Question 1

Chong has dinner at his restaurant every Thursday. One day, he finds his usual parking spot
taken by another vehicle. Driving around, he sees an empty spot nearby and quickly pulls up to
it. As he begins reversing into the spot, he notices a sign warning that the parking spot was
reserved for emergency vehicles. Chong stops the car, but before he can pull out, a road traffic
officer comes up and issues a parking ticket. Chong explains that he was halfway in when he saw
the sign and had intended to leave. The officer threatens to prosecute him for attempted illegal
parking.

Chong finds another place to park, displays the requisite number of punched parking coupons and
enters the restaurant. Unknown to Chong, his arch enemy, Dollah, had planned to kill him that
night by poisoning Chong at the restaurant. The police, who had learnt of Dollah’s plans months
ago and were secretly following him, arrested Dollah as he was about to enter the restaurant. The
police then enter the restaurant to inform Chong, but instead find him lying by his table, gasping.
Chong is rushed to hospital, where he is revived. Doctors find traces of poison in his stomach,
but not in sufficient amounts to kill him.

Later, Chong queries the police as to when they had known of Dollah’s plans. The police reveal
their knowledge of the timeline:

15 Jan 2020: Dollah had plans to assassinate his business rival, Chong at his own restaurant.
30 Jan 2020: Dollah made inquiries amongst criminal gangs on available poisons.
10 Feb 2020: Dollah sought to purchase the poison that was used.
20 Feb 2020: Dollah received the poison, in sufficient quantity to kill a human
25 Feb 2020: Dollah recruited Saras, a waitress at the restaurant, to put the poison in Chong’s
drink
12 Mar 2020: Dollah provides the poison to Saras
16 Mar 2020: Dollah calls Saras and tells her not to do anything until he gives the order
19 Mar 2020: Saras poisons Chong and the police arrest Dollah

When questioned, Saras confesses that she had used only half the poison given to her and kept the
other half, hoping to sell it to some other criminal. She thought that half the poison would be
sufficient, but did not care whether she succeeded or not, as she thought Dollah would never
know that she had not administered all the poison.

Dollah claims that he was not going to go ahead with the plan and had only turned up at the
restaurant to confront Chong.

During the investigation, the police discover that the parking coupons used by Chong were
counterfeit. Chong swears that he bought the coupons legally from his regular authorised sales
outlet.

Discuss the criminal liability of

A. Chong for (i) attempted illegal parking, and (ii) parking without displaying a valid
coupon
B. Dollah and Saras for the attempted murder of Chong

1
Chong:

Illegal parking
Attempt

 S511  ) A person attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code or by

any other written law who, with the intention of committing that offence takes a
substantial step towards the commission of that offence.
 (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is a substantial step towards the
commission of an offence if it is strongly corroborative of an intention to commit
the offence and the following are examples of acts which in the circumstances of
each case may constitute taking a substantial step:

Mens rea of offence  Even if it is a strict liability crime you are attempting, you must intend to
commit it. But in this case, there was no intention of parking in an illegal space, just merely to
park in a space

Actus Reus Substantial step made? Yes, for what reason would he pull out if not to park. No, it
looks like a preparatory act of parking.

Mistake of fact

Parking Coupon look at provision… strict liability

Mistake of fact  belief in good faith?  legal precedent OTF?

Dollah:
Abetment  Liable for attempted murder
Attempt: s307
When dealing with s307 don’t have to refer to mens rea in s300
- Mens rea Intended to cause death? Yes intention to kill has manifested only on 25
Jan. But on 15 Jan, there was only intention, but no actus reus.
- Actus reus  Illustration c) & d) applies, caveat they are explanatory not rules of law.
o On 15 Jan, no actus reus made out
o 30 Jan, no actus reus made out
o 10 Feb, no actus reus made out  but if you were applying the substantial step
test under s511 actus reus made out  if it is strongly corroborative of an
intention to commit the offence

2
 o 2025 feb not sufficient yet, only provided the instructions and not the
poison
o 12 march act of murder can be effectively committed as poison provided here.
He only told her on 16 March to delay until he gives the order

All the subsequent acts are inconsequential as on 12 mArch there is concurrence of

actus reus and mens rea.

There is no defence of withdrawal

Sara
Attempt
Intention to cause death (she thought that half was sufficient but she did not care that she
succeeded or not) and done all steps necessary

- Thought that half was sufficient rashness? Intention does not mean motive…
saras can have intention without motive.
- Did not care  no motive but still an intention?
- Actus reus made out as impossibility not a bar to conviction.