Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

1-2011

Abstract

Recently, the Court of,4ppeal in Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor took the view thatthe law on common intention was not adequately settled in Singapore despite the 138-year history ofs. 34 ofthe Penal Code. It went on to give an extensive review of the cases interpreting the section aswell as its Indian equivalent, before setting out the proper approach to take in "twin crime" commonintention cases, focusing specifically on the mens rea element required in order to establish constructiveliabilityfor the secondary crime. This case note seeks to highlight the changes brought about byDaniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor andto comment on the significance ofthese changes.

Discipline

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration

Publication

Singapore Law Review

Volume

29

First Page

21

Last Page

33

ISSN

0080-9691

Publisher

National University of Singapore Faculty of Law

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