S v Pakane

Last updated

In S v Pakane & Others (2007), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the three appellants, all police officers, appeared on charges relating to the death of one F, who had been shot twice, once at sufficiently close range as to leave a contact wound.

The second appellant, a sergeant, was convicted of murder and of defeating the ends of justice and sentenced.

The first and third appellants, both constables, were convicted of being accessories after the fact to murder, and were each sentenced.

All three appealed.

In South African law there is generally no distinction between accessorial liability and defeating the course of justice.

Thus the court noted that although the first and third appellants had assisted the second appellant in his attempt to evade justice as they had not reported the incident, to convict them of this offense when they had already been convicted of being accessories to the murder, would amount to a duplication of convictions.

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison for however long they have lived or indefinitely until pardoned, paroled, or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage, arson, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, severe cases of child pornography, or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offences causing death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life imprisonment, in 1884.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.

In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for early release after a minimum term set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.

The Trenton Six is the group name for six African-American defendants tried for murder of an elderly white shopkeeper in January 1948 in Trenton, New Jersey. The six young men were convicted in August 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder and sentenced to death.

Brandon Wade Hein was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for his involvement in the 1995 stabbing murder of 16-year-old Jimmy Farris, the son of a Los Angeles Police Department officer. Hein and two other youths who were present when the murder took place, as well as the actual killer, and were convicted under the felony murder rule because the murder was committed during the course of a felony – the attempted robbery of marijuana kept for sale by Farris's friend, Michael McLoren. Under the felony murder rule, any participant in a felony is criminally responsible for any death that occurs during its commission. In 2009, Hein's life sentence was commuted to 29 years to life.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timothy Wilson Spencer</span> American serial killer (1962–1994)

Timothy Wilson Spencer, also known as The Southside Strangler, was an American serial killer who committed three rapes and murders in Richmond, Virginia, and one in Arlington, Virginia, in the fall of 1987. In addition, he is believed to have committed at least one previous murder, in 1984, for which a different man, David Vasquez, was wrongfully convicted. He was known to police as a prolific home burglar.

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.

Maurice Richard "Pro" Lerner was a Mafia hit man connected with the Patriarca crime family who was convicted of murder in 1970. His conviction was overturned due to unethical behavior by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its chief witness.

S v Combrink is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Brand JA, Ponnan JA and Shongwe JA on May 25, 2011, with judgment handed down on June 23. BC Bredenkamp SC appeared for the appellant, and JJ Kotze for the State. Its significance lies primarily in the area of punishment and sentencing.

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

Russell Shoatz, also known as Maroon, was an American political activist and writer who was a founding member of the Black Unity Council, as well as a member of the Black Panther Party, and a soldier in the Black Liberation Army. In 1973, he was convicted in connection with the 1970 murder of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania police officer Frank Von Colln.

S v Vika, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

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 S v Grobler en 'n Ander (1966), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the first appellant had entered a café with a pistol in his hand and threatened the café owner's daughter-in-law. The owner's son grappled with the first appellant, who had fired two shots at him, one in his thigh and the other at the back of his head.

In S v Benjamin en 'n Ander (1980), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the two appellants were brothers who had been charged with both attempted murder and robbery with aggravated circumstances.

In S v Naidoo 2003 (1) SACR 347 (SCA); [2002] 4 All SA 710 (SCA), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellant had been convicted, along with two other accused, on 13 counts of culpable homicide arising out of an incident where a teargas canister was thrown into a rival nightclub. In the ensuing chaos and stampede 13 of the patrons of the nightclub died.

Capital punishment remains a legal penalty for multiple crimes in The Gambia. However, the country has taken recent steps towards abolishing the death penalty.

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.