Abstract:
Certain offences are premised on the existence of certain circumstances, such as the fact that the information a person published is false or that the white powder in the person’s possession is heroin. For such offences, the doctrine of mens rea suggests that the offender should be punished only if he knew or was reckless to the existence of the specified circumstance. This article reviews the current state of our jurisprudence in this area. It begins by looking at the traditional fault elements prescribed for such offences, namely, actual knowledge and reckless knowledge. The important clarification by the Court of Appeal in Tan Kiam Peng v PP concerning the scope of the doctrine of wilful blindness will also be reviewed. After this, we will look at the relatively uncommon fault element of “does not care” which received detailed treatment in the case of PP v Able Wang in the context of s 199(i) of the Securities and Futures Act. Finally, we will look at an attitude-based approach to reckless knowledge as an alternative mens rea for the offence.