R v Shelembe

Last updated

R v Shelembe [1] 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.

Contents

The case revolved around a charge of malicious injury to property, where the accused, endeavouring to escape from a room into which he had broken, broke in a two a locked door. Since the accused had also been charged and convicted of housebreaking with intent to commit a crime to the prosecutor unknown, the question arose: Was there a splitting of charges? The court held that breaking into a room and breaking out of it are two separate and distinct incidents. There had, therefore, not been a splitting of charges.

Facts

The accused had been charged and convicted on two counts:

  1. housebreaking with intent to commit a crime to the prosecutor unknown; and
  2. malicious injury to property.

The evidence showed that he had broken into a room where there were a number of persons sleeping, and that, when they were aroused by his presence, the accused, apparently in an effort to escape, had broken in two the door, which had been locked.

Judgment

On a review, the court held that the accused's conduct amounted to malicious injury to property, and that there had not been a splitting of charges, as the accused's breaking out was separate from the breaking-in in point of time and motive; they were separate and distinct incidents.

See also

Related Research Articles

Assault Physical or verbal attack of another person

An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

Burglary, also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking, is illegally entering a building or other areas to commit a crime. Usually that offence is theft, robbery or murder, but most jurisdictions include others within the ambit of burglary. To commit burglary is to burgle, a term back-formed from the word burglar, or to burglarize.

Arson Intentional burning of property as a crime

Arson is a crime of willfully and maliciously setting fire to or charring property. Though the act typically involves buildings, the term arson 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. 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.

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible, a court typically must demonstrate that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that they knew or should have known that another would be harmed by their actions and wanted this harm to occur. For example, if a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

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".

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.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Penal Code (Singapore) Criminal code of Singapore

The Penal Code of Singapore sets out general principles of the criminal law of Singapore, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating. The Penal Code does not define and list exhaustively all the criminal offences applicable in Singapore – a large number of these are created by other statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

The Tomkins incident on 30 November 2004 was an attack by two white farmers on two Aboriginal boys found trespassing on their property near Goondiwindi, a town on the border of Queensland and New South Wales in Australia.

On November 2, 2002, U.S. Marine Corps Major Michael Brown attempted an indecent assault on a Filipina bartender in Okinawa, Japan. The bartender accused Brown of attempting to rape her and of throwing her cell phone into a nearby river; Brown denied the rape charges. The victim later recanted and attempted to withdraw the accusation, though prosecutors presented evidence that she had received a cash payment just before doing so.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Scottish criminal law

Scots criminal law relies far more heavily on common law than in England and Wales. Scottish criminal law includes offences against the person of murder, culpable homicide, rape and assault, offences against property such as theft and malicious mischief, and public order offences including mobbing and breach of the peace. Scottish criminal law can also be found in the statutes of the UK Parliament with some areas of criminal law, such as misuse of drugs and traffic offences appearing identical on both sides of the Border. Scottish criminal law can also be found in the statute books of the Scottish Parliament such as the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and Prostitution (Scotland) Act 2007 which only apply to Scotland. In fact, the Scots requirement of corroboration in criminal matters changes the practical prosecution of crimes derived from the same enactment. Corroboration is not required in England or in civil cases in Scotland. Scots law is one of the few legal systems that require corroboration.

Burglary is a statutory offence in England and Wales.

2009 Lakewood shooting 2009 murder of four Lakewood police officers in Parkland, Washington, USA

On November 29, 2009, four police officers of Lakewood, Washington were fatally shot at the Forza Coffee shop, located at 11401 Steele Street #108 South in the Parkland unincorporated area of Pierce County, Washington, near Tacoma. A gunman, later identified as Maurice Clemmons, entered the shop, shot the officers while they worked on laptops, and fled the scene with a single gunshot wound in his torso. After a massive two-day manhunt that spanned several nearby cities, an officer recognized Clemmons near a stalled car in south Seattle. When he refused orders to stop, he was shot and killed by a Seattle Police Department officer.

Responsibility for criminal law and criminal justice in the United States is shared between the states and the federal government.

The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law. A long-standing feature of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before an accused can be convicted of a crime. This means, for example, that an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source. Testimony from some experts, such as forensic medical examiners or doctors, is accepted by courts on the basis of the expert's report alone, therefore requiring no corroboration.

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.

In S v Prins en 'n Ander, an important case in South African criminal procedure, the two appellants had been charged with both murder and robbery. They had attacked the complainant with a rake and he had died 9 days later from the injuries sustained from the attack. After the assault, they had robbed him.

The Federico murder case was a criminal case which took place in Chesterfield County, Virginia, United States, in which Josh Federico shot his wife, Sarah; killed her boyfriend, Lawrence Howell; and attempted to kill her unborn child. Following his arrest, Federico conspired with family members and friends to hire someone to kill his father-in-law and brother-in-law. Five people have been implicated in these crimes.

References

Notes

  1. 1955 (4) SA 410 (N).