Article 59: Intention, negligence and criminal act

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4317/2567 (2024)

   The intention to take another's property under Section 59 is distinct from the special dishonest intent required for theft; without dishonest intent there is no theft.

   Applying the Section 1(1) definition of dishonesty, the Court held that dishonest intent is a special-intent element of theft in addition to the general intention under Section 59. Even where the defendant intended to take another's property, the absence of dishonest intent meant the conduct, done openly in daylight before witnesses, was not theft.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1732/2565 (2022)

   Under Section 59 paragraph three, guilt requires that the doer knew the facts constituting the elements of the offence, and the prosecution must prove that state of mind beyond reasonable doubt.

   In a bad-cheque prosecution, the Court held that the defendants could be guilty only if they knew, as an element under Section 59 paragraph three, that on the date of issue the account lacked sufficient funds. The prosecution bore the burden of proving that knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 185/2566 (2023)

   Liability for an intentional offence is tested by the Section 59 paragraph two definition of intention: consciousness of the act together with purpose as to, or foresight of, the result.

   Where the defendant erected concrete posts and a barbed-wire fence across a public way, blocking vehicle access to the co-plaintiff's land, the Court framed the question of criminal intent squarely by reference to the Section 59 paragraph two definition of intention.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.