Criminal Law Reform Act 2019

Status:

Published in Acts Supplement
on 04 Jun 2019

Amendment of section 300

80. Section 300 of the Penal Code is amended —

(a)

by deleting proviso (b) of Exception 1 and substituting the following proviso:

“(b)	that the offender did not know and had no reason to believe that the provocation was given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant;”;

(b)

by deleting the Explanation to Exception 1 and substituting the following Explanations:

“Explanation 1.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact, having regard to whether an ordinary person of the same gender and age as the offender, sharing such characteristics as would affect the gravity of the provocation and placed in the same situation as the offender, would be deprived of self-control by the provocation.

Explanation 2.—Grave and sudden provocation may be in the form of words, gestures or conduct or any combination of words, gestures or conduct.”;

(c)

by inserting, immediately after illustration (f) to Exception 1, the following illustration:

“(g) A and Z are married to each other. A loses self‑control on Z’s provocation and intentionally kills Z soon after the provocation was given. Although the provocation, when viewed in isolation, would not amount to grave and sudden provocation, it was the last of a series of prolonged physical and mental abuse of A by Z. An ordinary person in A’s position would have lost self‑control and have done what A did. A has committed only culpable homicide and not murder.”;

(d)

by deleting the words “in good faith” in Exception 2;

(e)

by inserting, immediately after Exception 2, the following Explanation:

“Explanation.—The word “premeditation” means the offender’s intention, which was formed prior to the circumstances which gave rise to the act of private defence —

(a)	to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b)	to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).”;

(f)

by inserting, immediately after Exception 4, the following proviso:

“The above exception is subject to the proviso that the offender did not know and had no reason to believe that the person whose death was caused was acting in obedience to the law, or was a public servant acting in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.”;

(g)

by renumbering the Explanation to Exception 4 as Explanation 1 of that Exception, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following Explanations and Illustrations:

“Explanation 2.—The word “fight” includes the exchange of blows even if the blows do not land on their target and includes a single blow or punch.

Explanation 3.—The word “premeditation” means the offender’s intention, which was formed prior to the circumstances constituting the sudden fight —

(a)	to cause death in section 300(a) or to cause such bodily injury as is mentioned in section 300(b) or (c); or

(b)	to do an act knowing that the act is so imminently dangerous in the way mentioned in section 300(d).

Explanation 4.—A “quarrel” does not require a verbal exchange of words.

Illustrations

(a) A and Z, who are rival gang members, are in a coffee shop seated at different tables. They mutually stare at each other fiercely without exchanging any words. Z disengages from A by turning away and starts to leave the coffee shop. A sees a cutlery knife on his table which A had earlier used for A’s meal. A picks up the cutlery knife and stabs Z’s throat in the heat of passion. Z falls and dies almost immediately. Although there was a “sudden quarrel” without any exchange of words, Exception 4 does not apply because there was no “fight”, there being no exchange of blows or assault between A and Z.

(b) A had a consensual sexual relationship with Z until Z terminated the relationship. A came to Z’s house and asked Z if Z would have sex with A. Z refused. A became angry and said A would use force, if necessary. A grappled with Z who resisted A’s advances and struck A’s face. Enraged by Z’s resistance, A slams Z into a wall, and Z slumps to the ground. While Z is motionless on the ground, A kicks Z’s head repeatedly and kills Z. Exception 4 does not apply because A had taken undue advantage of Z while Z was lying motionless on the ground.”;

(h)

by deleting the Illustration to Exception 5 and substituting the following Illustration:

“Illustration

A and Z, both being persons above 18 years of age, decide to commit suicide together by drinking poison. With Z’s consent, A pours a lethal poison down Z’s throat but after watching Z die, A cannot summon the courage to drink the same poison. A has committed culpable homicide and not murder.”; and

(i)

by deleting Exception 7 and substituting the following Exception:

“Exception 7.—Culpable homicide is not murder if at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death concerned, the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially —

(a)	impaired the offender’s capacity —

(i)	to know the nature of the acts or omissions in causing the death or in being a party to causing the death; or

(ii)	to know whether such acts or omissions are wrong (whether wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons or wrong as contrary to law); or

(b)	impaired the offender’s power to control his acts or omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.”.

Search within Legislation