Jetha v R

Last updated

Jetha v Rex [1] is an important case in South African criminal law, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on April 22, 1929, by Dove-Wilson JP, Tatham J and Matthews J. It was an appeal from the Durban Magistrate's Court. TB Horwood appeared for the appellant and JDM Rosenow for the Crown. The appellant's attorneys were CP Robinson & Goulding.

Contents

Facts

The appellant sailed for India on October 11, 1926; his estate was provisionally sequestrated on October 13, 1926. In March 1929, after his return, he was convicted of contravening section 142(a) of the Insolvency Act, [2] in that he had failed to attend the first meeting of his creditors, held on November 11, 1926.

The magistrate, in his reasons, stated that he was satisfied, on the facts set out above, that it was physically impossible for appellant to attend the meeting. He convicted the appellant because he must have been aware, when he left the Union, of the act of insolvency which must have preceded his sequestration. His failure to attend the meeting, therefore, was due to his own fault in leaving the Union with knowledge of such act. The magistrate referred to R v Mahomed Abbas [3] [4] and R v Mayer Brothers, [5] and said that, since the trial, his attention had been drawn to the case of R v Moosa . [6]

Judgment

Dove-Wilson JP held on appeal for the Natal Provincial Division that the appellant did not know and could not have known of the date of the meeting until after it was held. In addition, it would have been physically impossible for him to attend even if he had known the date. There was, therefore, no ground for his conviction.

In Rex v Korsten , [7] a slightly earlier case, Dove-Wilson JP had rejected the defence of impossibility, since in there the duty with which the accused had failed to comply was an absolute one: "It is no excuse for him to say that he was ignorant [of the law...]. It was his duty to make himself aware of it, and if his neglect to do so has brought about his failure [to comply...], he has contravened the law." [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Senate of the Roman Republic Governing and advisory assembly of the aristocracy

The Senate was the governing and advisory assembly of the aristocracy in the ancient Roman Republic. It was not an elected body, but one whose members were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors. After a Roman magistrate served his term in office, it usually was followed with automatic appointment to the Senate. According to the Greek historian Polybius, our principal source on the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate was the predominant branch of government. Polybius noted that it was the consuls who led the armies and the civil government in Rome, and it was the Roman assemblies which had the ultimate authority over elections, legislation, and criminal trials. However, since the Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy, it had the most control over day-to-day life. The power and authority of the Senate derived from precedent, the high caliber and prestige of the senators, and the Senate's unbroken lineage, which dated back to the founding of the Republic in 509 BC. It developed from the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, and became the Senate of the Roman Empire.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.

Theodore E. Burton American politician (1851–1929)

Theodore Elijah Burton was a Republican politician from Ohio. He served in the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

Grievous bodily harm is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are respectively created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187 is a case decided in the Federal Court of Malaysia concerning the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and also involving the extent to which Parliament can amend the Constitution. The decision was delivered by Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah.

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council is a UK constitutional and administrative law case, concerning the interaction of EU law and an Act of Parliament. It is important for its recognition of the supremacy of EU law and the basis for that recognition. Though the earlier Factortame had also referred to Parliament's voluntary acceptance of the supremacy of EU law, Thoburn put less stress on the jurisprudence of the ECJ and more on the domestic acceptance of such supremacy; Lord Justice Laws suggested there was a hierarchy of "constitutional statutes" that Parliament could only expressly repeal, and so were immune from implied repeal.

Ben F. Wilson American actor

Ben F. Wilson, was an American stage and film actor, director, producer and screenwriter of the silent era. He appeared in more than 210 films between 1911 and 1930. He also directed more than 130 films between 1912 and 1930. He starred as Inspector Cleek in a 1914 series of mystery shorts. He was born in Corning, Iowa in 1876, and died in Glendale, California in 1930 from heart disease.

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 United Kingdom legislation

The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 forms part of UK company law and sets out the procedures for company directors to be disqualified in certain cases of misconduct.

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." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

S v Zinn, 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. The case is most often cited for its provision of a basic triad of sentencing considerations: the crime, the criminal and the interests of society.

Graaff-Reinet Municipality v Van Ryneveld's Pass Irrigation Board is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 6, 1950, with judgment handed down on March 21. The judges were Watermeyer CJ, Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA, and Murray AJA. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Steyn J and Searle J. The appellant's attorneys were Herold, Gie & Broadhead, Cape Town, and McIntyre & Watkeys, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Mostert & Bosman, Cape Town, and Reitz, Barry & Berning, Bloemfontein.

Rex v Korsten is an important case in South African criminal law, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on February 7, 1927, by Dove-Wilson JP, Carter J and Matthews J. The case was an application for a ruling in terms of section 58 of the Criminal and Magistrates' Courts Procedure (Amendment) Act, in respect of a decision by the Magistrate of Eshowe.

<i>R v Victor</i> South African legal case

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 fits, and knew as much, but nevertheless put himself behind the wheel of a motor car. He suffered a fit while driving and collided with a pedestrian and another car. The court on appeal sustained his conviction by a magistrate on the ground that the negligence which the accused there committed was not so much in the driving of the vehicle, but in his driving at all, knowing of his physical disability. A reasonable person would have foreseen the likelihood of a fit and refrained from driving.

In S v Fernandez, an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 17, 1966, the court held that the appellant had been negligent in mending a cage from which a baboon had subsequently escaped, which subsequently bit a child, who subsequently died. The appellant must have foreseen the likelihood of an attack in the event of the baboon's escaping; he was, the court held, therefore rightly convicted of culpable homicide. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Galgut J and Clayden J, who had dismissed an appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court.

S v Vika, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

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.

Insolvency in South African law refers to a status of diminished legal capacity imposed by the courts on persons who are unable to pay their debts, or whose liabilities exceed their assets. The insolvent's diminished legal capacity entails deprivation of certain of his important legal capacities and rights, in the interests of protecting other persons, primarily the general body of existing creditors, but also prospective creditors. Insolvency is also of benefit to the insolvent, in that it grants him relief in certain respects.

The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.

Anguillan bankruptcy law regulates the position of individuals and companies who are unable to meet their financial obligations.

Newton Ogilvie Thompson was a South African jurist who served as the 13th Chief Justice of South Africa, from 1971 to 1974.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ (1929) 50 NPD 91.
  2. ↑ Act 32 of 1916.
  3. ↑ 1916 CPD 178.
  4. ↑ 1916 AD 233.
  5. ↑ 6 HCG 130.
  6. ↑ [1929] CPD (24-12 28).
  7. ↑ (1927) 48 NPD 12.
  8. ↑ 13.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.