R v Forlee

Last updated

In R v Forlee, the accused was charged with contravening a statutory provision which forbade the purchase of opium. The prohibition was taken over from an earlier Act, in which the purchase of opium was expressly declared a crime. In the new Act, which replaced the previous one, the criminal sanction (the provisions declaring the purchase to be a crime) was omitted. The court remarked as follows:

Contents

If this omission were intentional, then the Legislature considered either that the common law provided a penalty or that no penalty should be imposed at all. The latter conclusion is negatived by the whole tenor of those statutes [... T]he reasonable assumption is that the Legislature, whilst intending the prohibition to be absolute and effective, overlooked the absence of any expressed penalty [...]. It is clear that no law of this kind can be effective without a penalty; and the argument that the Courts must therefore be held to have the power to inflict a penalty, wherever the Legislature has intended to create an offence, is of considerable weight. [1]

The court concluded: "We have come to the conclusion that the same principle applies in Roman-Dutch law, and that as the act in question was expressly an offence, it is punishable under our law." [2] The court relied among other things on a rule which it formulated as follows: "The doing of an act which is expressly forbidden by the Legislature upon grounds of public policy constitutes an indictable offence, even though no penalty be attached." [3]

The principle laid down in Forlee was followed in the Appellate Division in R v Langley [4] and R v Baraitser , [5] but was strongly criticised by academics including De Wet and Swanepoel, [6] and Rabie and Strauss. [7] In the view of CR Snyman,

If the Legislature inadvertently omits the criminal norm, then the Legislature itself should correct the error. It should not be left to the court to speculate on what the Legislature wished to do and then be left to the court itself to create a criminal norm. In any event the principle quoted is formulated too broadly: ordinary legal norms can also be created by means of express prohibitions, and can be based "upon grounds of public policy", but this still does not transform such legal norms into criminal norms. [8] [9]

In Ackermann J's opinion, in the later case of S v Francis , [10] "there is merit in this criticism." For the purposes of that judgment, however, "I find it unnecessary to take this matter further for the following reason: even if one assumes that the principles laid down in Forlee are applicable in this Division, they are not applicable to the facts in the present case."

See also

Related Research Articles

Nulla poena sine lege is a legal principle which states that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement[s] in the entire history of human thought'".

Indecent exposure Public indecency involving nudity of some sort

Indecent exposure is an expression that describes the deliberate public exposure by a person of a portion of their body in a manner contrary to local standards of appropriate behavior. Laws and social attitudes regarding indecent exposure vary significantly in different countries. It ranges from outright prohibition to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts.

The Nuremberg principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act, is an Act of the Parliament of India that prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 August 1985. It was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received assent from then President Giani Zail Singh on 16 September 1985, and came into force on 14 November 1985. The NDPS Act has since been amended thrice — in 1988, 2001 and 2014. The Act extends to the whole of India and it applies also to all Indian citizens outside India and to all persons on ships and aircraft registered in India.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.

The omissions of individuals are generally not criminalised in English criminal law, save in many instances of a taking on of a duty of care, having contractual responsibility or clearly negligent creation of a hazard. Many comparator jurisdictions put a general statutory duty on strangers to rescue – this is not so in English law. Defenders and reasoners of the position regard it as wrong for the criminal law to punish people in many circumstances for committing no physical act, which it is argued would be an infringement on human autonomy. Academics arguing for reform argue that a social responsibility to assist others should exist, particularly where there would be no danger to the rescuer.

<i>Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor</i> Singapore Supreme Court case

Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

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.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

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.

S v Masiya is an important case in South African criminal law, decided by the Constitutional Court.

Informal admissions in South African law are part of the South African law of evidence. Briefly, an admission is a statement made by a party, in civil or criminal proceedings, which is adverse to that party's case. Informal admissions, which are usually made out of court, must be distinguished from formal admissions, made in the pleadings or in court. Formal admissions are binding on the maker, and are generally made in order to reduce the number of issues before the court; an informal admission is merely an item of evidence that can be contradicted or explained away.

Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India taxed inter-state commerce

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1956, brought taxes on inter-State sales and purchases of goods other than newspapers within the exclusive legislative and executive power of the Union, and levied taxes on inter-State sales and purchase of goods other than newspapers. Although these taxes would be levied and collected in accordance with an Act of Parliament, they would not form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, but would accrue to the States themselves in accordance with such principles of distribution as may be formulated by Parliament by law.

The totality principle is a common law principle which applies when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment. The principle was first formulated by David Thomas in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales:

The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'

Legal history of cannabis in Canada Aspect of history

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way to the legalization of cannabis in Canada on October 17, 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalise the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on October 17, 2018.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ 53-54.
  2. ↑ 56.
  3. ↑ 55.
  4. ↑ 1931 CPD 31.
  5. ↑ 1931 CPD 418.
  6. ↑ Strafreg 4th ed at 46-47.
  7. ↑ Punishment: An Introduction to Principles 4th ed at 79-80.
  8. ↑ Strafreg 3rd ed at 43.
  9. ↑ Translated by Snyman Casebook 24.
  10. ↑ 1994 (1) SACR 350 (K).
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.