Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

Postprint

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

Research Areas

Law, Society and Governance

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

Copyright Owner and License

Author

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Share

COinS