Criminal Law
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
LIFE and DEATH a Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000–2010
850 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2010) 22 SAcLJ LIFE AND DEATH A Decade of Biomedical Law Making 2000–2010 This article seeks to provide a survey and broad analysis of the law-making activities of the Singapore legislature in the context of global and national trends in biomedical and healthcare developments from 2000 to 2010 in the following areas: (a) regulation of complementary and alternative medicine; (b) epidemiology, infectious diseases and public health; (c) ethical issues in human organ transplantation; (d) mental capacity, mental health and competence issues; (e) regulation of medical and healthcare professionals; and (f) governance for biomedical research and biosafety. Charles LIM Aeng Cheng* BA (Hons) (Cambridge), MA (Cambridge); Barrister (Middle Temple), FSIArb. I. Introduction 1 In December 2000, the Singapore Bioethics Advisory Committee was established. The ensuing decade, 2000–2010, has witnessed an active Singapore legislature in the area of healthcare and biomedical issues. This article seeks to survey and discuss these legislative changes in the following broad areas: (a) regulation of complementary and alternative medicine; (b) epidemiology, infectious diseases and public health; (c) ethical issues in human organ transplantation; (d) mental capacity, mental health and competence issues; (e) regulation of medical and healthcare professionals; and (f) governance for biomedical research and biosafety. 2 Having regard to the sheer breadth and volume of the legislation generated in the past decade, this article can neither be * The author is currently the Parliamentary Counsel, Attorney-General’s Chambers and a member of the national Bioethics Advisory Committee as well as the National Medical Ethics Committee. This article is written in the author’s personal capacity and does not reflect the official views of the Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Government of Singapore or the Committees. -
A Legal Response to Colin Holmes
J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.17.2.86 on 1 June 1991. Downloaded from Journal ofmedical ethics, 1991, 17, 86-88 Psychopathic disorder: a category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes Irene Mackay University ofManchester Author's abstract diminished responsibility upon which I propose to comment. Holmes is concerned with a conflict between law and The absence of any established medical or medicine about the problem ofpsychopathy, in particular psychiatric definition of 'moral insanity' or as it relates to homicide. 'psychopathy' is noteworthy in this article by Colin He looksfor a consistent set oflegal principles based on Holmes. It is not clear whether either can be referred to a variety ofmedical concepts and in doing so criticises the correctly as an illness or whether the two could be courtfor its commonsense approach, its disregardfor synonymous. Moral insanity is referred to as 'absence medical evidence andfor employing lay notions of of conscience', 'no capacity for true moral feelings', responsibility and illness. 'depravity', and 'absence of moral scruple'. This commentary explores how Holmes's notionsfit into Psychopathy appears to mean 'total lack ofcopyright. existing legal rules and explains how the court seeks the compunction or consequent moral emotion', 'absence assistance ofmedical evidence when looking at the evidence of conscience', 'inability to experience guilt' and 'lack as a whole to enable it to decide upon issues ofdefence, of respect for the moral claims of others'. which involve legal and not medical concepts. Holmes is concerned with the conflict between law There is a difficulty inherent in this paper, as it seeks to and medicine about what he refers to as the problem of psychopathy. -
The Insanity Defence in the Criminal Laws of the Commonwealth of Nations
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2008] 241–263 THE INSANITY DEFENCE IN THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS Stanley Yeo∗ This article compares the M’Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the Com- monwealth of Nations for the purpose of formulating the best possible provision on the defence of insanity. The discussion is enhanced by evaluations of the concept of diminished responsibility operating in the Commonwealth, and of the provision on insanity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. I. Introduction The M’Naghten Rules propounded in 1843 by the judges of the Queen’s Bench in England1 have served as the template for the defence of insanity in the criminal law throughout much of the Commonwealth of Nations (hereinafter described as “the Commonwealth”). As might be expected, variations to the Rules have been developed either through the courts or legislatures as a result of disagreement or dissatisfaction over some feature or other of the Rules. Lately, the advancement of scientific knowledge of mental functioning has created new variations. Yet, in spite of these alternative formulations, the M’Naghten Rules continue to form part of English law and some other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Sierra Leone and the Australian state of New South Wales.2 Is retention of the Rules defensible in the light of these variations or are there aspects which warrant revision? This article seeks to answer this question through a comparative study of the M’Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the criminal laws3 of member states of the Commonwealth.4 ∗ Professor of Law, National University of Singapore. -
Public Prosecutor V Tan Chor
Public Prosecutor v Tan Chor Jin [2007] SGHC 77 Case Number : CC 30/2006 Decision Date : 22 May 2007 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Tay Yong Kwang J Counsel Name(s) : Edwin San and Chew Chin Yee (DPPs) for the Prosecution; Accused in person Parties : Public Prosecutor — Tan Chor Jin 22 May 2007 Judgment reserved. Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction 1 The accused (referred to by the media as the “One-eyed Dragon” because he has an opacity over the cornea of his right eye, which became blind some seven or eight years ago), is now 41 years old. He appeared in person in this trial, having discharged counsel before the preliminary inquiry and having refused legal representation by counsel assigned to him by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. At the commencement of the trial, the accused confirmed that he did not wish to have legal representation and that he wanted to conduct the trial on his own. He spoke mainly in Mandarin but would switch to simple (and often unstructured) English every now and then. 2 The trial involves the following amended capital charge under the Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 revised edition): You, Tan Chor Jin, on the 15th day of February 2006, at Blk 223 Serangoon Avenue 4 #02-183, Singapore, did use an arm, namely a Beretta, 0.22 Calibre pistol by discharging 6 rounds from the said pistol, with intent to cause physical injury to one Lim Hock Soon, male/40 years, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4(1) read with section 4(2) of the Arms Offences Act, Chapter14. -
A Comparison of R. V. Stone with R. V. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY A Comparison of R. v. Stone with R. v. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, John M. Bradford, MB, ChB, and Larissa Fedak, BPE, MSc, LLB J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:541–7, 2002 Both the medical and legal professions recognize that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- some criminal actions take place in the absence of orders, fourth edition (DMS-IV),3 does not define consciousness and intent, thereby inferring that these automatism, although it does include several diag- actions are less culpable. However, experts enter a noses, such as delirium or parasomnias, that could be legal quagmire when medical expert evidence at- the basis for automatism. tempts to find some common meaning for the terms The seminal legal definition is that of Lord Den- “automatism” and “unconsciousness.” ning in Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland: 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines autom- . .an act which is done by the muscles without any control by atism as “Involuntary action. (Psych) action per- the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an formed unconsciously or subconsciously.” This act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, seems precise and simple until we attempt to de- such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while 4 fine unconscious or subconscious. Fenwick2 notes sleepwalking. that consciousness is layered and that these layers This was developed by Canadian courts in R. v. Ra- largely depend on subjective behavior that is ill de- bey: fined. -
Canadian Insanity Defence Reform : Capturing a New Spirit of Mcnaughtan
CANADIAN INSANITY DEFENCE REFORM: CAJX"I'R1NGA NEW SPIRIT OF MCNAUGHTAN. Cheryl S. Angelomatis B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1981 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (CRIMINOLOGY) in the Department of Criminology 0 Cheryl S. Angelomatis 1983 Ib SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY October, 1983 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Cheryl S. Angelomatis Degree: MASTER OF ARTS (CRIMINOLOGY) Title of thesis: CANADIAN INSANITY DEFENCE REFORM: CAPTURING A NEW SPIRIT OF McNAUGHTAN. Examining Committee: -. ,/John W. Ekstedt Chairperson, Associate ~rdfesbor,Crkinology Simon N. vep- ones Senior Supe isor, Associate Professor, Criminology - Ib - - - Duncan Chappell, Progessor, CripinoTogy ~ki-1Boyd I Associate ~rofe!&sor,Criminology - - Yudi th Osborne, External Examiner, Instructor, Criminology Date Approved: November 21, 1983 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University L ibrary, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or othar educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copy i ng or publication of this work for financ ial gain shall no-i be a I lowed without my written permission. -
545 a Critique of Canadian Criminal Legislation Part
545 A CRITIQUE OF CANADIAN CRIMINAL LEGISLATION PART ONE I.Introduction Scope of the study The main object of this study is an examination of the concepts of Canadian legislators as to the nature of criminality and their attitude toward the problem of crime. Its purpose is not an exposition, either descriptive or critical, of Canadian criminal law and procedure. It is to be noted at the outset that all the legislation in force in Canada which in some way pertains to the subject of crime is by no means to be found in some section of the Criminal Codel. However, in view of the fact that the Code, 'with its 1152 sections, deals with the great bulk of Canadian criminal law and procedure, it seems justifiable to assume that its history may be taken as fairly representative of the development of Canadian criminal legislation. Therefore the present discussion will be confined primarily to the Criminal Code, with only incidental reference to other statutes. It will be an attempt to consider, in a general way, the sources of the Code, the cir- cumstances surrounding its adoption, its underlying principles, and the course of amendment since it was first established . The matter which will be made the subject of a more detailed consideration will be the attitudes of the legislators towards the crime problem and the results thereof as shown in the development of the Code from the date of its adoption to the present time. To this end, after a discussion of the back- * Submitted as a thesis in the seminar in Criminology in Relation to Criminal Law and Procedure by Professor Sheldon Glueck, and in the seminar in Legislation by Professor James McC. -
9789814677813
SUBHA THE BEST I COULDFor Review onlyNATIONAL BESTSELLER Subhas Anandan (1947–2015) was undoubtedly Singapore’s best-known S criminal lawyer. From taking on Singapore’s most infamous cases, such as those A of Anthony Ler, Took Leng How and Ah Long San, to espousing his views on NANDAN the mandatory death sentence and police entrapment, Subhas Anandan became the face of criminal defence in Singapore. But why did he choose to represent clients who were to all intents and purposes guilty? And were the criminals he represented the monsters they were made out to be? Part (auto) biography and part log of Singapore’s criminal history, The Best I Could is a candid, at times brutally honest rendition of the boy, the man, the lawyer and the mentor who would ultimately become the voice of Singapore’s underdogs and unwanted. The THE BES book is a journey through dusty jail cells, dramatic courtrooms and the minds of some of the most high-profile criminals to date. At the end of a sometimes emotional ride, underneath his signature public scowl is a heart that is truly made of gold. We are privileged to have him as a colleague and a mentor to our younger colleagues. “Even the most heinous — Tan Chong Huat, Managing Partner, KhattarWong (2009) offender deserves The Best I Could provides a good insight into the criminal mind. Subhas narrates some a proper trial.” of the island’s most heinous crimes and the criminals behind them. Some of the characters are as fascinating as the author himself, and Subhas shows there is some good in the worst of them. -
Cook Islands Justices Bench Book, Second Edition
THE COOK ISLANDS JUSTICES BENCH BOOK Second edition 2012 The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The second edition of the Cook Islands Justices Bench Book was developed by Christopher Roper, in a project conducted by the Pacific Judicial Development Programme. Significant contributions were made by the following people in the Cook Islands, particularly in a three day series of meetings in February 2012: Mataira Ake JP Claudine Henry-Anguna, Registrar of the High Court Tekeu Framhein JP Georgina Keenan-Williams JP John Kenning JP Teati Mokoroa, Deputy Registrar of the High Court Kautai Ruaporo, Court Clerk Tuingariki Short JP Tauei Solomon JP Tangi Taoro JP Carmen Temata JP Tinirau Tupa, Court Clerk Taepae Tuteru JP © High Court of the Cook Islands i The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book QUICK GUIDE TO FIND WHAT YOU NEED Adjournments Go to Tab 12 Bail applications Go to Tab 13 Child witnesses Go to Tab 19 – section 19.5.4 Contempt of court Go to Tab 19 – section 19.6 Guilty pleas Go to Tab 11 – section 11.5 Jurisdiction of justices Go to Tab 3 – section 3.5 Name suppression Go to Tab 14 No case to answer Go to Tab 16 – section 16.6 Probation Go to Tab 15 – section 15.5.2 Remanding in custody Go to Tab 13 – section 13.3 ii The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS IN BRIEF FOUNDATIONS 1 The constitutional context 2 The law in the Cook Islands 3 Introduction to the High Court 4 Dealing with evidence 5 Criminal law and human rights 6 Principles of criminal responsibility 7 Judicial conduct IN THE COURT -
Principles of Cybercrime
PRINCIPLES OF CYBERCRIME Digital technology has transformed the way in which we socialise and do business. Proving the maxim that crime follows opportunity, virtually every advance has been accompanied by a corresponding niche to be exploited for criminal purposes; so-called ‘cybercrimes’. Whether it be fraud, child pornography, stalking, criminal copyright infringement or attacks on computers themselves, criminals will find ways to exploit new technology. The challenge for all countries is to ensure their criminal laws keep pace. The challenge is a global one, and much can be learned from the experience of other jurisdictions. Focusing on Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA, this book provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles that apply to the prosecution of cybercrimes. This new edition has been fully revised to take into account changes in online offending, as well as new case law and legislation in this rapidly developing area of the law. jonathan clough is a professor in the Faculty of Law at Monash University, Australia. He teaches and researches in the areas of criminal law and evidence, with a particular focus on cybercrime. In addition to teaching cybercrime in the Monash LLM programme, he has written numerous articles on the topic. He has also provided advice to govern- ment on cybercrime-related issues, and was a member of the Common- wealth Working Group of Experts on Cybercrime. /47879CBD, 645C7:8 C:6C8 04D38CD28B4,,D5868.45C7:8.C88CD 9D8444584BD, 645C7:8 C:6C88CD BD,7 C: .1 /47879CBD, 645C7:8 C:6C8 04D38CD28B4,,D5868.45C7:8.C88CD 9D8444584BD, 645C7:8 C:6C88CD BD,7 C: .1 PRINCIPLES OF CYBERCRIME second edition JONATHAN CLOUGH /47879CBD, 645C7:8 C:6C8 04D38CD28B4,,D5868.45C7:8.C88CD 9D8444584BD, 645C7:8 C:6C88CD BD,7 C: .1 University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. -
![Eu Lim Hoklai V Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 16](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/4012/eu-lim-hoklai-v-public-prosecutor-2011-sgca-16-3314012.webp)
Eu Lim Hoklai V Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 16
Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 16 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 14 of 2009 (Criminal Case No 1 of 2008) Decision Date : 12 April 2011 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the appellant; Winston Cheng Howe Ming, Charlene Tay and Lau Kah Hee (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Eu Lim Hoklai — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Evidence – Weight of Evidence [LawNet Editorial Note: This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in [2009] SGHC 151.] 12 April 2011 Judgment reserved. V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is an appeal brought by Eu Lim Hoklai (“the accused”) against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) in Public Prosecutor v Eu Lim Hoklai [2009] SGHC 151 (“the Judgment”) that held him guilty of the murder of one Yu Hongjin (“the deceased”) on Sunday, 18 June 2006. The accused was found to have caused the deceased’s death by strangling her, thus committing an offence under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The Judge rejected all the defences the accused had raised and, upon convicting him, imposed the mandatory death sentence. Background The accused 2 At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 52 years of age and had been married for 28 years. For 22 years, he and his wife operated a food stall selling cooked seafood in Tampines. -
WJEC/Eduqas a Level Law Book 2 Answers
WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 answers Chapter 1: The law of contract Activity 1.1 Legal authority Legal authority Rule s9 Services must be provided at a reasonable price. s10 An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. The consumer’s legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory s11 quality. s20 Goods must be fi t for purpose. s23 Goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a service does not satisfy criteria, trader should redo the inadequate s49 element at no extra cost. Where repeat performance of the service is not possible, the consumer s50 can obtain a price reduction. s51 Goods must be as described. Retailer must be given the opportunity to repair or replace defective goods s52 outside the 30 days of purchase. s55 Services must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any information given to the consumer before the service is provided is s56 binding. s62 Services must be provided within a reasonable time. Activity 1.2 Implied terms These are mini scenarios for which the students can use the IDA structure to construct mini answers using the relevant statute provisions. 1 WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 answers Activity 1.3 Application question (taken from WJEC/Eduqas SAMs material) 1. The question is taken from WJEC/Eduqas sample assessment material. Refer to https://www.eduqas.co.uk/qualifi cations/law/A-level-Law-SAMs.pdf, page 35, for indicative content of a response. 2. Use the approach outlined in the SAM that covers Q1 to respond. Discus it with a classmate if you want to.