Abstract:
It has been pointed out that the definition of rashness adopted by the Singapore courts contains a “curious anomaly.” On the one hand, it appears to mirror the traditional English test of advertent recklessness which requires the offender to have an actual consciousness of an unjustifiable risk. On the other hand, the definition is accompanied by an exception to this general rule which has led commentators to ask whether rashness is strictly confined to advertent conduct or whether certain forms of inadvertent conduct can amount to rashness. This note examines the case of S Balakrishnan v PP and concludes that the High Court has decided on the latter interpretation of rashness.