1

AbetmentAbetment

2

AbetmentAbetment

Abetment, conspiracy, attempt: inchoate Abetment, conspiracy, attempt: inchoate crimes (does not depend on completion of crimes (does not depend on completion of primary crime)primary crime)

Extends liability beyond the actual Extends liability beyond the actual commission of the defined crimecommission of the defined crime

3

Abetment

107.107.A person abets the doing of a thing who —A person abets the doing of a thing who — (a) (a) instigatesinstigates any person to do that thing; any person to do that thing; (b) engages with one or more other person or persons (b) engages with one or more other person or persons

in any cin any conspiracy onspiracy for the doing of that thing, if for the doing of that thing, if an act an act or illegal omission takes placeor illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; orconspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(c) (c) intentionally aidsintentionally aids, , by any act or illegal omissionby any act or illegal omission, , the doing of that thing.the doing of that thing.

4

Punishment: abetted offense Punishment: abetted offense committedcommitted

109.109.Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted abetted is committed in consequence of the is committed in consequence of the abetmentabetment, and no express provision is made by , and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished abetment, be punished with the with the punishment provided for the offencepunishment provided for the offence.  . 

5

Punishment: abetted offence not done

116.116.Whoever abets an offence Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment punishable with imprisonment shallshall, if that offence is , if that offence is not committednot committed in consequence of the in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-fourth one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such part of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with bothfine as is provided for that offence, or with both; and if the ; and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent  the commission of such offence, the abettor shall is to prevent  the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest  term provided for that offence, or to one-half of the longest  term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both.with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both.

6

Punishment: offences punishable by death or life imprisonment

115.115.Whoever abets the commission of an offence Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for lifepunishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, , shall, if that offence is if that offence is not committednot committed in consequence of the in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with punished with imprisonment for a term which may imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fineextend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine; and ; and if any act for which the abettor is liable in if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurtcauses hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment for a term imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 which may extend to 14 years, and shall also be liable to fineyears, and shall also be liable to fine..

7

Abetment: AR & MR

AbetmentAbetment Distinct and different AR & MR from principal actor (P)Distinct and different AR & MR from principal actor (P)

ARAR InstigateInstigate Conspire with (act/omission taken in pursuance of Conspire with (act/omission taken in pursuance of

conspiracy) conspiracy) AidAid

MRMR Intend own contribution (instigation, conspire, aid)Intend own contribution (instigation, conspire, aid) Appreciate the nature of P’s actions (know of essential Appreciate the nature of P’s actions (know of essential

facts making P’s actions an offense)facts making P’s actions an offense)

8

Abetment: ARInstigation

Balakrishnan and Another Balakrishnan and Another ““active suggestion, support, stimulation or active suggestion, support, stimulation or

encouragement”encouragement” Words or actions; direct/explicit or Words or actions; direct/explicit or

indirect/implicit indirect/implicit E.g. “Ram ram” E.g. “Ram ram” Mohit PandeyMohit Pandey Mere presence possible – if factually encourages P Mere presence possible – if factually encourages P

(question of fact: r/s between A & P, context)(question of fact: r/s between A & P, context) Note: encouragement must be received Note: encouragement must be received

9

Abetment: AR Conspiracy

Two requirementsTwo requirements Engages in conspiracy with anotherEngages in conspiracy with another An act or illegal omission performed An act or illegal omission performed

ConspiracyConspiracy Agreement – commonality of purpose – not just mere Agreement – commonality of purpose – not just mere

involvementinvolvement Lee Yuen Hong Lee Yuen Hong (A and P collected X amount from client (A and P collected X amount from client

on behalf of F, P wrongfully lent A sum, A treated it as on behalf of F, P wrongfully lent A sum, A treated it as loan, P charged with criminal breach of trust)loan, P charged with criminal breach of trust)

Held: “not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Held: “not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant and Don Wee had engaged in a conspiracy to commit the appellant and Don Wee had engaged in a conspiracy to commit the offense of criminal breach of trust..evidence in court did not reveal offense of criminal breach of trust..evidence in court did not reveal an agreement between the two parties to commit the offense in an agreement between the two parties to commit the offense in question…”question…”

10

Abetment: AR Conspiracy

Agreement – but don’t need to know everyone who is involved or exact Agreement – but don’t need to know everyone who is involved or exact details of conspiracydetails of conspiracy

s. 108, Explanation 5.—It is s. 108, Explanation 5.—It is not necessarynot necessary to the commission of the to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the should concert the offence with the person who commits it.offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

AA concerts with concerts with BB a plan for poisoning a plan for poisoning ZZ. It is agreed that . It is agreed that AA shall administer the poison. shall administer the poison. BB then explains the plan to then explains the plan to CC, mentioning that , mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning AA’s name. ’s name. CC agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to BB for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. AA administers the poison; administers the poison; ZZ dies in consequence. Here, dies in consequence. Here, though though AA and and CC have have not conspired togethernot conspired together, yet , yet CC has been engaged in the conspiracy in has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which pursuance of which ZZ has been murdered. has been murdered. CC has therefore committed the has therefore committed the offence defined in this section, and is liable to the punishment for murder. offence defined in this section, and is liable to the punishment for murder. 

11

Abetment: AR Aid

S. 107, explanation 2S. 107, explanation 2 Whoever, either Whoever, either prior to or at the timeprior to or at the time of the of the

commission of an act, does anything commission of an act, does anything in order toin order to facilitatefacilitate the commission of that act, and  the commission of that act, and thereby thereby facilitatesfacilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.  doing of that act. 

Must have actually assistedMust have actually assisted If merely trying to help (no actual assistance) – If merely trying to help (no actual assistance) –

may be attempt to aidmay be attempt to aid

12

Abetment: AR Aid

Note: includes omissions Note: includes omissions S. 32.In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears S. 32.In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears

from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal illegal omissionsomissions. .

S. 43.The word S. 43.The word “illegal”“illegal” or “unlawful” is applicable to every thing which is an or “unlawful” is applicable to every thing which is an offenceoffence, or which is , or which is prohibited by lawprohibited by law, or which furnishes , or which furnishes ground for a civil ground for a civil actionaction: and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal or : and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal or unlawful in him to omit.   unlawful in him to omit.  

Example of omissionsExample of omissions Omission by non-disclosure: S. 107 Explanation 1- A person who, by willful Omission by non-disclosure: S. 107 Explanation 1- A person who, by willful

misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Balakrishnan: Balakrishnan: “found that it was incumbent upon WO Balakrishnan to take “found that it was incumbent upon WO Balakrishnan to take preventive action when he witnessed the water treatment…failure to do so was preventive action when he witnessed the water treatment…failure to do so was a breach of a legal obligation…the fact that usage of the tub was approved by a breach of a legal obligation…the fact that usage of the tub was approved by his superiors did not detract from WO Balakrishnan’s basic responsibility as a his superiors did not detract from WO Balakrishnan’s basic responsibility as a Course Commander, which was, as stipulated by the TMP, to prevent training Course Commander, which was, as stipulated by the TMP, to prevent training accident and injury, as well as to administer the discipline and general conduct accident and injury, as well as to administer the discipline and general conduct of the instructors…aided in the commission of that offense by omitting to of the instructors…aided in the commission of that offense by omitting to intervene”intervene”

13

Abetment: MR

MR MR Must intend his own AR contribution (instigate, Must intend his own AR contribution (instigate,

conspire or aid)conspire or aid) Must appreciate the nature of P’s actions (know of Must appreciate the nature of P’s actions (know of

essential facts relating to P’s actions that make essential facts relating to P’s actions that make those actions an offese)those actions an offese)

Note: A does not need to meet the AR and MR Note: A does not need to meet the AR and MR of the actual abetted offense – elements of of the actual abetted offense – elements of abetment liability are independent of the abetment liability are independent of the abetted offense abetted offense

14

Abetment: MRAbetment: MR

Intention to instigate, conspire or aidIntention to instigate, conspire or aid Intends his actual act Intends his actual act Intends to instigate, conspire with or aid P’s conductIntends to instigate, conspire with or aid P’s conduct No need to desire or intend that P commits offense No need to desire or intend that P commits offense

Balakrishnan Balakrishnan “by omitting to stop the conduct of water treatment…

intended to aid the commission of offenses against them…”

“The only reasonable inference that I could draw from WO Balakrishnan’s failure to intervene was that he intended for the treatment to continue”

15

Abetment: MRAbetment: MR

What if A acts with more than one intention?What if A acts with more than one intention? Court will identify dominant intention Court will identify dominant intention As applied – courts have applied this principle when the two intentions As applied – courts have applied this principle when the two intentions

relate to two different offenses relate to two different offenses Daw Aye Aye Mu: Daw Aye Aye Mu: Assisting illegal immigrant to find employment or Assisting illegal immigrant to find employment or

assisting employer to employ illegal immigrant assisting employer to employ illegal immigrant Note: s. 107 requires “(c) Note: s. 107 requires “(c) intentionally intentionally aids, by any act aids, by any act

or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Hendricks Glen Conleth: Hendricks Glen Conleth: “having examined the evidence carefully, I “having examined the evidence carefully, I

found it could not have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that [A] found it could not have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that [A] either knew or either knew or should have suspectedshould have suspected that there was something that there was something improper”improper”

Introduction of negligence standard? Against explicit PC wordingIntroduction of negligence standard? Against explicit PC wording

16

Abetment: MRAbetment: MR Note: willful blindness --- you still have to infer actual Note: willful blindness --- you still have to infer actual

knowledge knowledge Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP [2009] 2 SLR 1037 [2009] 2 SLR 1037

Abetment by aiding to make a false claim before a court of justice (s. Abetment by aiding to make a false claim before a court of justice (s. 209, PC)209, PC)

Held: cited case law on knowledge and “willful blindness”Held: cited case law on knowledge and “willful blindness” Atwar Singh Atwar Singh was cited: “actual knowledge of certain facts can be was cited: “actual knowledge of certain facts can be

inferredinferred from the evidence that the defendant had deliberately or from the evidence that the defendant had deliberately or willfully shut his eyes to the obvious or that he had refrained from willfully shut his eyes to the obvious or that he had refrained from inquiry because he suspected the truth but did not want to have his inquiry because he suspected the truth but did not want to have his suspicion confirmed …However, it has to be remembered that there is suspicion confirmed …However, it has to be remembered that there is a vast difference between a state of mind which consists of deliberately a vast difference between a state of mind which consists of deliberately shutting the eyes to the obvious, the result of which a person does not shutting the eyes to the obvious, the result of which a person does not care to have, and a state of mind which is merely neglecting to make care to have, and a state of mind which is merely neglecting to make inquiries which a reasonable and prudent man would make..”inquiries which a reasonable and prudent man would make..”

17

Abetment: MR A needs to know the nature of P’s actionsA needs to know the nature of P’s actions But no need to know precise details But no need to know precise details Sinniah Pillay Sinniah Pillay

A conspired with others to attack and cause grievous hurt to V – attack A conspired with others to attack and cause grievous hurt to V – attack used formic acid – A argued did not know would use acid used formic acid – A argued did not know would use acid

Held: not necessary that A knows all details – “evidence clearly Held: not necessary that A knows all details – “evidence clearly pointed to the fact that what the appellant wanted done to Ramasamy pointed to the fact that what the appellant wanted done to Ramasamy was that he was to be injured to such an extent that he would be sent to was that he was to be injured to such an extent that he would be sent to hospital. As explained by Raja Ratnam, the Tamil idiomatic expression hospital. As explained by Raja Ratnam, the Tamil idiomatic expression “must break his hand or leg” did not necessarily mean that a hand or “must break his hand or leg” did not necessarily mean that a hand or leg must, literally, be broken. The expression meant hurt of a serious leg must, literally, be broken. The expression meant hurt of a serious nature, ie grievous hurt. The appellant had not specified the means to nature, ie grievous hurt. The appellant had not specified the means to be adopted to cause the grievous hurt. He be adopted to cause the grievous hurt. He left it entirely to the left it entirely to the discretiondiscretion of the co-conspirators. What was done by the co- of the co-conspirators. What was done by the co-conspirators was conspirators was within the scope of his instructionswithin the scope of his instructions to cause grievous to cause grievous hurt to Ramasamy so that he would be sent to hospital”hurt to Ramasamy so that he would be sent to hospital”

18

Abetment: comparing the 3 kinds Difference between the 3 kinds of abetment: instigation, Difference between the 3 kinds of abetment: instigation,

conspiracy, aidingconspiracy, aiding Whang Sung Lin Whang Sung Lin [2010] SGHC 53[2010] SGHC 53 (para. 36 – 37) (para. 36 – 37)

Organ transplant - passed organ dealer’s contact number to his uncle-Organ transplant - passed organ dealer’s contact number to his uncle-in-law whom he knew needed kidney transplant in-law whom he knew needed kidney transplant

Lower court: abetment by instigationLower court: abetment by instigation Prosecutor: argued that A made price suggestions to middle man – this Prosecutor: argued that A made price suggestions to middle man – this

amounted to instigationamounted to instigation Defense: was merely “conduit” not “catalyst”Defense: was merely “conduit” not “catalyst” High court: all the A was “helping to put the two willing parties High court: all the A was “helping to put the two willing parties

together or ‘intentionally aiding’ them within the meaning of s 107(c) together or ‘intentionally aiding’ them within the meaning of s 107(c) of the Penal Code. He could hardly be said to be ‘actively suggesting, of the Penal Code. He could hardly be said to be ‘actively suggesting, supporting, stimulating or encouraging’ them to do the transaction…supporting, stimulating or encouraging’ them to do the transaction…neither Tang nor Wang needed any goading or encouragement.”neither Tang nor Wang needed any goading or encouragement.”

19

Abetment: comparing the 3 kindsAbetment: comparing the 3 kinds Whang Sung Lin Whang Sung Lin [2010] SGHC 53[2010] SGHC 53 (para. 39)(para. 39)

High Court: “the appellant is High Court: “the appellant is not correctnot correct in suggesting that abetment by in suggesting that abetment by aiding is a aiding is a lesser crimelesser crime than abetment by instigation….” than abetment by instigation….”

““Although it is established that for the purposes of Although it is established that for the purposes of sentencing,sentencing, the the extent of the accused person’sextent of the accused person’s role role in the offence is a relevant in the offence is a relevant consideration …there is no reason why a person who aids in an offence consideration …there is no reason why a person who aids in an offence is necessarily less morally culpable than one who instigates the is necessarily less morally culpable than one who instigates the offence. Section 107 of the Penal Code offence. Section 107 of the Penal Code draws no distinctiondraws no distinction among the among the three categories of abetment and s 109 does not make any distinction in three categories of abetment and s 109 does not make any distinction in the court’s sentencing powers…. The legal culpability remains the the court’s sentencing powers…. The legal culpability remains the same for the three forms of abetment.”same for the three forms of abetment.”

““Ultimately, the court has to examine the role played by an accused Ultimately, the court has to examine the role played by an accused person in any particular set of facts.”person in any particular set of facts.”

““One who aids by practically paving the groundwork for an offence One who aids by practically paving the groundwork for an offence may well be punished more severely than one who merely instigates may well be punished more severely than one who merely instigates the commission thereof by a nod or a nudge.”the commission thereof by a nod or a nudge.”

20

Abetment: Abetment: supplementary principlessupplementary principles

P need not commit the offense abettedP need not commit the offense abetted

S. 108, explanation 3S. 108, explanation 3 It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable

by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. any guilty intention or knowledge.

Chua Kian Kok Chua Kian Kok Note: this decision corrects Ong Ah Yeo, Yenna (that Note: this decision corrects Ong Ah Yeo, Yenna (that

decided that for abetment by aiding, crime must actually be decided that for abetment by aiding, crime must actually be committed)committed)

21

Abetment: Abetment: supplementary principlessupplementary principles

A may be guilty of abetment even if P lacks MR or has a A may be guilty of abetment even if P lacks MR or has a defense and cant be convicteddefense and cant be convicted

S. 108, explanation 3: various illustrations S. 108, explanation 3: various illustrations P is of unsound mind (a), (c)P is of unsound mind (a), (c) P is underage (b)P is underage (b) P does not have MR of offense (d)P does not have MR of offense (d)

S. 300, exception 1, illustration (f)S. 300, exception 1, illustration (f) ZZ strikes strikes BB. . BB is by this is by this provocationprovocation excited to violent rage.  excited to violent rage. AA, a , a

bystander, intending to take advantage of bystander, intending to take advantage of BB’s rage, and to cause him to ’s rage, and to cause him to kill kill ZZ, puts a knife into , puts a knife into BB’s hand for that purpose. ’s hand for that purpose. BB kills   kills  ZZ with the with the knife. Here knife. Here BB may have committed only may have committed only culpable homicideculpable homicide, but , but AA is is guilty of guilty of murdermurder.  .  

22

Abetment: Abetment: supplementary principlessupplementary principles

Can abet an abettorCan abet an abettor

S. 108, explanation 4S. 108, explanation 4 The abetment of an offence being an offence, the The abetment of an offence being an offence, the

abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.

23

Abetment: Abetment: supplementary principlessupplementary principles

A may be guilty of abetting a crime though P could not have A may be guilty of abetting a crime though P could not have legally committed it legally committed it

S. 108 & explanation 1S. 108 & explanation 1 108.108.A person abets an offence who abets either the commission of an A person abets an offence who abets either the commission of an

offence, or offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offencecommitted by a person capable by law of committing an offence with with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 

Explanation 1-The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may Explanation 1-The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence, although the abettor amount to an offence, although the abettor may not himself be bound may not himself be bound toto do that act.  do that act. 

E.g. offense of rape (s. 375) – can only be committed by a E.g. offense of rape (s. 375) – can only be committed by a male against a female --- female can’t commit rape as P but male against a female --- female can’t commit rape as P but can abetcan abet

24

Abetment: Abetment: supplementary principlessupplementary principles

A may not be guilty of abetting a crime that was A may not be guilty of abetting a crime that was criminalized to protect people in A’s positioncriminalized to protect people in A’s position

This is a common law principle This is a common law principle Not yet clear if applies in PC context – no case law Not yet clear if applies in PC context – no case law

R v Tyrell R v Tyrell [1894] 1 QB 710: A under 16, charged [1894] 1 QB 710: A under 16, charged with aiding and abetting P to have unlawful sexual with aiding and abetting P to have unlawful sexual intercourse with minor – she had consented intercourse with minor – she had consented Held: the applicable law “was passed for the purpose of Held: the applicable law “was passed for the purpose of

protecting women and girls against themselves”protecting women and girls against themselves”

25

Divergence

What if act committed diverges from that A What if act committed diverges from that A intends to abet? intends to abet?

S. 111: act abetted differs from “act” doneS. 111: act abetted differs from “act” done S. 113: act abetted has different “effect”S. 113: act abetted has different “effect”

26

Different act done

111.When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if he had directly abetted it: Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

27

Different act done: punishment

112.If the act for which the abettor is liable under section 111 is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.

28

Different effect

113.113.When an act is abetted with the intention on the When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment of the abetment causes a different effectcauses a different effect from that  from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner, and to the the effect caused, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if he had abetted the act with the same extent, as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided intention of causing that effect, provided he knewhe knew that that the act abetted the act abetted was likely to cause that effectwas likely to cause that effect. .

29

Comparing ss 111 and 113Comparing ss 111 and 113

S 111: the act was a probable consequence of the abetmentS 111: the act was a probable consequence of the abetment S 113: D knew that the act abetted was likely to cause thatS 113: D knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that

Since the tests are different for these two provisions, it is assumed Since the tests are different for these two provisions, it is assumed that there is a material distinction between a “different effect” and a that there is a material distinction between a “different effect” and a “different act”. “different act”.

Is there really such a distinction? Most results can be categorized as Is there really such a distinction? Most results can be categorized as an effect or act. E.g. intend to abet grievous hurt but death results - an effect or act. E.g. intend to abet grievous hurt but death results - causing death can logically be categorized as not just a “different causing death can logically be categorized as not just a “different effect” but a “different act” effect” but a “different act”

Same test should apply to both - seriousness of abetment liability - Same test should apply to both - seriousness of abetment liability - should be of subjective knowledge – adopted byshould be of subjective knowledge – adopted by..

30

s. 111 & 113: s. 111 & 113: comparing MRcomparing MR

S. 111 “probable consequence” vs. s.113 “knew …likely to S. 111 “probable consequence” vs. s.113 “knew …likely to cause that effect”cause that effect” Is s. 111 objective or subjective?Is s. 111 objective or subjective?

Indian case law: some hold objective Indian case law: some hold objective Spore case law:Spore case law:

Pre-2008: left it open (e.g. Pre-2008: left it open (e.g. Ang Ser KuangAng Ser Kuang)) 2008: CA definitively held in 2008: CA definitively held in Lee Chez Kee Lee Chez Kee that both s. 111 and s. 113 that both s. 111 and s. 113

should be subjective (A must know that different “act” and “effect” should be subjective (A must know that different “act” and “effect” likely to occur)likely to occur)

Lee Chez Kee Lee Chez Kee [2008] 3 SLR 447, para. 238 – 242[2008] 3 SLR 447, para. 238 – 242 Agrees with academic commentary (e.g. YMC)Agrees with academic commentary (e.g. YMC) Structure of other joint liability offences in the PCStructure of other joint liability offences in the PC Cited Commonwealth examples (UK, Australia)Cited Commonwealth examples (UK, Australia)