CRIMINAL LAW II

TUTORIAL

Prepared by :
MUHAMMAD AIMAN BIN MOHAMMAD PUZI
SASHA JEAN ALEXANDER
Question April 2011
Zombee, an expert in remote sensing, has created a
device which can interfere with computer system.
Zombee used the device to interfere with the
movements of the lift in his employers building
causing a number of person to be in shock.
Discuss Zombee's liability.
Issue
Whether Zombie can be made liable under any
offence for causing shock to the lift's passengers by
interfering with the movement of the lift.
Principle
Section 350 of Penal Code states :
Whosoever intentionally uses force to any person,
without that persons consent, in order to cause the
committing of an offence, or intending by the use of
such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely
that by the use of such force he will illegally cause
injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the
force is used is said to use criminal force on the other
 Force is further defined in Section 349 as a person is
said to use force if he CAUSES motion/change of
motion/ cessation(stop) of motion or he CAUSES
ANY SUBSTANCE (object / animal) such motion/
change of motion/ cessation & this MUST come into
contact with another party in one of these ways:
a) by his own bodily power, or;
b) by disposing any substance in such a manner that the
motion or change or cessation of motion takes place
without any further act on his part, or on the part of
any other person, or;
c) by inducing any animal to move, to change its
motion, or to cease to move.
Elements
1) Actus Reus
the use of criminal force to any person, w/o that persons
consent
such motion, etc must be caused by one of the 3 methods
specified under s. 349
1) Mens Rea
intention (intentional use of force to any person)
the use of force must be either to commit an offence/intend
by the use of such force illegally to cause/knowing it to be
likely to cause injury/fear/annoyance
The force must be used on a person
The person must be the ultimate object of the force.
The use of force on the person must be done illegally
which indicates actus reus.
It shows that the purpose of doing such acts is to
directly affect the person.
 Case : Mohamed Abdul Kader v PP
[1967] 1 MLJ 86
Fact: The accused had been convicted of using criminal
force to a public servant to prevent him from discharging
his duty. The evidence was that the appellant who had a
chopper in his hand had said If you go in I will
hammer you.

Held: There is no force used the appellant for him to be

convicted of using criminal force.
 Case : Raja Izzuddin Shah v PP [1979] 1 MLJ
270
Fact: The complainant, a public servant was
slapped, dragged by the shirt and pushed against
the wall by accused while performing his duties.

Held: Accused was convicted of an offence under

Section 350 of Penal Code.
The force must be without the victim's consent
Such force must be inflicted without the

permission or consent or knowledge of the

victim.
Where if the victim consents to the use of
force, therefore, there is no offence.
Case : Chandrika Sao & Hazari Lal v State of
Bihar
Fact: Mr. Singh who is a tax inspector entered a

shop to inspect the account book. He took up

2 sets of the account books & started
examining them. Later, the Appellant snatch
the books away from his hands. This had
caused Singhs hands to jerk.
 Held: The appellants act of snatching away the
books from Mr. Singhs hands had caused a
jerk. Hence, the Appellant is said to have
caused motion to Mr. Singhs hands. And the
natural effect of snatching away the books by
the appellant would be to affect the sense of
feeling of the hands of Mr. Singh.
The force must be intentionally inflicted
The establishment of this element is required in order
to prove the presence of mens rea in the constitution
of the offence.
The use of force must be either to commit an offence/
intend by the use of such force illegally to cause/
knowing it to be likely to cause injury/ fear/
annoyance.
It is not sufficiently to constitute an offence if force
was accidently or recklessly inflicted or that the
offender knew his action was likely to cause force.
 Case : Ng Eng Huat v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 417
Fact: The appellant reversed his car very quickly which
caused complainant to engage his reverse gear and
reverse his car but his car was hit by the appellant's car.

Held: Eventhough there was no direct force but the

movement was affected when the appellant intentionally
reversed his car to collide with the complainant's car.
The act of the appellant of reversing his car was not a
negligent act but an intentional and deliberate act by
committing the offence by using criminal force.
APPLICATION
In the situation, Zombee had caused the lift's passengers to be
in state of shock by interfering with the movement of the lift.
He had intentionally used force to the passengers in the lift
without their consent. Zombee who is an expert in remote
sensing had misused his skills by created a devise to cause illegal
force that he should reasonably knows that by doing such act it
could be likely to cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the people
in the lift. According to the case Ng Eng Huat v PP, a person is
deemed to commit a criminal force if he had intention to
commit an act which could result in injury, fear or annoyance.
Therefore, Zombiee could be held liable for an offence in using
criminal force to victim in the lift as they suffered shock by his
Conclusion
By virtue of Section 350, Zombee can be made
liable for using a criminal force which caused
the passengers in the lift to be in the state of
shock.
He can be punished under Section 352 of
Penal Code for causing criminal force.