Related Research Articles
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.
Robert J. "Rob" Anders is a Canadian former politician. He represented the riding of Calgary West from 1997 until 2015 and was a founding member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
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".
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.
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.
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.
The war crimes trial of Slobodan Milošević, the former President of Yugoslavia, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) lasted from February 2002 until his death in March 2006. Milošević faced 66 counts of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
S v Mokgethi en Andere is an important case in South African law, with the court's determination that, in general, a perpetrator's action, which is a sine qua non for the death of the deceased, is too remote from the result to give rise to criminal liability if
- a failure on the part of the deceased to obtain medical or similar advice, to undergo treatment or to follow instructions as to his treatment is the immediate cause of his death;
- the wounding was not in itself lethal or was no longer lethal at the relevant time; and
- such failure was relatively unreasonable: that is, unreasonable also taking into account the characteristics, convictions, etc., of the deceased.
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.
Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.
In S v Fernandez, an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 17, 1966, the court held that the appellant had been negligent in mending a cage from which a baboon had subsequently escaped, which subsequently bit a child, who subsequently died. The appellant must have foreseen the likelihood of an attack in the event of the baboon's escaping; he was, the court held, therefore rightly convicted of culpable homicide. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Galgut J and Clayden J, who had dismissed an appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court.
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.
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 Longdistance (Natal) & Others (1989), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellants had been convicted on two counts of contravening the Road Transportation Act in that they had conveyed, in two sets of vehicles, each comprising a mechanical horse and trailer, 2,000 pockets of refined sugar in each set of vehicles to a consignee in the Eastern Transvaal who intended reselling it, such transportation not being covered by the provisions of permits issued to the appellants. They appealed.
R v Khan & Others 1949 (4) SA 868 (N) was an important case in South African criminal procedure, hinging on "splitting of charges".
In S v Whitehead, an important case in South African criminal procedure, the appellants were convicted of public violence and culpable homicide and, in the case of the seventh appellant, of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The appellant in Van Aardt v S, an important case in South African criminal law, had been convicted in the Grahamstown High Court of the murder of a fifteen-year-old youth, following a savage beating administered by the appellant, who suspected the deceased of theft. An appeal to the full bench of the Eastern Cape High Court was unsuccessful, so the matter came on further appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant admitted common assault, but denied that such assault had caused the death of the deceased, or that he bore a legal duty to seek medical intervention for the deceased.
S v Dlamini was a South African court case. The central question was of duplication of convictions.
Galing Anak Kujat is a convicted robber and a native Malaysian of Iban descent who came from Sarawak, Malaysia. He was best known to be the accomplice of Kho Jabing, a convicted murderer who also came from Malaysia and was known for his years-long battle against the death penalty in Singapore. Galing and Kho were both involved in the 2008 robbery and murder of mainland Chinese national and construction worker Cao Ruyin in Singapore. Initially facing a murder charge and possible execution, Galing was eventually imprisoned and jailed for robbery with hurt.
References
- S v Prins en 'n Ander 1977 (3) SA 807 (A)