You are on page 1of 3

Defence for Eddies death liability First defence that would be profoundly used in this case is exceeding private

defence. Exceeding private defence is being elaborated as1 ........traditionally recognised as a justification because society regards the conduct of the defender as preferable to the conduct of his or her aggressor In this case, Carol is attempting to use the weapon (which is a revolver) to threaten Eddie in good faith to escape. It is a pure intention to escape from the danger and not any ill intention to cause any harm or death to Eddie when she said Let me go as she pointed the gun at Eddie. In Section 97(a) of the Penal Code2, it is considered as permissible to an action of killing only when it was necessary to repulse the victim of one of the threats mentioned in Section 100. To the context of this case, it is most appropriate to bring out Section 100 (a) and (f), where section 100(a) stated if the assault of the victim against the accused that the accused apprehend that death might be occurring to him/her, she could resort to this defence and section100 (f) stated that if the victim wrongfully confine this accused causing her have no chance to seek for public authority assistance. In this case, Carol had pleaded Eddie to let her go but Eddie reluctant to do so and continues to threaten her and hence it has satisfied section 100 (a). Whereas at the point where Eddie persistency in giving her death threat even from the time of the robbery till the time when Eddie physically assaulted after reaching Eddies garage have led to the self defence to shoot Eddie. The breaking point of the case is when Eddie attempted to hold the barrel of the gun. That would have imminently pose as a threat to her life as she is a defenceless woman that would not win the struggle of the fight, she has to pull to the trigger as she sensed the threat to her life as Eddie is about to get hold of the weapon. This is supported by comment by the Nigerian judge in the case of Josiah Pnyemaizu3:......self-defence is only available if there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm .....Claims to have exercised that right had reasonable ground to believe that the only way to protect him from death.... Another case could be supporting this case is PP v Morzuku Salleh4 where in the case the accused was held that the grave situation the accused was facing when the victim tried to slashed the accused with parang and in the act of self defence he stabbed the victim once. The court held that the danger was real and imminent that he has to act to save his own life. As for the situation as Eddie attempted to wrestle the revolver, it would have contributed to the imminent danger to any reasonable
1

See generally, N Omichinski, Applying the Theories of Justifiable Homicide to Conflicts in the Doctrine of Self-Defense 33 WAYNE LAW REVIEW 1447 (1997); S. Kadish, Respect for Life and Regard for Rights in the Criminal Law 64 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 871 (1976); S. YEO, COMPULSION IN THE CRIMINAL LAW (Law Book Company, 1990), Chapter 1.
2 3

Act 574 [1958] AIR NLR 93 4 [2004] 5 CLJ 127

defenceless woman to protect herself as she knew the real danger of being killed or harmed as the weapon fall into the hand of the aggressor. Another support to this provision is provided by5 Mehrota KC cited in approval of the case PP v Yeo Kim Bok6 that the accused is allowed to exercise the private defence (a) A defender need not wait till he is actually attacked and (d) if the defender is unable to escape, he may turn around to attack. Second defence that could be brought up by Carol is insanity. The light that shines the meaning of insanity could be found in the case of MNaghten7:............to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, as at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing.... In this case, as the defence counsel, I would submit that Carol is suffering from mental disorder due to the prolonged use of recreational drugs. The effect of the drugs onto the normal functions of the brain could be found the medical research paper published by the Drug Free Australia in 20098. It is medically proven that the recreational drugs not only will have a short term effect of intoxication but a long term effect of brain dysfunction including inability to decision and reality. Hence, with the support of the above evidence, I would bring up the provision in the Penal Code, section 84 which contains that the reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to the law. Hence, I would contended that the act of my client is purely due to insanity and do not have the knowledge of the act. The drugs have impaired the cognitive faculties as opposed to the emotional capacity9. This will imply that she should not be found guilty at the absence of the capacity to reason. The other evidence that I would bring forward is the action of my client in shooting the gun at the victim ceaselessly till the running out of the ammunition which would render the actions beyond the normal actions that would be done by normal reasonable man. Mental disorder could also be proven and recognised by the qualified medical personnel as a sign of abnormality. Hence, I would submit that the actions above does not render the mere contention by the prosecuting officer of intention but is a significant evidence of unsound mind. Thus, hereby I contended that my client would have fulfilled the two requirements of mental disease due to the prolonged use of drugs to the brain functions and not knowing the illegality where the mental disease has rendered my client unable to differentiate the wrong and right of the action.

5 6

Culpable Homicide and Legal Defence [1967] [1971] 1 MLJ 206 7 [1843] 10 Cl & F 200 8 Heather Ashton DM, FRCP et all, Cannabis suicide ,schizophrenia and other ill-effect, Drug Free Australia Ltd (2009, Australia) 9 Peiris, General Principle of Criminal Labiality in Ceylon, A Comparative Analysis [1972] at page 136

References Cases Josiah Pnyemaizu [1958] AIR NLR 93 PP v Morzuku Salleh[2004] 5 CLJ 127 PP v Yeo Kim Bok[1971] 1 MLJ 206 MNaghten[1843] 10 Cl & F 200 Textbooks 1. Lee Chong Fook and Che Audah Hassan , Offences Against Person And Property , (Reed Elsevier 2008,Singapore). 2. Y.Stanley, N.Morgan and W.C Chan, Criminal Law in Malaysia And Singapore ( my book not completed printed u find out) 3. Molly Cheang , Criminal Law of Malaysia and Singapore: Principle of Liability 4. David Ormerod, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law Oxford University Publisher (12th ed 2008, Oxford ) 5. Jonathan Herring,Criminal Law : Text, Cases and Materials,Oxford University Publisher (3rd ed 2008,Oxford) 6. Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law Oxford University Publisher(9th ed 2008, Oxford)

Article 1. Stanley Yeo,Bringing Clarity To Private Defence: The Singapore Experience (NUJS law review) March 2010