Related Research Articles
Arson is the act of willfully and deliberately setting fire to or charring property. Although the act of arson typically involves buildings, the term can also refer to the intentional burning of other things, such as motor vehicles, watercraft, or forests. The crime is typically classified as a felony, with instances involving a greater degree of risk to human life or property carrying a stricter penalty. Arson which results in death can be further prosecuted as manslaughter or murder. In cases of insurance fraud by acts of arson, a person destroys their own property by burning it and lying about the cause of the fire in order to collect money from their property's insurance policy. A common motive for arson is to commit insurance fraud. In such cases, a person destroys their own property by burning it and then lies about the cause in order to collect against their insurance policy.
In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit to the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, the plan itself is the crime, so there is no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under the common law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Criminal damage in English law was originally a common law offence. The offence was largely concerned with the protection of dwellings and the food supply, and few sanctions were imposed for damaging personal property. Liability was originally restricted to the payment of damages by way of compensation.
In the field of criminal law, there are a variety of conditions that will tend to negate elements of a crime, known as defenses. The label may be apt in jurisdictions where the accused may be assigned some burden before a tribunal. However, in many jurisdictions, the entire burden to prove a crime is on the prosecution, which also must prove the absence of these defenses, where implicated. In other words, in many jurisdictions the absence of these so-called defenses is treated as an element of the crime. So-called defenses may provide partial or total refuge from punishment.
Regina v. Cunningham (1957) is an English Court of Appeal ruling that clarified that indirect, not reasonably foreseeable consequences to a totally distinct, reprehensible, even "wicked" activity would not be considered "malicious" where that is set out as the mens rea for a particular offence. The level of mens rea, by statute, specifically needed to accompany "administration", which it was common ground that negligent release would amount to, of noxious gases.
Intoxication in English law is a circumstance which may alter the capacity of a defendant to form mens rea, where a charge is one of specific intent, or may entirely negate mens rea where the intoxication is involuntary. The fact that a defendant is intoxicated in the commission of a crime — whether voluntarily or not — has never been regarded as a full defence to criminal proceedings. Its development at common law has been shaped by the acceptance that intoxicated individuals do not think or act as rationally as they would otherwise, but also by a public policy necessity to punish individuals who commit crimes.
Criminal law is a system of laws that is connected with crimes and punishments of an individual who commits crimes. In comparison, civil law is where the case argues their issues with one entity to another entity with support of the law. Crimes can vary in definition by jurisdiction but the basis for a crime are fairly consistent regardless.
In admiralty law, barratry is an act of gross misconduct committed by a master or crew of a vessel resulting in damage to the vessel or its cargo. These activities may include desertion, illegal scuttling, theft of the ship or cargo, and any act carried out against the best interests of the shipowner.
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.
R v Mabula is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein in October 1926. The judges were Innes CJ, De Villiers JA, Kotz JA, Wessels JA and Gardiner AJA.
R v Mataung is an important case in South African law, heard and decided in the Orange Free State Provincial Division on 13 August 1953. Brink J wrote the judgment; Van Blerk J concurred.
R v Schoombie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 21 March 1945, with judgment handed down on 15 May, and Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA and Davis AJA presiding.
R v Kewelram is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division, Bloemfontein, on 15 February 1922, with judgment handed down on 6 March. The judges were Innes CJ, Solomon JA, Maasdorp JA, De Villiers JA and Juta JA.
R v Shein is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division, Bloemfontein, on 15 September 1924, with judgment handed down on 3 October. Innes CJ, Solomon JA, De Villiers JA, Kotz JA and Wessels JA presided. The court found that the evidence on which a jury is entitled to convict upon a criminal charge is evidence on which reasonable men could properly convict. If the evidence produced cannot be so described, the court will set aside the verdict not as deciding the facts itself, but because the jury has not, in its opinion, duly discharged the judicial duty cast upon it. If, on the other hand, the evidence does answer to that description, the court will refuse to interfere, not because it would have come to the same conclusion itself, but because no ground exists for interference with the discharge of a duty entrusted by law to the jury alone.
Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.
R v Shelembe is an important case in South African criminal law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division, by Selke AJP and Kennedy J, on August 22, 1955. DJH Niehaus appeared for the accused, at the request of the court; EA Logie appeared for the Crown. Judgment came down on August 30.
R v Peverett is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on March 7, 1940. The appellant's attorneys were Renaud & Mooney, Durban, and Kannemeyer & Jeffreys, Bloemfontein.
In S v B is an important case in South African criminal law, often cited for its findings as to the considerations to be taken into account in sentencing.
References
Case law
- R v Enslin 2 AC 69.
- R v Mavros 1921 AD 19.
