Summary
Summary effective notes
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Ultimate effect guide to writing your assignments, tests and exams.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
S v Zinn 1969Principle: Theory of Punishment
Facts: Accused committed multiple fraud and theft over 8 years.
Significance: Combination theory – triad of crime, the criminal and interests of society.
S v Francis 1994
Principle: Legality – criminal norm
Facts: Accused absconded from rehabilitation centre after Act changed regarding criminal norm.
Significance: No criminal norm = no prosecution or conviction.
S v Masiya 2007
Principle: Legality – Constitutionality of broadening definition of common law crime
Facts: Accused committed anal sex with 9 year old girl.
Significance: criticized judgment – Courts not there to make law. S 39(2) more applicable to civil law as criminal law
protected by s 35(3) (l) and (n)
S v Mshumpa 2008
Principle: Legality – unborn child
Facts: Accused conspired to kill unborn child
Significance: Left broadening of crime to legislature.
R v Dhlamini 1955
Principle: Requirement of act.
Facts: Accused awoke from nightmare and stabbed victim No motive or volition.
Significance: Automatism – asleep – could not commit crime.
S v Trickett 1973
Principle: Legality – Sane Automatism
Facts: Accused had blackout while driving, swerved into car and killed driver.
Significance: a) if caused by mental disease, onus on defendant
b) if caused by drowsiness etc – negligence
c) if caused by involuntary induced state onus on prosecution. Accused must lay foundation with medical
or expert evidence.
S v Henry 1999
Principle: Requirement of act – Sane Automatism
Facts: Accused shot ex wife and MIL after argument.
Significance: Accused must lay foundation if raises defence of sane automatism.
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975
Principle: Act – Omission – Legal Duty
Facts: Complainant was assaulted in charge-office. Police failed to protect.
Significance: Legal duty to act. Constitutional and statutory duty on police.
S v Leeuw 1975
Principle: Act - impossibility
Facts: Accused drove car without license. Lived in restricted area and restricted person Difficult to get license.
Significance: Inconvenience or difficulty does not constitute impossibility. Positive duty is requirement for impossibility
defense.
Principle: Causation – casual link
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ndivhuwomudau. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R163,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53022 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now