Buergin Juerg v Public Prosecutor
"I am not aware of any known defence in criminal law that a person is not guilty of an offence if he was a victim of some other offence"
(this also applies to tit-for-tat arguments, like terrorism being okay if you're being oppressed)
Keywords: cannot be a victim of a crime, no doctrine in the law, no doctrine in law, victim of another crime, cannot be the victim, underage underaged prostitute, victim of one, he was a victim of a different offence, i know of, victim of an offence, just because someone, crime of another, no legal doctrine, a victim of one crime, just because someone is the victim, singapore
Addendum: Original link is broken. New link to Buergin Juerg v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 134
The Honourable Choo Han Teck J:
"I am of the view that s 377D(1) leaves no doubt that an accused like the appellant cannot raise in his defence that he did not know that the person he had paid sex with was under-aged. Mr Naidu submitted that this provision merely removes “reasonable mistake” as a defence but there are other aspects of mens rea not connected with “reasonable mistake”. He argued that the prosecution therefore was obliged to prove the criminal intention in this case. He argued that the appellant not only did not know that Chantelle was under-aged, the appellant was in fact cheated by Tang and Chantelle into believing that she was not under-aged. Counsel argued that the appellant was a “victim”, not an offender. I am not aware of any known defence in criminal law that a person is not guilty of an offence if he was a victim of some other offence. The offence in question was one of having paid sex with an under-aged person. The appellant might have been a victim of a cheating offence by Tang or Chantelle, but that is not a defence. It was a digression from the crux of the appellant’s true defence, namely, that at the material time he made a reasonable mistake in believing that Chantelle was under-aged. But that belief, which the trial judge accepted, cannot be raised as a defence because of the clear wording of s 377D(1). The only exception to s 377D(1) is where the accused person was under the age of 21 years (see [4] above). The appellant was 39 years old at the time of his offences. The fact that the appellant was cheated by Tang or Chantelle only threw him into circumstances in which he could raise in his defence that he did not know that Chantelle was under-aged, but that was precisely the defence that s 377D precluded him from raising. Consequently, his appeal against conviction failed and was dismissed. The circumstances of his case might have been relevant in respect of sentencing but since there was no appeal against sentence and neither the prosecution nor defence raised it, I will not make any comment on the sentence."