TEMASEK POLYTECHNIC

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
AY 2023/2024 SEMESTRAL EXAMINATION
(April Semester)

CRIMINAL LAW (BLM1001)

SUBJECT LEVEL: ONE

TIME ALLOWED: 2 HOURS

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. This paper consists of Q pages (excluding cover page).

2. This is an OPEN - BOOK examination. Only non-electronic, paper-based

materials are allowed.

3.. Answer ALL the questions.

4. Please write ALL your answers in the booklet provided. Begin each question on a
new page.

5. Total marks for the paper is 100.

Criminal Law (BLM1001)

Answer all questions in the answer booklet provided. (TOTAL 100 MARKS)

Give reasons for all your answers. Cite cases and/or sections in a statute where
relevant.

Question 1 [7 marks]
Sally was crying and looked frightened. The police officers noticed that Sally was injured on the
left arm. Sally informed the police officers that she had a dispute with her boyfriend during
which he injured her with a knife. An ambulance was summoned to the scene. Shortly, when an
ambulance officer arrived at the scene, Sally's wounds were attended to and she was conveyed to
Tan Tock Seng Hospital for further medical treatment. Discuss any possible offence(s) committed
by her boyfriend.

Question 2 [7 marks]
Leo using a flowerpot with a camera hidden, placed it in the common toilet. He then secretly
records a video of his female friend who showers there. What offence has he committed?

Question 3 [8 marks]
The accused was observed by Mr Tan Kim Peng ("Tan"), a manager of the supermarket, to be
behaving suspiciously. Tan saw the accused take the carton from the inside of the supermarket
and place it on his right shoulder. The accused then walked through the side door of the
supermarket, past two cashier counters along the corridor outside and headed towards the car
park behind the supermarket. The accused did not pay for the carton. Tan stopped the accused at
a position near the car park behind the supermarket, which was quite a distance past the last
point where goods were displayed on the day in question. He identified himself as a manager of
the supermarket and asked the accused why he had not made payment for the carton. The
accused, in response, said that he had no money and threw the carton at him. Tan then forcefully
subdued the accused and pilmed him to the ground. Tan thereafter detained him in the
supermarket's office until the police were called to arrest the accused. What offence(s) has the
accused committed?

Criminal Law (BLMlOOl) Pagel

Question 4 [8 marks]
On 16 October 22 at about 8.10am, a complainant called the police and informed them that a
female Chinese had stolen his money after she had spiked his drink with a drug at a brothel near
Lorong 12 Geylang. On the following day, 17 October 22 at about 10.00pm, the complainant
spotted the accused at the junction of Lorong 15 Geylang. He called the police and the accused
was placed under arrest. Investigations revealed that on 15 October 22 at about 8.30pm, the
accused found that she did not have enough money to buy more Upjohn tablets to sustain her
drug-taking habit. She decided to steal from anyone whom she could befriend that night. She
proceeded to a nearby toilet where she broke some of her remaining Upjohn tablets into powder
and kept it in a small plastic bottle. The same evening, at about 9.10pm, the accused spotted the
complainant walking along Lorong 12 Geylang. She approached him and offered him free sex.
The complainant accepted her offer and they walked to a coffee shop nearby where the accused
bought a packet of coffee. Then the accused led the complainant to a brothel nearby where they
checked into a room. There, while the complainant was busy removing his clothes, the accused
poured the powdered Upjohn tablets from the small plastic bottle into the packet of coffee. She
offered the coffee, spiked with the powdered Upjohn tablets, to the complainant who drank the
coffee and moments later felt dizzy and then fell asleep. When the complainant was fast asleep,
the accused searched through his belongings and took $500 from his wallet. She then left the
room. When arrested, the accused had finished spending the $500 on more Upjohn tablets and no
other personal expenses. No part of the stolen money was recovered. What is the offence(s)
committed by the accused?

Criminal Law (BLMlOOl) Page 2

Question 5 [10 marks]
The accused, Amir, a 24-year-old is a firefighter in the Singapore Civil Defence Force ("SCDF").
At the material time, he was a section commander leading a team of firefighters. On 7 November
2022 at around 12.30pm, he was driving a SCDF Van, a firefighting vehicle, along Choa Chu
Kang Way to respond to a fire that had broken out on the third storey of a building at Sungei
Kadut Street 1. The SCDF Van had one other firefighter on board. It was travelling on the second
lane from the left of the four-lane dual carriageway. At the signalised cross junction of Choa Chu
Kang Way and the slip road leading to the Kranji Expressway ("KJE"), the accused failed to stop
the SCDF Van when the traffic lights were showing red against it. With the SCDF Van's siren and
blinking lights turned on, the accused assumed that other vehicles would give way to the SCDF
Van and he therefore drove it across the junction. Unfortunately, a taxi with one passenger on
board, which had the right of way, was travelling diagonally across the junction from the SCDF
Van's right towards the KJE. The resulting collision caused the taxi's left front passenger door to
be dented and its left rear passenger door to be ripped off, among other damage. At the time of
accident, traffic flow was light, visibility was clear and the road surface was dry. The taxi driver,
Peh Lim Chew ("Peh"), aged 55, suffered some bruises, a laceration and some superficial
abrasions. He was treated as an outpatient and was given three days' medical leave. The one
passenger was Bedah bte Sama ("Bedah"), aged 50, seated at the left rear passenger seat. Sadly,
Bedah sustained serious multiple injuries and did not survive the accident. Discuss the relevant
offence(s) committed by the accused.

Question 6 [10 marks]

While on board the flight of Singapore Airlines travelling from Osaka 1 November 22, Japan to
Singapore between 1 pm and 2 pm, the accused had asked the victim, who was a flight
stewardess with Singapore Airlines, for a glass of Cognac (liquor). He then suddenly touched Ms
Puspa's (the victim) right breast with his right hand. Subsequently the accused started to stroke
her left cheek with his right hand. The victim reported the matter to her colleagues and later to
the Singapore Airline Control Centre at Singapore Changi Airport, Terminal 2. After
disembarking from the aircraft, the victim identified the accused to a police officer of the
Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS). The accused was arrested and escorted to Bedok
Police Division. Discuss the possible offence(s) and defence(s) that could be raised?

Criminal Law (BLM1001) Page 3

Question 7 [10 marks]
On the evening of 25 January 2022, the complainant, Khoo, was out walking along Bayshore
Road with his three dogs, a Shar Pei, a golden retriever, and a boxer, all of which were being led
on leashes. TI1e complainant noticed that the Shar Pei and the retriever wanted to defecate, so he
unleashed them. After they had finished, he bent down to pick up the faeces, and in so doing laid
the boxer's leash on the ground. Suddenly, all three dogs turned and bounded across the road
towards the accused, who was himself walking his own dog, a golden retriever named "Radar",
on the other side of the road.

The three dogs belonging to the complainant surrounded the accused and Radar, and a scuffle
between the dogs began. As quickly as he could, the accused picked Radar up by the harness he
was wearing and held him in his arms. All the accused could at this stage do was to kick out at
the complainant's dogs with his legs, but this was not enough to deter them or drive them away.
The three dogs continued to surround him, barking and pouncing on him. TI1e boxer
subsequently bit Radar on the leg causing him to bleed. Eventually, the complainant arrived on
the scene and managed to bring his dogs under control. He apologised to the accused and took
the dogs back to the opposite side of the road. After examining Radar to see if he was badly
injured, the accused crossed the road again and confronted the complainant. He warned the
complainant not to let his dogs off their leashes in future and shouted some vulgarities at him.
The complainant said he was sorry and turned to walk away. At that point in time, the accused
pushed the complainant in the back, causing him to momentarily lose his balance. He then kicked
the boxer in the stomach. The boxer collapsed onto the grass, in obvious pain. A few seconds
later, the boxer got up, walked unsteadily forward for about ten metres or so, and then collapsed
again. The complainant picked him up and took him to a veterinary surgery, but on arrival, the
boxer was already dead from a ruptured liver. Discuss what possible offence(s) the accused has
committed.

Question 8 [10 marks]

Richard and Lind are husband and wife. TI1ey have a daughter, Cindy, aged four. Their marriage
has been going through some difficult period and Richard is planning "to get rid of her for
good". He recalls his university law lecturer informing him that persons below certain age cannot
be charged in court for any offence that they commit. Richard gives Cindy a small package and
inside contains a bottle of nerve gas and tells her to leave it in Lind's pillow while she is asleep.
Cindy does as instructed and place it behind Lind's pillow. Lind dies from inhaling the nerve
gas fumes. Discuss whether Richard has committed any offence.

Criminal Law (BLM1001) Page4

Question 9 [15 marks]
The accused came from a broken family. The accused was a freelance producer and props
assistant at the time of his arrest. Between 17 to 19 April 2022, he had been working on a project
for Darra Films Pte Ltd ("Darra Films"), a company involved in producing films for the
advertising industry. In the months leading up to the killing of the deceased, life had been
miserable for him and suicide was always on his mind. At the material time he was addicted to
cannabis intoxication. Sometime in October 2021, the accused met a Thai prostitute, Saifon, at a
brothel at Lorong 18, Geylang. He felt comfortable in her presence and began to visit her
frequently. They subsequently fell in love with each other.

On 17 April 2022, while working on location for Darra Films, the appellant noticed that the
deceased was wearing a Rolex watch. He thought it would be wonderful if he could give a watch
of that kind to Saifon for her 32nd birthday, which fell on 21 April 2022. He knew, however, that
he could not afford to buy such an expensive watch. He then thought of robbing the deceased of
her watch so as to give it to Saifon as a birthday present. On 19 April 2022, it dawned on the
accused while he was at Marina Park that the park would be the ideal place to rob the deceased
as there were not many people around. He formed a plan to meet the deceased at the bus stop
opposite the Superbowl Golf Club at Marina South on the pretext of engaging her services for a
photo shoot. He would arrive at the bus stop before she did so that he could surprise her from
behind when she reached there and take the Rolex watch from her. Accordingly, the accused
paged the deceased that night. When the deceased returned his call, he introduced himself as
"Nigel" and told her that he needed a freelance make-up artist for a photo shoot. He offered to
pay her $1,000 for the job, which she accepted without hesitation. He then arranged to meet her
at the bus stop opposite the Superbowl Golf Club at 6.30am the following day. He directed the
deceased to park her car in a side road nearby and waited for her at the bus stop while she did so.
On the spur of the moment, he decided to take out a hammer from his pouch and hit the
deceased twice on her head, whereupon she collapsed backwards. He grabbed her by the armpits
before she fell to the ground and dragged her behind the bushes, where he removed the Rolex
watch from her left hand. He put the hammer back in his pouch and walked to Marina Park,
where he changed into the extra T-shirt which he had brought along. He then headed for the
Stamford Hotel, where he washed himself in the hotel toilet before returning home. The forensic
pathologist who examined the deceased's body at the scene of the killing and later performed the
autopsy was of the opinion that the deceased's death was caused by a fractured skull. According
to the forensic pathologist, these fractures resulted from blows from a blunt instrument to that
part of the deceased's head. Discuss the possible defence(s) the accused could raise.

Criminal Law (BLM1001) Page 5

Question 10 [15 marks]
On 15 March 2022, as a result of an operation mounted by officers of the Central Narcotics
Bureau, the accused was arrested at the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Adam Road whilst
travelling in a taxi. A bunch of keys to his apartment was taken away from him. Thereafter at
about 9.10pm, he was brought to his apartment at Blk 15 St George's Road #11-168, Singapore by
a number of narcotics officers led by Senior Narcotics Officer ("SNO"). They approached the
master bedroom of the apartment after the accused indicated that it was his room. The door was
locked. It was unlocked with one of the keys seized from the accused earlier and the party of
officers entered the bedroom to search the same. The "SNO" asked the accused as to the
whereabouts of his drugs. The accused signaled towards a wooden rack by using his head. The
rack was next to his bed. They recovered a small metal container from the rack. When they
opened the container and asked the accused what the contents of the metal container were. The
accused replied, "drugs". The "SNO" asked him, "How much inside there?", to which the
accused replied, 2kg. The "SNO", asked him, "to whom it belongs to?", to which the accused
replied, "To Ah Seow". On being asked by "SNO" whether he had any more drugs in the
bedroom, the accused replied, "No".

The item seized were as follows;

(a) Exh P30 - five stacks of transparent plastic sachets (15 x 7 cm);
(b) Exh P31- daching (weighing scale);
(c) Exh P32 - an electric sealer
(d) Exh P 33 - 2kg of white substance.

The contents of five stacks of transparent plastic sachets and 2 kg of white substance were
analysed by Dr Chow ST, a scientific officer from the Department of Health Science Authority.
Under certificates issued by him pursuant to s.16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, he certified in
Exh P30 and P33, that they were not less than 232 kg of diamorphine a controlled drug listed in
the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act. What are the possible offence(s) that can be
brought against the accused? Discuss the relevant issues.

*** End of Paper ***

Criminal Law (BLMlOOl) Page 6