Defences (infancy)

Criminal law

1. DEFENCES (Infancy) NUR FARHANA ABDUL KARIM LEB120075 FARAH NADIA TAPSIR LEB120028

2. QUESTION Samy and Kutu are 11 years old. They are charged with the offence of attempted theft of Ahmad’s motorcycle. Evidence from the police show that Samy and Kutu were seen using a big cutter to cut the chain used to lock the motorcycle. When the police called out to them, they threw the chain which they had cut loose from the motorcycle at the police and ran. They left the cutter behind. The police gave chase and they were arrested an hour after the incident. As a DPP, you are to argue your case with reference to Section 83 of the PC.

3. AR- attempt to theft ‘ using a big cutter to cut the chain’ Mens Rea- Intention to steal the bicycle was clearly portrayed. ‘ They are charged with the offence of attempted theft of Ahmad’s motorcycle’

4. ISSUE Whether Samy and Kutu can use Section 83 of the Penal Code as a defence ?

5. LAW

6. The Deputy Public Prosecutor need to prove:

7. Abdul Satar v The Crown

8. Ulla Mahapatra v King An 11 year old boy had picked up a knife and advanced towards the victim uttering threatening gestures ‘I will cut you to bits’ which he actually did and killed the victim. The court held that the boy’s entire conduct led to the one inference which was that he knew that a cut inflicted by the knife would effectuate his intention of hurting the victim. He fully understood the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion and was held guilty of murder.

9. APPLICATION Samy and Kutu were both 11 years old at the time the act was done. – minor- Their case fall directly under section 83 PC. If they managed to proved and raised this defense, they could be quashed from any criminal liability due to their age.

10. Section 83 PC ‘ Not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct’

11. Evidence showed that both of them were using a big cutter to cut the chain which was successfully done clearly portrayed that they have the skill in doing the act. The instrument used showed that both of them managed to think wisely the way to carry out the act.

12. Their act of throwing the chain and running away when the police approached clearly showed that they were both aware that such act was forbidden in which they might be prosecuted.

13. Conclusion Samy and Kutu cannot use the defence of infancy under section 83 because they have attained the level of maturity and they knew the nature and consequences of their conduct.