This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
charged for murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code. However, this offence was done by Maggie under the condition of intoxication. Intoxication is a general exception in criminal law which could be a defence for an accused from his or her criminal liability. In the defences for Maggie under the exception for, intoxication, as stated under section 85 of the Penal Code, in subsection (2), where 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 by 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. In this case, it is possible that Maggie did not know what had she actually done at the time of doing the act of murder, or she did not that what she had done to Mrs Frank, the deceased, was a crime, because she was in intoxication at that time, right after she came back from the night club, and was in the drunken condition. There were nothing in the fact of the case that could prove that she had actually realize about what she was doing or did not know that what she had done is wrong and thus rises a doubt. Furthermore, Maggie might be insane at that time when killing the deceased, which is her mother. This act is definitely unexpectable and could not be considered as ordinary due to the proximate relationship between the accused and the deceased, which is the daughter and mother. By reasonable thinking, a person would not do an act of harm towards his or her family members who have the close relationship to them unless there existed a certain reason such as a great hate. However, in this case, Maggie had done a cruel act by killing her mother, who was a closed family member to her , by using a knife. This act is definitely unexpected reasonably to be done by a daughter towards her mother as there was nothing which showed that the accused had a great hate to her mother in the fact of this case. In fact it had only showed the exists of misunderstanding and serious quarrel between Maggie and
thus section 84 of Penal Code and section 347 and 348 of Kanun Acara Jenayah have to be applied. Besides. Therefore. Under section 86(1). Thus. when the defence under section 85(2) is applicable. Similar to the present case.Mrs. according to section 86(2) of the Penal Code. which further creates an intention or a motive to murder the deceased. Frank. when committing the act of murdering as stated in section 85(2)(b) of Penal Code. Thus. and the intoxication could be a defence for her under section 85 (2) (b). By further proving that the accused had actually do not have intention to do the act of killing. This means. the act of killing could be considered being done by reason of unsoundness of mind of the accused caused by intoxication. he was actually experienced ‘delirium tremens’ caused by drinking too much alchohol . due to intoxication. In the case PP v Tan Ho Teck  2 CLJ 85. the accused was charged for murdering his brother. for the event included in (b). and that Maggie had changed from a fine daughter to a spoilt one. Thus. where nothing is an offence done by a person where at that time of doing it. Section 85 (2) is applicable for Maggie as a defence. In accordance to section 84. the conviction of murder under section 300(a) should be quashed. At that time of doing the act. Maggie did this act in the condition of drunken. . The court held that he had done the act of killing caused by unsoundness of mind and did not know that the act was wrong or contrary to law at that time of doing it. this act could be considered as insane. which is not reasonably sufficient to constituted a great hate from Maggie to her mother. by reason of unsoundness of mind he does not know that the act is either wrong or contrary to law. specific or otherwise. as Maggie had killed her mother because of her unsoundness of mind caused by intoxication. the act cannot be considered as wrong. intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention. which caused him unable to know that his act was wrong and did not know what he was doing. The court had actually refered to section 84 which is the conduct caused by unsoundness of mind. the accused is said to be insane. in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence.
Beard (1920) has undergone some development in England in relations to the category of crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent. In the fact of this case. In fact. . and assault.In the present case. Maggie would have no intention of doing this act of murder and she will not commit it if she was not in intoxication at that time. Maggie would have no intention and would not do the act of killing her mother without the intoxication. This was intended to circumscribe the defence of intoxication. Although there existed a misunderstanding and serious quarrel between Maggie and her mother when her mother forced her to do the abortion and therefore she changed from a fine daughter to a spoilt one. voluntary intoxication does not give defence to release the accused from his or her criminal liability in general. includes murder.induced intoxication can provide a defence only to crimes of specific intent. robbery. The public prosecutor cannot prove that Maggie had actually have the intention to kill her own mother. Rule 2 of Beard (1920) established that self. an ordinary person would not hope his or her mother to die or do something cruel to her mother or family members unless she has a great hate to her mother. it rises a doubt where the act of killing her mother was not done without her intention in addition to the intoxication at that time when the act is done. Thus. Basically crimes of specific intent need only the proving of intention as the mens rea element in that crime. it silent about the kind of intoxication and the accused is believed to had been voluntarily intoxicated herself as she had came back to her house to commit the act after drinking at the night club. In other words. According to the England law. which is in accordance to section 86(2). By reasonable thinking. Crimes of specific intent are those that only can be committed intentionally and in which the mens rea goes further than the actus reus. did not signify a great hate on Maggie to her mother and create an intention of murder in her mind. theft. The law has categorized the defences for intoxication into 2 parts which is voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. According to Lord Simon in the case DPP v Majewski. It involves the deliberate intentional taking of drinks or drugs to an amount that can produce a state of intoxication. this situation however. It means that the specific intention have to be existed in doing the said crime. Those crimes that had been categorised by the England courts as crimes of specific intent. voluntary or self-induced intoxication is not defined in the Penal Code. a crimes of specific intent needs proving of an element of specific intention. It must also exist an ulterior intent on the accused side to commit that crime.
it is need to prove by the prosecution that the intention of the accused to kill her mother. can actually rely on the defence under voluntary intoxication because the crime that she had committed. the judge had given an example: the accused was charged for an offence of destroying the property with the intention to cause danger to the others life. The court held that the onus of proof was on the Crown to establish that. is actually the crimes of specific intent. notwithstanding the alleged intoxication. As similar to the present case. However. . the voluntary intoxication may be a defence. In the present case. Thus. the English Court of Appeal (criminal Division) quashed a conviction for murder and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. This is considered as crimes of specific intent because it need to be proved the specific intention which is threatening life. section 86(2) is applicable for the accused as a defence. the accused did form an intent. despite her intoxication. Thus. Thus. Besides that.In the case of Caldwell. The conviction for murder shall be quashed due to the intent is unable to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore. she was incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime. it is important to prove the intention of doing this act in order to convict her for murder. the prosecution has only to establish that the accused had the intent despite his intoxication. the accused. which is murder. Maggie. . In Sheehan and Moore (1975). An intoxicated man may be capable of forming an intent but may not have done so in the particular alleged offence. the accused cannot be proved that she had having the intention to kill the deceased.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.