Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa.In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted."
S v Francis is an important case in South African criminal law. It deals with that subdivision of the principle of legality known as the ius acceptum rule in statutory crimes: the rule stipulating that a court may convict an accused of a crime only if the type of act which he committed is recognised by the law—in this instance the statutory law as a crime.
In S v Lavhengwa, an important case in South African criminal law, it was held that the right created in section 35(3)(a) of the Constitution, which provides that the right to a fair trial includes the right to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it, implies that the criminal charge itself must be clear and unambiguous.
S v Thebus and Another is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law and criminal procedure.The court unanimously affirmed that the doctrine of common purpose was compatible with the Constitution, upholding two murder convictions on that basis.
S v Zinn, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, was heard in the Appellate Division by Steyn CJ, Ogilvie Thompson JA and Rumpff JA on March 21, 1969, with judgment handed down on March 31. H. Snitcher QC appeared for the appellant; for the state, AJ Lategan.
R v Victor, an appeal against a conviction by a magistrate, is an important case in South African criminal law, especially as it bears on the defence of automatism.The driver of a motor vehicle was prone to epileptic seizures, and knew as much, but nevertheless put himself behind the wheel of a motor car.
In S v Jackson, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that a person is justified in killing in self-defence not only when he fears that his life is in danger but also when he fears grievous bodily harm. PE Linde appeared for the appellant and BG van der Walt, SC, Attorney-General OFS, for the State.
S v Shilubane, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and ...