Related Research Articles
Attempted murder is a crime of attempt in various jurisdictions.
An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.
An accessory is a person who assists in, but does not actually participate in, the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.
The Crimes Act 1900 is a New South Wales statute that sets out the majority of criminal offences for the state of New South Wales in Australia. It, the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 and the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 form the majority of criminal law for New South Wales.
S v Mshumpa and Another was a South African case with special significance for the law of persons and succession.
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 Mavros is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein in November 1920. Innes CJ, Solomon JA and Juta JA were the presiding officers.
R v Viljoen is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 23 April 1941, with judgment handed down on 6 May. De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA, and Feetham JA presided.
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.
S v Rabie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 12 September 1975, with judgment handed down on 23 September. The presiding officers were Holmes JA, Corbett JA and Kotzé AJA. The case is significant primarily in the area of sentencing, with its determination that the punishment should
R v Zinn, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Appellate Division on 6 December 1945, with judgment handed down on 13 March 1946. Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA, and Davis AJA. NE Rosenberg KC appeared for the appellant, and C. Norman Scoble, for the Crown.
The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.
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 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.
Rex v Zikalala is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 27, 1953. Zikalala, the appellant, had been charged and convicted of the culpable homicide in causing the death of one Alpheus Tsele. On appeal to the Appellate Division, he successfully argued self-defence.
Sexual violence is defined as the use of force or manipulation to get someone to engage in unwanted sexual activity without his or her consent. Such violence takes place in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, as well as outside intimate relationships. All sexual offenses violate the basic right of sexual self-determination. In Finland, sexual violence and taking advantage of a person is always a crime, even if the assaulter was the victim's spouse, relative or their friend. Sexual offences include but are not limited to rape, forcing someone into a sexual act and taking sexual advantage of a person. The victims of sexual violence are predominantly women, but 26 percent of Finnish men have experienced sexual harassment since their 15th birthday.
References
Case law
- R v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485.
- R v Schoombie 1945 AD 541.
