Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
publishedVersion
Publication Date
7-2011
Abstract
It was only in 2008 that the Court of Appeal made a seminal restatement of the law on common intention, particularly with respect to liability in so-called ‘twin crime’ situations. The question posed then was posed again recently in Daniel Vijay: what exactly is the required mens rea for the secondary offender in such situations? In 2008, the Court of Appeal said that the secondary offender had to subjectively know that one in his party might likely commit the collateral offence in furtherance of the common intention of carrying out the primary offence. Now, in Daniel Vijay, the Court of Appeal has said that the secondary offender must have had the intention to commit the collateral offence. Has there been a change in the law, and if so, is this for the better?
Discipline
Asian Studies | Criminal Law
Publication
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
Volume
[2011]
First Page
237
Last Page
249
ISSN
0218-2173
Publisher
National University of Singapore
Embargo Period
4-25-2017
Citation
CHEN, Siyuan.
The Final Twist in Common Intention? Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor. (2011). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. [2011], 237-249.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1975
Copyright Owner and License
Author
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.