R v Zinn

Last updated

R v Zinn, [1] 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 (with him D. Gould) appeared for the appellant, and C. Norman Scoble, for the Crown.

Contents

Facts

The appellant had been convicted of a contravention of Volksraad Besluit No. 104 of 25 September 1871, in that he had allowed coloured persons, other than those exempted by the Besluit, to occupy an erf in the village of belonging to the appellant, and had been fined £1. This decision was appealed on the grounds

  1. that a breach of the provisions of the Besluit was not a crime; and
  2. that the Besluit, in so far as it referred to coloured persons, had been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation.

Judgment

The Appellate Division, allowing an appeal, did not think it necessary, for the purposes of this case, to attempt to lay down any specific test for deciding whether an enactment creates a criminal offence. It was sufficient, the court found, to apply the general rule of giving effect to the lawgiver's intention. It considered, therefore, whether or not the language of the Besluit, together with its surrounding circumstances, showed that it was a penal enactment. The court began by comparing the Besliut with other legislative enactments preceding and following it, and found none whose terms showed it to be a criminal enactment but which did not expressly mention a penalty: "A survey of the legislation up to and including the period when the Besluit was passed affords good reason for holding that, as a matter of practice, 'when the Volksraad intended to create a crime, it prescribed a penalty.'" [2]

The court held, for this reason and for others, that the Besluit in question did not create a crime. Although it did not make the assumption that, if an enactment is to create a crime, it should provide, either expressly or by reference, for a punishment, "I think it improbable that if the lawgiver had intended that the Besluit should create a crime, he would not have taken the precaution of inserting a penalty—more particularly as this is what appears generally to have been done." [3]

The decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division (where Barry JP and Millin J dismissed an appeal from conviction in the Magistrate's Court of Johannesburg), was thus reversed.

See also

Related Research Articles

Fine (penalty) Financial penalty

A fine or mulct is a penalty of money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offense. The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance.

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.

Law of Singapore National law of the city-state

The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are almost completely statutory in nature.

Court of Appeal of New Zealand New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Intermediate appellate court of South Carolina

The South Carolina Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of South Carolina.

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.

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.

Administrator, Cape, and Another v Ntshwaqela and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 7 November 1989, with judgment handed down on 30 November. Corbett CJ, Hoexter JA, Nestadt JA, Steyn JA and Nicholas AJA.

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

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.

Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.

R v Patel is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on May 8, 1959. The appellant's attorneys were Levy, Rogaly & Cohen, Pretoria, and S. and v A Rosendorff, Bloemfontein. The Appellate Division ruled that "a person has the same right to use force in the defence of another from a threatened danger, as he would have to defend himself, if he were the person threatened."

In S v Jackson, an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that a person is justified in killing in self-defence not only when he fears that his life is in danger but also when he fears grievous bodily harm. PE Linde appeared for the appellant and BG van der Walt, SC, Attorney-General OFS, for the State. The case was heard on March 8, 1963. The appellant's attorney was DA Carroll, Johannesburg.

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.

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 was omitted. The court remarked as follows:

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.

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.

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.

Capital punishment in Bangladesh is a legal form of punishment for anyone who is over 16, however in practice will not apply to people under 18. Crimes that are currently punishable by death in Bangladesh are set out in the Penal Code 1860. These include waging war against Bangladesh, abetting mutiny, giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death, murder, assisted suicide of a child, attempted murder of a child, and kidnapping. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides that "he be hanged by the neck until he is dead." For murder cases, the Appellate Division requires trial courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the death penalty is warranted.

References

Case law

Legislation

Notes

  1. ↑ 1946 AD 346.
  2. ↑ 357.
  3. ↑ 361.
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.