Criminal Law Defamation and Invasion

Question: Discuss about the Criminal Law for Defamation and Invasion. Answer: Introduction: Criminal law has been defined as a system of lawful regulations which have been defined and recognized to keep the people secured and to discourage any kind of unlawful act. It could be stated as the body of regulations which governs the cruelty of crime; restriction of specific acts which impede with the harmony and good command of the community. The intervention must be made to such a amount that the evidence of such act would consequence into criminal penalty upon the transgressor, by way of either a fine or a denial of freedom (HG. Org, 2016). It was also observed that even though the lawful system of the state has been defined as a common law system, but the criminal law of the state was fundamentally constitutional in character (Soltani, 2003). Also, it has been seen that there was always a fragile equilibrium among an individuals advantage to liberty of verbal communication and other persons privilege to safeguard their good name. But it was often complicated to make out which private comments were appropriate and which run afoul of the law of defamation (Start Up, 2016). According to the Blacks Law Dictionary meaning the term Defamation has been defined as, an premeditated artificial conversation, either published or openly spoken, that harms anothers character or good name. It comprises of the common law torts of libel which includes the non-verbal or written proclamations and a slander involving a verbal proclamation (Defamation Update, 2014). Defamation Law modifies as an individual cross the boundaries of the state, but there were usually certain established principles that make laws alike no matter where an individual was. It was clearly stated that if an individual believes that he or she has been the sufferer of some insulting declaration, whether slander or libel, then they would require filing a court case in order to recuperate compensation. Normally affirming it could be stated that in order to succeed the court case, an individual must demonstrate that: Somebody has made a declaration- This proclamation requires to be conversed, non-verbal or otherwise stated in a way. Publication of the proclamation- For a declaration to be affirmed as published, it must be observed that another party must have observed, listen to or interpret the derogatory declaration. The other party who was not the party to the case would be an individual who was somebody apart from the individual making the declaration and the subject of the declaration (Singapore Legal Advice, 2016). The statement caused an individual harm- To be successful in a slander proceeding, the declaration must be depicted to have caused harm to the issue of the announcement. This means that the declaration must have harmed the character of the subject of the declaration. The statement was false- Defamation law affirms that it would only believe declarations made to be defamatory if they were, in fact, fake. A true declaration, no matter how injurious, would not be measured as defamation. The statements did not fall into a advantaged group- At last, it could be stated that in order to state a declaration to be defamatory, it must be defined as unprivileged. Policymakers have determined that an individual could not sue for defamation in some cases when a statement was measured to be of an advantaged nature (Cook, 2016). So, as in the current case Zul made a demarking remark about the disability of Jing so it could be affirmed that he made a declarations which was offensive and also it was made in between the street so the third party also heard about it. So, he would be liable for damages. In the case of The Gleaner Co Ltd and another v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628 it was clearly affirmed that the matters of defamation have a significant characteristic which was not shared by the assertions of private harm which have occurred. The costs often serve not only as reimbursement but also as an effectual and essential restriction. The prevention was effectual as the damages were remunerated either by the respondent or under a rule of indemnity which was likely to be responsive to the instances of such assertions (Straits times, 2016). In another case of Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others [2010] SGCA 15 by this court (at [65]) it was held that while costs for denouncement may be granted as a single reward, it was stated that, in giving costs for insult, a adjudicator ought to separate and elucidate the costs rewarded for the libel itself and the extra compensation rewarded for the infuriating act of the statement maker in connection to the act. The desire for some form of division was self-obvious where monetary loss was alarmed. Also, in order to secure oneself an individual could claim an action to be done under the principle of private defence. Private defence could be regarded as a structure of a lawful defence that may have the impact of forgiving an individual of lawful obligation if that individual harm or murdered other individual in order to protect himself (Kelly Warner Law, 2016). Private defence comprises of the justification of the existence and body of an individual from physical injury such as injury and rape. Furthermore, it also comprises of the privilege to preserve another individual or his land from any type of harm (Singapore Law, 2016). Though, certain necessities have to be contented for the justification to be successful in tribunals. For instance, there has been no privilege of personal defence if there were chances to seek law enforcement security. In distinction, there was a privilege of personal defence against a lunatic individual, if that individual had been trying to assault you. Section 99(4) of the Penal Code also affirms that an individual could not impose more injury than was required for self-defence. If it was obvious that the aggressor has been resisted or beaten, it was not rational for an individual to persist aggressive on him in the name of private defense (Ministry of Health, 2011). In extreme matters, an individual could kill an assailant in personal defence, but only under the subsequent situations. As per sections 100 and 103 of the Penal Code affirms that personal defence could enlarge to willingly causing murder if an individual was: Battered and had rationally detained death if an individual had not taken act to protect oneself; Being raped or abducted Being raided up In the home and it was busted at night Under the risk of misbehavior by flames. Similarly section 299 and 300 of the Penal code administers the offences of culpable homicide and murder (Singapore Statutes Online, 2016). Section 300 affirms that an individual would be said to commit murder, if he cause the death with the purpose of: Causing death of another individual. Causing corporal harm that an individual know was likely to kill the individual Causing bodily harm and that bodily harm was impartially strong-minded to be adequate in the normal way of character to cause bereavement. Causing death perceptive that what an individual was doing was so severely harmful that it must in all likelihood cause death. So, if any of the above mentioned components were satisfied, then murder would be said to be committed, except where one of the particular defences also applies when: There was aggravation The criminal had the privilege of personal defence, but exceeded it The criminal was more than the authority of being a public servant in good faith The act was dedicated as a consequence of a sudden clash The injured party was above 18 and had assented to being murdered There was a matter for reduced accountability because of the accuseds psychological ability were considerably harmed (Singapore Legal Advice, 2011). If the circumstance falls into one of the points which have been mentioned above, the criminal would not be responsible of murder but instead would be accountable of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (SingHealth, 2016). So, in this case Jing would not be held liable as she stabbed Zul as a way of Provocation. While the death punishment would regard to be obligatory for accused individuals who were found guilty of murder, it was now flexible except for the initial part of section 300 with came into existence from 1 January 2013. In other words, as long as an individual had not harmed the death of the victim with the accurate purpose of doing so (as was normally the matter for murders in cold blood), and were found to be at fault for murder on a diverse part (e.g. aiming to cause a bodily harm which was adequate in the regular course of character to cause death), the tribunal could either still verdict an individual to death, or decide to sentence an individual to life incarceration and beating instead (Singapore Legal Advice, 2010). On the other hand, if an individual was not found to be at fault of murder, he may be found to be at fault of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead. The battered woman defense was one of the defence which was utilized inside the courtrooms which states that an individual who was accused of a murder was distressing from this disease at the substance period. Because the defence was most usually utilized by women, it was normally characterized in tribunal (Lawyer Singapore, 2016). It has been observed that there has been no medicinal categorization for this particular condition in the sense which was utilized by legal representatives, though it has in the past been appeal to in the system of the tribunals. Comparable to a petition of madness, battered individual syndrome was merely a lawful word utilized to pass on to the harsh mental shock caused by family mistreatment. Even though the stipulation was not Sex-particular, the admittance of proof in regard to the battered woman syndrome which was pertinent to the defense of self-defense which was normally unstated as a reply by some authority to gentleman constructive gender-bias in the unlawful fairness scheme. Therefore, this was a suggestion to any individual who, as a result of stable and harsh family mistreatment typically connecting corporeal mistreatment or intimidation of bodily mistreatment by a spouse, may become harshly miserable or not capable to take any self-governing act that would permit him or her to get away from the mistreatment. In the case of R v Charlton (2003) EWCA Crim 415 it has been stated that the intimidations of sexual and aggressive mistreatment against herself and her child, the respondent murdered her compulsive, protective, calculating spouse while he was controlled by cuffs, and curbed as part of their standard sexual actions. The expression of five years' incarceration was abridged to 3.5 years as a result of the horrifying intimidation made by a man strong-minded to govern and organize the life of the respondent. The intimidation shaped an indisputable terror for the security of herself and more considerably, her daughter, and this harmed the respondent to lose authority and make the violent assault (Loh, 2016). In HM's AG for Jersey v Holley (2005) 3 AER 371 it was considered that the Smith as incorrectly determined, understanding the Act as sitting a merely object principle. Therefore, though the feature of the wrongdoer were to be taken into account when charging the importance of the aggravation, the regular of self-authoority to be predictable was inflexible except for the wrongdoers age and gender. The respondent and the departed both experienced from constant drinks and had an aggressive and insulting association. The proof was that the dead was drunk and teased him by telling him that she had sexual characteristics with another individual. The respondent then thumps the deceased with an knife which was an mishap of accessibility. So, it could be concluded that as it was specifically mentioned that Jing experiences a rare disease for which she takes regular medication and was depressed. But Jung would not be liable to cause death of Zul who made a defamatory statement against her as she did by way of provocation. Provocation has been regarded as a private defence based in the above mentioned section of the Act. But she would be held liable for causing death of Hue as she did the act of pouring fluid with an intention to cause death of Hue. She would have been beard with the payment of compensation for the acts which they both have done. So, she would not be liable as she only did hurt Zul by way of provocation and hurt Hue because of his violence. References Cook, A. (2016). A Writers Guide to Defamation and Invasion of Privacy. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/defamation-and-invasion Defamation Update. (2014). Defamation. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.defamationupdate.co.nz/guide-to-defamation-law Org. (2016). Criminal Law. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.hg.org/crime.html Kelly Warner Law. (2016). Defamation Laws In Singapore. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://kellywarnerlaw.com/singapore-defamation-laws/ Lawyer Singapore. (2016). What You Need To Know About Defamation Law. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.lawyer-singapore.com.sg/articles/need-to-know-about-defamation-law.html Loh, R.(2016). Woman gets year's jail for killing hubby who attacked her. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/woman-gets-years-jail-killing-hubby-who-attacked-her Ministry of Health. (2011). Depression. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/dam/moh_web/HPP/Doctors/cpg_medical/current/2012/depression/Depression%20CPG_R11.pdf Singapore Law. (2016). Commercial Law. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-21 Singapore Legal Advice. (2010). The difference between murder and culpable homicide in Singapore. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/the-difference-between-murder-and-culpable-homicide-in-singapore/ Singapore Legal Advice. (2016). What if someone defames me over other forms of social networking media?. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/what-if-someone-defames-me-over-a-blog-or-other-forms-of-social-networking-media/ Singapore Legal Advice.(2011). What can I do to protect myself in self defence in Singapore?. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/what-can-i-do-to-protect-myself-in-self-defence-in-singapore/ Singapore Statutes Online. (2016). Penal Code. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=85fe891c-9489-47a0-a0c2-15a8a9fb92c9;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22025e7646-947b-462c-b557-60aa55dc7b42%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0 SingHealth. (2016). Depression. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.singhealth.com.sg/PatientCare/ConditionsAndTreatments/Pages/Depression.aspx Soltani, P. (2003). Crime and Punishment In Singapore. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://langaraprm.com/2003/travel/crime-and-punishment-in-singapore-many-consider-singapore-a-safe-tourist-destination-but-every-few-years-its-legal-system-makes-headlines/ Start Up. (2016). Singapores Defamation Law. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.startupdecisions.com.sg/singapore/business-laws/defamation-law/ Straits times.(2016). More foreign wives seek help after Singaporean husbands abuse them, leave, land in jail or die. Retrieved on 12th December 2016 from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-foreign-wives-seek-help-after-singaporean-husbands-abuse-them-leave-land-in-jail-or