5 interesting things to know about the law of criminal intimidation?
Criminal intimidation is defined in section 503 as whoever threatens another with harm to their person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of someone in whom they have an interest, with the intent to frighten them, convince them to act in a way that they are not legally required to, or to persuade them to stay away from acting in a way that they are legally required to.This crime’s objective is to persuade the target of the threat to stay away from acting or to forget to do anything. It must be demonstrated that the accused has mens rea when committing the offense in addition to having the actus reus to harm a person, his reputation, or property in order to prove criminal intimidation. Hence, the act must be done with the intention to frighten that individual or to persuade him to act in a way that is against the law.
However, the argument that merely purpose needs to be taken into account in order to satisfy section 503 is insufficient because various cases suggested that it is also crucial to take the accused’s ability to carry out the threat into account. For instance, the accused in Jogendrakumar v. Hem Chandran is a 74-year-old sickly elderly man. threatened to murder the complainant, a boy, in the presence of four or five other people. There is proof that none of the people in present were actually alarmed. Therefore, The judge held that there was no evidence of criminal intimidation. The accused’s intent and the substance of the threat must be taken into consideration.Even though it is sufficient that the accused is obviously unable to carry out the threat, this should also be taken into consideration. If criminal intimidation has been established, it should be demonstrated that the victim had an explanation to suspect alarm even if he did not feel it.
Futhermore, if someone threatens to do the physical harassement or kill the person or their family through the Internet. If the threatshave person received concern bodily harm or death, that person could may consider filing a report right away at one of the local police stations for additional investigation and possible Penal Code under Act 574 enforcement. The Malaysian Communication And Multimedia Commission (MCMC) will help the police if required.
In conclusion, it is a type of preventive punishment in which the accused is penalised for intimidating rather than committing the crime. It makes no difference whether or not the actual crime happened. A mere threat, on the other hand, does not constitute criminal intimidation and it must be made with the intent of alarming the individual threatened. It is irrelevant whether it has frightened the recipient of the threat and what is needed is the accused’s purpose to do so.
