# data[].attributes.body
Threat means a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action to cause fear of harm. The intention may be communicated through an electronic, written, verbal, or physical act to cause fear, mental distress, or interference in the school environment. The intention may be expressly stated or implied and the person communicating the threat has the ability to carry out the threat.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 94
Act to which a person is compelled by threats

Except murder, offences included in Chapter VI punishable with death and offences included in Chapter VIA, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence:

Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

Explanation 1—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins gang-robbers knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explanation 2—A person seized by gang-robbers, and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law—for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the gang-robbers to enter and plunder it—is entitled to the benefit of this exception.

# data[].attributes.body
1. ) A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is with in this section.

ILLUSTRATION

2. ) A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

# data[].attributes.body
Private Defence is a type of legal defence that may be able to absolve a person of any legal liability if the person hurt or killed another person to defend himself/herself. (Acting in self defense in order to defend themselves)

Private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 96

Nothing done in private defence is an offence

Section 97
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

Section 98

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind

When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
Right of private defence occurs when circumstances clearly justify it.

Private defence does not apply if.
a. Assault causes reasonable apprehension of death.
b. Assault that will cause grievous hurt
c. Assault intended for rape
d. Assault intended for gratifying unnatural lust
e. Assault of kidnapping or abducitng.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or Any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or Any country)

# data[].attributes.body
ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether Dato' Balwant Singh was confronted with a apprehension of danger to his

body and whether the act that had done by Dato' Balwant was considered as private

defence.

FACT OF THE CASE

The accused was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code stated that whoever

commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The deceased was a road bully who followed the accused’s car after he got enraged thinking that the accused honked at him. When the accused pulled into a mosque, the deceased picked up a large and heavy stick and threatened the accused with the stick. Even after the accused showed the deceased his gun and

fired a warning shot, the deceased did not relent and continued to act even more

aggressively. The Accused in possession of a gun, fearing for his life and safety, the

accused fired his gun and caused the death of the deceased. The accused was

pleaded guilty and called for private defence.

# data[].attributes.body
R v Hasan [2005] 2 WLR 709  House of Lords

The appellant worked for a woman, Claire Taeger, who ran an escort agency involving prostitution. He would drive women to clients and act as a minder. Taeger then became involved with another man, Frank Sullivan, who was a violent drug dealer. Sullivan took over much of the appellant’s work and friction developed between the two. The appellant was aware that Sullivan was a dangerous man and Sullivan had boasted to the appellant about three murders he had recently committed. One night Sullivan and another man known only as “Lunatic Yardie” ambushed the appellant outside his home. Sullivan told him to commit a burglary on a house owned by one of Taeger’s clients. He told him that “Lunatic Yardie” would accompany him to ensure that the burglary was carried out and threatened that if he did not do so he and his family would be harmed. The appellant complied and was convicted of aggravated burglary his defence of duress was rejected by the jury. He appealed to the Court of Appeal contending a mis-direction in two respects:

1.   The trial judge had stated that the jury should find him guilty and reject the defence of duress if they were sure that he could have avoided acting as he did without harm coming to his family.

2.   The trial judge had not directed the jury in line with R v Baker & Ward as to whether the defendant had foreseen that he was likely to be subjected to threats to commit a crime of the type for which he was charged.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed his conviction. The facts did not suggest that the defendant could have taken evasive action and therefore there was no need to direct the jury on this point. The failure to direct in relation to foresight of the type of crime also amounted to a mis-direction. The Crown appealed to the Lords.

# data[].attributes.body
According to its own definition, an accident is a traumatic occurrence that occurs unexpectedly and unintentionally and frequently causes harm or damage. Additionally, it might have been a divine act, in which case no one should be blamed. The definition of an accident isn't mentioned in the penal code.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 80
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.

# data[].attributes.body
Basant Singh v Emperor

The accused and his companions went pig hunting in the jungle. A wild boar charged at him. He shot at the wild pig in a fit of rage, but sadly it missed and hit his companion instead, killing him. The court determined that the incident was entirely accidental because the man did not intend to kill his friend, it was a legal act carried out legally, and it was not anticipated that it would happen. The act was a lawful act done in a lawful manner and that the event was not foreseeable.

# data[].attributes.body
An element is an essential requirement to make a claim or defense in court. So here are the elements for section 80 of the Penal Code that need to be fulfilled:

1) The act is done by accident or misfortune.

2) Without any criminal intention or knowledge.

3) Lawful Act in Lawful Manner by Lawful Means.

4)Proper Care & Caution

# data[].attributes.body
Consent, like consent in tort law, may be used as a defence in criminal law where the victim can be proved to have rationally agreed to the defendant's acts. This defence is only applicable when the defendant's actions are not expressly prohibited by legislation, as is the case with many strict liability offences and so-called consensual crimes.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 90
A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code

Consent known to be given under fear or misconception and consent of a child or person of unsound mind

(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception;

b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

(c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

Section 87

Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

Section 88

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for the benefit of a person

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Section 89

Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of unsound mind, by or by consent of guardian

Nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person:

Provided that this exception shall not extend to—

(a) the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

(c) the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
2 elements of consent:

Victim consented

Defendant believed that victim consented

It is for the prosecution to prove both that the victim did not consent and that the defendant did not believe in the victim's consent.

So if the defendant wrongly believed the victim consented, the defence could be available.

Equally if the victim consented, even if the defendant did not know this, the defence could be available.

Whether the defence of consent is available will depend on the level of harm inflicted on the victim and the circumstance in which the harm was inflicted.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
R v Wilson

1. FACTS : defendant used a hot knife to brand his initials onto the buttocks of his wife, at her request. He argued consent to a charge under the OAPA 1861 s.47, and was successful.

2. HELD : Court of Appeal held there was no logical difference between this type of branding, tattooing, body piercing, and similar personal adornments, which is a lawful activity.

# data[].attributes.body
In criminal law, the defence of necessity is used when the defendant claims that it was necessary for them to commit a crime. For example, if a prisoner escapes from a burning jail, he may raise the defence of necessity since his escape was essential. The defence of necessity is often used when the defendant has two options: commit a crime or suffer or inflict somebody significant hardship. According to Sir James Stephen, there are three prerequisites for using the defence of necessity:

(i) the act is required to prevent an unavoidable and irreversible
(ii) no more should be done than is reasonably necessary to attain the goal
(iii) the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil averted.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 81
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Explanation—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
●The defendant must have had a reasonable belief that there was an actual and particular danger that necessitated prompt action.
●The defendant must have had no viable choice to carrying out the unlawful conduct.
●The criminal act's damage must not be larger than the harm prevented.
●The defendant did not contribute to or create the threat.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
Reg vs Rose

1. Necessity was raised in justification by the accused who was charged with killing his father who would otherwise killed his mother

2. The judge said that homicide is justiciable if a person takes away the life of another in defending himself, if the fatal blow which takes away life is necessary for this preservation

3. The law says not only in self - defence if the fatal blow inflicted were necessary for the preservation of life

# data[].attributes.headline
Definition of Unsoundness of Mind Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Definition of Unsoundness of Mind Defence

# data[].attributes.body
The court has defined unsoundness of mind as insanity. The section solely addresses mental impairment. Medical insanity, on the other hand, must be legally acknowledged. The former relates to a deficient cognitive capacity of mind, such that he is unable to understand the nature of his conduct or if what he is doing is illegal or against the law. This part applies even in circumstances of insanity and lucid intervals. The defence of insanity may totally free the defendant of culpability. However, it must be shown in line with Mc'Naghten Rules.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 84

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
Section 84 of the Penal Code contains several elements which are needed to be fulfilled by the accused to raise the defence of unsoundness of mind. The elements are:

1) At the time of the commission of the offence, the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind.

2) The accused is unable to understand the nature of his behaviour or is unaware that his act was illegal or against the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
R v Kemp

●During the period of unconsciousness arising from arteriosclerosis which causes the hardening of artery, the accused attacked his wife with a hammer.

●It was proven medically that the accused was suffering from a congestion of blood in the brain as a result of arteriosclerosis that caused the malfunction of the mind during the commission of the crime.

●The court held that the accused can raise the defence of unsoundness of mind.

# data[].attributes.body
Infancy - hafizan
Unsoundness of Mind - sanjit
Intoxication - hafeez
Consent -  ng
Mistake - hafizan
Accident - fauzan
Necessity - sanjit
Threat - Muiz
Private Defence - hafeez

# data[].attributes.body
Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person

charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or

omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and—

(a) the state of intoxication was without his consent by the malicious or negligent act

of another person; or

(b)   the   person   charged   was   by   reason   of   intoxication   insane,   temporarily   or

otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

# data[].attributes.body
Consist of believing something in an unconsciousness,

ignorance or forgetfulness of the fact such as  wrong information,  forgetfulness,  negligence,superstition or inadequate information.

# data[].attributes.body
SECTION 76
Nothing is an offence if the act done by a person by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith believes himself to be bound by law (BBL) to do it.

SECTION 79
Nothing is an offence if the act done by a person by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith believes himself to be justified by law (JBL) to do it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
1 Element: The accused had been induced by mistake to commit the criminal act

2 Element: Must be mistake of fact, not mistake of law

3 Element: Must be done in good faith on section 52 that is

act done with due care and attention and test whether mistake was made in good faith or not

is laid down in

4 Element: Must be person that is bound by law and justified by law

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
PP v Koo Cheh Yew

The accused were charged for importing piano that is prohibited under the law. The accused had raised the

defence of mistake as he did not know that the law

prohibit such act, so, it is a mistake of fact. The court

held that it is not mistake of fact but it is a mistake of

law.

# data[].attributes.body
SECTION 85

1) Save as provided in this section and in section 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge.

(2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and—

(a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or

(b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

SECTION 86

(1) Where the defence under subsection 85(2) is established, then in a case falling under paragraph (a) thereof the accused person shall be acquitted, and in a case falling under paragraph (b), the provisions of section 84 of this Code, sections 347 and 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] shall apply.

(2) Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence.

(3) For the purpose of this and the preceding section “intoxication” shall be deemed to include a state produced by narcotics or drugs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
The essence of intoxication:

(a) Being in a state of intoxication

(b) The   state  of   intoxication   was   caused  without   his   consent  by   the

malicious or negligent act of another person

(c) State of his intoxication rendered him insane

(d) Did not know that his act or omission was wrong or not know what he was doing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
Chan Keww Fong v PP

The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife which caused him to pass.

The   accused   was   saying   that   he   was   in   a   state   of   intoxication   which precluded him from forming the specific intent to kill.

If the accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence as alleged in the charge to the extent. that he was temporarily insane or otherwise or that the degree of intoxication was such that he could not have formed any of the intentions required to constitute the offence of murder, he would not have been   able   to   remember   and   recount   all   the   events   in   lucid   details   as

described by him in his evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Infancy is a defence in criminal liability because the infant has no mens rea. An infant is unable to distinguish between right or wrong or between good and bad; proof of the fact that a child is under the age of liability is by the very fact answer to any criminal prosecution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements/General Principles of Law under each General Defence

# data[].attributes.body
For a child to be convicted of the alleged crime, the court will look into 2 things :

Sufficient maturity of understanding

Nature and consequence of the conduct

# data[].attributes.headline
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decided Case Law (Malaysia or any country)

# data[].attributes.body
Walters v Lunt
-The case is about the parents of a 7-year-old boy were accused of receiving stolen stuff in this instance. The boy had brought a child's tricycle home earlier, and the parents kept it on their property despite knowing it had been stolen. The tricycle was not stolen because the child was unable to steal it, and the parents were exonerated.

Ulu Mahapatra v King
-The case about a child of over 11 below 12 years the deceased picked up a fruit on the ground and Ulla protested and demanded its price and threw the food and threatened to cut Ulla into pieces if he went to Tope for plucking then ulla struck deceased with a kathi on he words he uttered: “I shall cut you to bits now” show that he realized the nature and consequences of what he was going to do

-S83: Penal Codes contemplates that the child should know the nature and physical consequences of

his conduct.

# data[].attributes.body
SECTION 82
-offence is done by a child under 10 years of age, it is not an offence

SECTION 83
-offence is done by a child above 10 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct, it is NOT an offence.

Must prove that the childdoes not have the sufficient maturity to know the nature and consequence of the conduct. Or else he will be convicted.

Must prove that he knows that what he does is wrong not necessary legally wrong, to rebut the presumption of doli incapax

# data[].attributes.body
MALAYSIAN LAW
Age limit criminal reponsibility: 10
burden of proof : Lies on the accused

ENGLISH LAW
Age limit criminal reponsibility: 7
burden of proof: Lies on proecutor