HINDRAF31 released: AG no evidence who threw the bricks

via maverickysm

Abdul Gani Patail openly admit that the attempted murder charges against the 31 accused is faulty.

The prosecution could not and are not able to determine who actually threw the brick that caused grievous bodily harm (GBH) on a police officer.

Policeman Dedi Abd Rani was hit on the head by a brick during an illegal assembly in Batu Caves on Nov 25. The protesters were lock-in the compound of the temple and were fired with water cannon and tear gas.

In Criminal Law, the prosecution must provide evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt that each of the 31 or any of them was the person who had acted to cause the GBH, and at the time when the accused acted, he had malicious intention to cause grievous bodily harm or to kill the officer. That's what the judge would require from the prosecution, i.e Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

For Actus Reus, the prosecution must prove that, the act was unlawful and caused GBH; the act was voluntary; the act was factual and intended to cause GBH or death (factual means the prosecution must determine beyond reasonable doubt who was the actual person that throw the brick that caused GBH to the police officer); that the act was a substantial and operative cause of GBH; and the chain of causation was not broken by any intervening events.

In short, The prosecution has to prove: the act was dangerous; the act caused the injury; the act was directed at the victim, and that the dangerous act was factual.

If the prosecution is able to prove all the elements of Actus Reus (ie, all of them), then they had to further proved that the required mens rea are present, which are: that the accused had the malicious intend to inflict GBH or death, and that the accused could foresee that his act would result in some physical harm (recklessness is insufficient for attempted murder).

The prosecution need to establish that the accused either had the intention to cause some harm.

|more....|