Raising the Bar for the Mens Rea Requirement in Common Intention Cases: Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v PP
Singapore Law Review, Vol: 29, Page: 21-33
2011
- 802Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage802
- Downloads789
- Abstract Views13
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
National University of Singapore Faculty of Law
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know