Sunday, April 22, 2007
From PP v Teo Eng Chan [1988] 1 MLJ 156:
"The surrounding circumstances show that she is extremely unlikely to have consented. On Monday, 2 September, she put up strenuous resistance and successfully prevented Teo from having sexual intercourse with her or of making major advances preliminary to sexual intercourse with her on a bed in the privacy of a bedroom in a Beauty World Centre flat. Not merely that, her conduct was such that except for her breast being caressed and her panties being pulled down a short distance, she was able for half an hour to resist any further advances towards sexual intercourse by a single man, Teo, with no other males around. I find it impossible to believe that a girl who did this on Monday could, two days later, consent to four persons, the first of whom was Sim, a total stranger, having sex with her across three seats in the cabin of a lorry in a dark and deserted quarry. Any contrary view goes against the grain of logic and common sense."
And i totally agree. I wonder why people would bother running such a line of argument in the first place, when its plainly obvious that this defies common sense. And then they perpentuate such a case, which in turn gets onto the reading lists for modules, and then in turn waste my time reading it. haha
More Fuzzy Logic @ 12:09 AM
Archives
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
