S v Alexander

Last updated

In S v Alexander & Others, the court held that, in considering whether the offense with which an accused is charged has been set forth in such manner and with such particulars as may be reasonably sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the charge, the court should exercise care not to confuse particulars which may be essential to warn the accused fairly and reasonably of the case which they have to meet, with the evidence which may be led in proof of the commission of the offense.

This does not mean that the accused must be informed of every detail of the case against them and, if the State does not know, for instance, how many meetings were held at certain places charged it obviously cannot inform or be compelled to inform the accused.

The State is merely expected to inform the accused of what it does know and upon what it is going to rely.

Related Research Articles

Arraignment Formal reading of the offence toward a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they generally include "guilty", "not guilty", and the peremptory pleas setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of "nolo contendere" and the "Alfordplea" are allowed in some circumstances.

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.

In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a criminal case under common law using the adversarial system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that person pleaded or pled guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere, no case to answer, or Alford plea.

Summary offence Crime that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment

A summary offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

Mens rea is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

Arrest Law enforcement term

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

The Constitution of the State of Hawaii refers to various legal documents throughout the history of the Hawaiian Islands that defined the fundamental principles of authority and governance within its sphere of jurisdiction. Numerous constitutional documents have been promulgated for the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, Republic of Hawaiʻi, Territory of Hawaiʻi and State of Hawaiʻi. The first constitution was drafted by Kamehameha III. A few notable constitutions are the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 which stripped King Kalakaua of some decision making abilities without concurrence of his cabinet, and the Proposed 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, a replacement of the Bayonet Constitution promulgated by Queen Liliuokalani, which set off a chain of events that eventually resulted in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Other notable documents include the Constitution of 1978 that created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and declared the Hawaiian language to be one of the official languages of the state.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand, and a constitutionally-protected interest cannot tolerate permissible activity to be chilled within the range of the vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept. A law can be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

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.

Stop and identify statutes US state laws allowing police to require identification of those suspected of a crime

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

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:

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

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 Mpetha and Others (1981), the nineteen accused were charged under the Terrorism Act, 1967 with participation in terroristic activities and also on two counts of murder. There were alternative charges of public violence and conspiracy in contravention of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956.

In R v Verity-Amm, V was charged with driving a motor car recklessly or negligently in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance. Before the trial, V requested details of the alleged negligence but was refused such particulars. Before V pleaded, he applied to the court for further particulars and this application was also refused. V was convicted of the charge.

References

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.