Answer 8

• substantial impairment of ability to know nature of act - his perception of matters
  –> crime scene evidence
  –> killing was sorta methodical; a method to his madness
  –> killer tried to inflict maximum hurt
  iskandar - stabs at vital areas
• subt impairment of ability to know wrongfulness or unlawfulness of act - his rational judgment
  –> evidence conduct during killing
  therema - avoiding CCTVs and public eye because he knows its wrong
  wang zhijian - wanted to pack his things and leave after killing because he knew it was illegal
• subt inability to control actions and decisions
• -> but NOT to the extent of a state of automatism