jiha.
k09/2025/law083
ILAC ACCIDENT
QUESTION 1 - APRIL 2019
ickson and his son, Raymond, are absolutely crazy about football. They both love to play
D
football and to watch matches on television. One day, Dickson decided to take Raymond to
watchafootballmatchbetweenDYZandAFCatBukitSemangkukNationalStadium.Raymond
wasveryexcitedsinceitwashisfirsttimewatchingalivematchatastadium.Alargenumberof
spectators had assembled to see the match that day. A lot of enthusiasm was discernible
among the vast assemblage of football fans.
heAFCteamscoredtheirfirstgoal30minutesintothematch.Thesongfortheteamcameon
T
andallthesupporters,includingDicksonandRaymond,startedtoclapandcheer.Fiveminutes
before the end of the first half, AFCmanagedtoscoreanothergoal.Thistimethesongwas
louder.DicksonandRaymondwereveryhappybecausetheirfavouriteteamwasabletoscore
twogoals.Fortunately,theDYZteamhadfailedtoequalize.Dicksonandhissonalongwiththe
rest of the AFC supporters celebrated their team's victory enthusiastically. In the midstofthe
excitement, Dickson accidentally stepped on another supporter's foot causing him to suffer a
fracture.Thesupporter,Merrick,lodgedapolicereportagainstDickson.Uponcompletionofthe
investigation, Dickson was charged under section 325 of the Penal Code for causing severe
injuries.
a) Explain the elements of criminal liability that must be proven against Dickson.
(10 marks)
b) Explain the most suitable defence available to Dickson against the above charge.
(10 marks)
ANSWER (a) :
Issue
Whether Dickson could fulfill the elements of actus reus and mens rea for criminal liability?
aw
L
Forapersontobeheldliableforacrime,theyhadtoprovetwoelementsofcrimewhicharethe
elementsofactusreusandmensrea.Thesetwoelementswerederivedfromlatinmaximwhich
is “actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea” with the meaning of an act does not make a
person guilty of committing an offence unless the act is accompanied by a guilty mind.
i. Actus Reus
jiha.k09/2025/law083
irstly, the term actus reuscanbedefinedasaguiltyact.Actusreusnotonlyreferstoanact
F
butalsoincludesomissionwhereaccordingtoSection32ofPenalCode,wordswhichreferto
actsdoneextendalsotoillegalomissions.Tofurtherelaborate,anactcanbedefinedasbodily
movement of a person that hasdonesomethingprohibitedbythelaw.Forexample,anactof
theft can be considered as actus reus underSection389 of Penal Code.
n the other hand, anomissionmeansfailureofapersontoperformdutyimposedbylawon
O
him. According to Section 43 of Penal Code, the word ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’ is applicable to
everything which is an offence, or prohibited by the law,orfurnishesgroundforacivilaction.
For example, a failuretoreportanactofofferingbribescanbeconsideredasomissionunder
Section 25 Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act 2009.
heuseofactusreuscanbeseeninthecaseofRohaniRojelav.PublicProsecutor,where
T
theaccusedwaschargedundersection302ofPenalCodeforstabbingTetoChang@Reubes
Mirontostodeath.TheCourtofAppealupheldthetrialcourt’sdecision,confirmingallelements
of the offence wereprovenandagreedtheaccusedwasguiltyofmurder.Thecourtruledthat
the actus reus of the offence was clearly proven based on the medical evidence given and
eyewitnesstestimonywheretheaccusedcameandsatontopofthedeceasedandstabbedthe
deceased’s chest a few times. Hence, all elements of murder were fulfilled under the law.
ii. Mens Rea
Secondly, mens rea can be definedastheguiltymindorblameworthyofmind.Itreferstothe
mentalelementnecessaryforaparticularcrime,wherethepersonhastheintentiontocommit
the crime. To determine whether an act done fulfills the requirement of mens rea, the
prosecutionmustidentifywordssuchas‘intention’,‘knowledge’,‘recklessness’,and‘melicious’.
For example, the act of muder can be considered as mens rea under Section 302 ofPenal
Code.
heuseofmensreacanbeseeninthecaseofNorolRojikJunv.PublicProsecutor,where
T
the accused was charged under section 302 Penal Code for murdering his neighbour. The
deceasedrentedaroomonthesecondflooroftheHupSengBuilding,whiletheaccusedand
his in-laws, who acted as chief tenants, collectedrentforthelandlord.Duetothedeceased’s
inconsistent rent payments and alleged drug use and theft, tensions grew between both
families.Afteraheateddisputeon11.11.2011,theaccused’sfamilyvacatedthepremises.The
followingday,12.11.2011ataround6a.m.,theaccusedbrokeintothedeceased'sroom witha
"parang"andattackedthedeceasedandhiswifeintheirbed.Thedeceaseddiedatthescene
frommultipleslashwoundsonhisbodyandtheaccusedwasconvicted.Theaccusedappealed
onthegroundthathehadnointentiontokillthedeceased.However,itwasheldthatthecourt
satisfied and found that the accused had an intention to kill, which was inferred through the
degree of the deceased's injuries, type of weapon deployed andwasbroughttogetherbythe
accused who did not stop the attack despite the to stop the attack. Thus, he fulfilled the
requirement of mens rea.
jiha.k09/2025/law083
Application
i. Actus Reus
InthecaseofDickson,actusreusisclearlypresentbecausehephysicallysteppedonMerrick’s
foot causing him to suffer severe injuries. This act falls under Section 325 of Penal Codefor
causing severe injuries. Regardless of Dickson’s existence of intention, the act of touching
someone without permission, let alone stepping on someone’s foot until it causes injury is
considered as a guilty act. Hence, the element of actus reus can be established by the
prosecution.
ii. Mens Rea
However, for mens rea, it is doubtful that Dickson possessed the required guilty mind when
committing the act. Given the situation, Dickson accidentally stepped on Merrick’s foot in the
midst of excitement during an enthusiastic celebration in a crowded stadium. There was no
evidence of intention, knowledge,recklessness,ormaliciousintentonhispart.Hisactionwas
not done with awareness of the risk of harm. Instead, it occurred spontaneously amid
excitement. Thus, mens rea could not be established.
onclusion
C
In conclusion, Dickson only has the element of actus reus while lackingtheelementofmens
rea. Thus, he maynotbeheldcriminallyliableunderSection325ofPenalCodeashisaction
was based on an accident and he has no intent to cause harm.
jiha.k09/2025/law083
ANSWER (b) :
Issue
Whether Dickson could successfully plead for accident under Section 80 of Penal Code as
general defences to prove her innocence against the charge?
aw
L
‘Accident’ has been defined by Oxford Dictionary as an unfortunate incident that happens
unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. Accident is
acknowledged as a defence under Section 80 of Penal Code which reads that (.....c&p
statute). This section implies that the harm caused must focus on the absence of intent or
knowledge and the presence of care and lawfulness for it to be considered as accident.
In order for a person to be successful in the defence of accident, she needs to meet the
conditionslaidoutunderSection81ofPenalCodewherefirstly,theallegedactistheresultof
an accident. Secondly, the act committed results in the accident had no criminal intention or
priorknowledge.Thirdly, theactcommittedislawfulandperformedinalawfulmannerthrough
lawful means. Lastly, the act is committed with proper care and caution.
his implication can be seen in the case ofKing-Emperorv.Timmappa,wheretheaccused
T
andhisfriendwenttoajungletohuntporcupines.Bothtooktheirpositionsbeforetheshooting
took place. Afterwards, the accused heard a rustling sound, where he thought it was a
porcupineandshottowardsthedirectionandaccidentallyhithisfriendresultinginhisdeath.He
was acquitted aftersuccessfullypleadingthedefenceofaccident.Itwasheldthathisdefence
was successfully pleaded under defence of accident by virtue s80 PC.
pplication
A
ToapplythistoDickson’ssituation,hecandefendhimselfonthegroundsofaccidentasheas
theinjurycausedtoMerrickoccurredunintentionallyduringamomentofexcitementinalawful
setting. Therefore, his plea is valid under Section 80 of Penal Code.
i. First Condition
Dicksonhassuccessfullyfulfilledthefirstconditionofaccidentwhichheneedstoprovethatthe
alleged act was the result of an accident. Given the situation, Dickson’s act of stepping on
Merrick’sfoothappenedspontaneouslyinacrowdedandemotionallyexcitedenvironment.The
act was not deliberate but rather the result of an accidental movement.
ii. Second Condition
Next, the second condition that has been fulfilled by Dickson is that his act that results in
accidenthasnocriminalintentionorpriorknowledge.DicksonhadnointentiontoinjureMerrick,
nor was aware that his action would result in any harm. His act was done without malice or
recklessness.
jiha.k09/2025/law083
iii. Third Condition
Dicksonfulfilledthethirdconditionwhichtheactwaslawfulanddoneinalawfulmanner.Inthis
case, Dickson was lawfully present at the stadium, participating in a lawful activity where he
celebrated a football match. His presence and actions did not violate any law.
iv. Fourth Condition
Finally, Dickson fulfilled the fourth condition where the act was done with proper care and
caution. Although Dickson’s action led to an injury, there is no evidence to show he acted
carelessly or without caution in a way that would amount to criminal negligence. The event
occurred in a tightly packed crowd, and stepping on someone accidentally in such
circumstances can reasonably happen even when due care is taken.
onclusion
C
Inconclusion,Dicksoncansuccessfullypleadforaccidentasgeneraldefenceinordertoprove
himself innocent.
