HH CA 143/13 X REF CRB GODFREY KONDO and FENIA AISUM versus THE STATE
|
|
- Elwin Hubbard
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 GODFREY KONDO and FENIA AISUM versus THE STATE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE AND BERE JJ HARARE 31 MARCH 2015 AND 7 OCTOBER 2015 Criminal Appeal J. Samukange, for the appellant E. Makoto, for the respondent BERE J: This appeal follows the conviction and sentence of the appellants in the lower court on a charge of contravening section 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Upon conviction the first appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment of which 1 year was suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of future good behaviour with a further 2 year period suspended on condition he restitutes the complainant in the sum of US$ within a specified time. The second appellant was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 1 year was suspended for 5 years on condition of future good conduct, with a further 2 year period suspended on condition she pays restitution of US$ to the complainant within a specified period. Both appellants are senior immigration officers who were alleged to have stolen the complainant s cash amounting to US$ and an assortment of jewellery whose value was said to be US$ The theft was alleged to have occurred at a time when the appellants had visited the complainant s residence to carry out their routine work.
2 2 Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the appellants noted an appeal to this court against both conviction and sentence raising the following grounds for appeal: It was alleged by the appellants that the court a quo erred and misdirected itself in totally failing to consider that the witness, being closely connected there was a possibility of collusion and malice in bringing the allegations against the appellants. It was further contended that the court a quo erred in failing to appreciate the several inconsistencies in the testimony given by the four state witnesses. It was also contended that the court a quo erred and misdirected itself by failing to appreciate that the lapse of time between the alleged theft and the time a report was eventually made to the police demonstrated that there was no offence which the appellants had committed, and that it was highly unlikely that the complainant s legal practitioner would have advised the complainant to delay the report as alleged by the complainant. It was further placed on record on behalf of the appellants that the allegedly stolen jewellery and its value were never put in evidence. Finally the lower court was also criticized for failing to accept the appellants version regarding the non-existence of the allegedly stolen money and the jewellery as being possibly true in substance which benefit of doubt they ought to have been granted. All in all the import of the appellants appeal was that they were convicted against the weight of evidence which screamed for their acquittal. Mr E. Makoto for the respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal. He saw nothing amiss with the conviction. I will now proceed to analyse the evidence that was placed before the court a quo. In convicting the appellants the learned magistrate read the evidence and made a specific finding that the four state witnesses evidence was consistent both in their evidence-in-chief and
3 3 under cross-examination and that she was satisfied that the evidence had been sufficiently corroborated to warrant a conviction of the appellants. It will be noted later in this judgment that there was very little analysis done by the magistrate about the evidence given by the appellants both in chief and in cross-examination. The learned magistrate chose to believe what the complainants testified at the expense of the appellants evidence without any justification. It is clear from a simple reading of the court a quo s judgment that the trial magistrate was largely influenced by the alleged credibility of the four witnesses who appeared before her and testified against the appellants. It is the undisputed legal position deriving from a rich pedigree of precedent that the appeal court must be slow to interfere with issues of credibility of witnesses as captured by a trial court because of the strategic position of that court. The appeal court can only attempt to depart from this time honoured approach if there are compelling reasons for it to do so. ZIYAMBI JA re-stated this position of our law in the following: It is trite in our law that an appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court and which are based on the credibility of witnesses. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to assess the witnesses from its vantage point of having seen and heard them. See Hughes v Graniteside (Pvt) Ltd S The exception to this rule is where there has been a misdirection or a mistake of fact or where the basis the court a quo reached its decision was wrong 1. See also S v Katsiru 2 per BHUNU J. It is with this legal position of our law that I must now try to look at the evidence whose credibility and believability the learned magistrate found to be beyond reproach. 1. S (1) ZLR 364 (H)
4 4 It will be noted that both the charge sheet and the state outline spoke to the theft of US$25 000, 10 small gold bangles, 2 large gold bangles, 1 gold necklace and a pair of gold earrings. The record of proceedings refers to M. Shabbir as the first state witness. The accepted practice is to state or capture the full names of the witnesses who testify. However, this matter does not centre on this minor omission on the part of the court a quo. The record of proceedings shows that despite having created the impression that the witness had left US$ in the custody of his son, when pushed under cross-examination to explain how he had acquired the money, he stated that on 29 th of May his son and his family had brought US$6 000, on the 20 th May his son brought an additional $4 000 and that $ had been wired via Western Union making a total of $ Throughout his evidence the 1 st witness was not able to account for the other $5 000 in order to reach the threshold of $25 000,00 in the indictment. See record page 13. All this revelation came not in his evidence-in-chief but under cross-examination. Later, in his evidence under cross-examination (again not evidence-in-chief), the 1 st witness shifted his explanation and alleged that he had in fact brought the money from Pakistan in November How this could have happened when in fact the money had been stolen on 31 October 2012 remains a mystery. See record pages 17 and 18. In addition to the alleged theft of $ whose existence was characterised by contradictory evidence by the 1 st state witness, the charge sheet also made reference to the appellants having stolen 10 small gold bangles, 2 large gold bangles, gold necklace and a pair of gold earrings. In giving his evidence-in-chief the 1 st witness did not give evidence on jewellery. It was only when he was being cross-examined that he attempted to give a breakdown of the jewellery.
5 5 The witness testified of 16 bangles as opposed to a total of 12 bangles in the charge sheet. (See record page 19). No attempt was made to lead evidence on the value of the jewellery. Even as I write this judgment I am unable to tell whether the 1 st witness was running Gold Enterprises Company (record page 2) or Boodle Enterprises (record page 6) because of the inconsistencies that characterised his testimony on such insignificant issues. More startling contradictions were to follow in the proceedings as to who the owner of the jewellery was. Whereas the 1 st witness stated that the jewellery belonged to his wife, the 2 nd state witness s evidence was to the effect that the jewellery belonged to his own wife. Realising that he had straddled in his explanation he changed and said the jewellery in fact belonged to his mother. See record pages 23 and 26. The following questions carry the inconsistencies alluded to: Q What was in the lunch box? A My wife s jewellery. Pg 23 Later under further cross-examination the following question and answer was recorded: Q Why was the jewellery at your house? A It is my mother s who was in Pakistan. Compare the above contradictory explanations on the ownership of the jewellery with the evidence of the maid N. Mupesi who said the jewellery was in fact for the daughter of the complainant, the 1 st witness. See record p 49 There were even more startling inconsistencies in the evidence of the 1 st and 2 nd witnesses including that of the 3 rd witness H Mahomed. The three witnesses could not agree on whether or not the lunch box had a lid or not. The 1 st state witness testified that the lunch box had no lid (record page 8 line 7). The 2 nd state witness Z Shabbir spoke of having opened the lid of the same lunch box in order to remove passports from therein. H Mahomed the 3 rd witness said the lunch box had no top cover or lid.
6 6 Even more puzzling is the suggestion by the maid that despite her being barely less than 2 metres away from the appellants (record page 60 being the uncontroverted testimony by the first appellant Godfrey Kondo), she could not tell what one of the appellants was holding. But the maid was quick to realise the folly of her testimony and quickly moved to align her evidence with that of the rest of the witnesses by suddenly remembering that the item that she was referring to was in fact the popular lunch box. The record of proceedings shows clearly that the witnesses were feeding the court with rehearsed evidence and there is a good reason why in my mind this was so as I will deal with this later in this judgment. The 1 st witness testified that he telephoned his legal practitioner whose name he did not know despite having consistently relied on that lawyer and having stayed in this country for 7 years. Equally puzzling in my view is why if indeed the appellants had stolen such a large sum of money and jewellery, it took two weeks to report that matter when the complainant s son knew what he was supposed to do in the face of any crime of such nature being committed. It is equally amazing that these witnesses would want the court to believe that their lawyer caused them to delay reporting the matter to the police. Faced with a case characterised with such inconsistencies it is difficult to justify the factual findings of the court a quo. It is equally perturbing that the learned magistrate had the guts to dismiss the simple explanation given by the appellants that the Shabbir family was merely being vindictive and malicious in laying these theft allegations against them because of the immigration officers interaction with them. One need not go further than the remarks made by the 1 st state witness when he opened his evidence-in-chief. The record shows that the 1 st witness was bitter that the appellants had
7 7 just entered his residence without permission from his son on the day in question and that this was not the first time by the appellants in making their unannounced visits to his homestead. The witness said on one such occasion the appellants or members from immigration department had jumped over his brother s gate in the evening. It was also evident from the record that as a result of the investigative work of the appellants, the complainant s uncle had been deported from this country. One does not need further evidence to appreciate why the Shabbirs as a family felt that the appellants were up to disturbing their peace. It is only natural that the nature of the appellants duties caused a serious rift between them and the Shabbirs. That the appellants would end up on a collision course with the Shabbirs was inevitable. All this should have been at the back of the learned magistrate s mind when she dealt with this case. If this had been the case, the learned magistrate would have approached this matter with heightened caution as opposed to blindly and religiously accept everything that was said in court by the complainant and his family members. The appellants as well as their witness gave a detailed background of their involvement with the Shabbir family and my firm view is that if the story told by the appellants and their witness had been looked at objectively or with an unbiased mind it would have been very easy for the learned magistrate to have understood why the Shabbirs had a motive to concoct these very serious allegations against the appellants. It is clear that the appellants were never popular with the Shabbir family because of the nature of their duties which included among other things carrying out investigations involving suspected human trafficking at the Shabbirs residence. Indeed, when the first appellant Godfrey Kondo was specifically asked by the state counsel whether there was any reason from the complainant and his son to make up these allegations against them he retorted as follows: There is a time the father and Zohaib wanted to bring out the issue of their uncle who was deported. He was an illegal immigrant who had no permit to remain in Zimbabwe. The issue (allegations) has been brought up as a matter of revenge and bitterness. See record page 66 last paragraph
8 8 she responded: When state counsel paused the same question to the second appellant F. Aisan this is how 76 They were all talking about their deported cousin and this is to fix us. See record page Both appellants denied the allegations of theft put against them and their witness L. Chakauya told the court that when the Shabbirs were taken to the immigration department none of them made allegations of theft against the appellants. It is extremely difficult to imagine how else the appellants would have prosecuted their case to demonstrate their innocence. The story or explanation they gave in the court a quo was rejected by the learned magistrate for no stated reason. The record of proceedings shows that their evidence was not analysed at all. This is a poor approach in criminal proceedings. Sadly, I am forced to restate the very basic or elementary approach to be adopted in criminal proceedings. This approach has been religiously followed in our criminal courts as far back as 1937 in the much celebrated case of Rex v Difford 3 where Watermeyer suncitly put it in the following words: It is not disputed on behalf of the defence that in the absence of some explanation the court would be entitled to convict the accused. It is not a question of throwing any onus on the accused but in these circumstances it would be a conclusion which the court could draw if no explanation were given. It is equally clear that no onus rests on the accused to convince the court of the truth of any explanation he gives. If he gives an explanation even if that explanation be improbable, the court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied, not only that the explanation is improbable, but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. If there is any reasonability of his explanation being true, then he is entitled to an acquittal This same legal position was further re-affirmed by DAVIS AJA in the case of Rex v M 4 in the following words: AD 370 at AD 1023 at 1027
9 9 and, I repeat, the court does not have to believe the defence story, still less has it to believe it in all its details, it is sufficient if it thinks that there is a reasonable possibility that it may be substantially true. Counsel for the appellant Mr J. Samukange in his submissions referred us to the case of S v Olawale 5 where MHLANTLA JA remarked as follows: Thus in evaluating the evidence against the appellant one must look at the reliability and credibility of the witnesses and consider if any of them had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant and further look at the probabilities of the state version. 5 With this in mind I come now to consider the appellants version. Was there a motive to lie against the appellants on the part of the complainants? The appellants said there was and the evidence suggests in my view that indeed there was a motive to concoct these allegations in order to fix the appellants. I must conclude this judgment by saying that before a court decides to reject a story told by an accused, there must be an attempt made to analyse or critically assess that story against the other evidence. A trial court cannot just from the comfort of its chambers decide to reject one of the versions in preference of the other without analyzing such evidence. It is a dereliction of duty and an act of violence against the elementary rules of procedure. It is clear in this case that the factual findings made by the learned magistrate are not sustainable. The appellants were convicted against the weight of evidence and they must be acquitted. The appellants are accordingly found not guilty and acquitted. Hungwe J I agree Venturas and Samukange, appellant s legal practitioners National Prosecuting Authority, respondent s legal practitioners (1) AII SA 451 SCA
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O)
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O) 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE & MANGOTA JJ HARARE, 9 & 23 October 2014 Criminal Appeal T Madzingira,
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO. 06/10 DATES HEARD: 24 25/2/10 DATE DELIVERED: 3/3/10 NOT REPORTABLE
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO. 06/10 DATES HEARD: 24 25/2/10 DATE DELIVERED: 3/3/10 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: THE STATE and MLUNGISI MICHAEL MDINISO
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION
CA NO. 37/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION THE STATE vs SEBELE JOHANNES SECHELE AND ANOTHER REVIEW PAKO AJ INTRODUCTION This case came before me on automatic review.
More informationTHE STATE versus SHEENA CHIKUNDA. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU J HARARE, 10 October Criminal Review
1 THE STATE versus SHEENA CHIKUNDA HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU J HARARE, 10 October 2014 Criminal Review BHUNU J: This matter was referred to the High Court for review by the Chief Magistrate in terms
More informationAt the end of hearing argument for the appellants the. appeal was dismissed. There was no appearance for the respondent. It was indicated at the
1 (1) SAMSON MOMBERUME TAGUTA (2) TITUS M. TAGUTA (3) AMBROSE M. TAGUTA (4) ELIAKIM M. TAGUTA (5) ESROM M. TAGUTA (6) ELMOND M. TAGUTA (7) JAMES M. TAGUTA (8) ZIBERT M. MOMBERUME (9) STEPHEN M. TAGUTA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Coss [2016] QCA 44 PARTIES: R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2015 DC No 113 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More information2) Smuggling as defined in section 182 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]
1 THE STATE versus FISHER MATURA HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MOYO J BULAWAYO 10 OCTOBER 2016 AND 9 MAY 2017 Criminal Trial W Mabhaudhi for the state A Rubaya for the accused MOYO J: The accused in this matter
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. THE STATE and [T.] [J ] [M..] Accused 1 [M.] [R.] [M.] Accused 2
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MARCUS NNDATENI MULAUDZI
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 768/2015 In the matter between: MARCUS NNDATENI MULAUDZI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mulaudzi v The
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA. Case No: CA 68/2000. In the matter between: and ZACHARIA STEPHANUS FIRST RESPONDENT BERLINO MATROOS
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA Case No: CA 68/2000 In the matter between: THE STATE APPELLANT and ZACHARIA STEPHANUS BERLINO MATROOS WESLEY NANUHE WILLY JOSOB FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN 10 15/12/2010 CA & R : 306/ Date Heard: Date Delivered:21/12/10 In the matter between: RACHEL HARDEN 1 ST APPELLANT LUNGISWA TATAYI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CHRISTOPHER LUCKY AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between CHRISTOPHER LUCKY AND Claimant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT. [1] The accused was charged and pleaded guilty to assault with intent to
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE-GRAHAMSTOWN)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:
More informationMULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A
MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE CASE NO: A221/06 DATE: 21/05/2007 THE STATE APPELLANT V OSCAR NZIMANDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R D CLAASSEN J: 1 This is an appeal
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 347/2015 In the matter between: MZWANELE LUBANDO APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Lubando v The State (347/2015)
More informationHIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. This is an appeal against the refusal of the regional magistrate, who
HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE NO. 329/99 In the matter between AYANDA RUNGQU 1 s t Appellant LUNGISA KULATI 2 nd Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: This is an appeal against the refusal of
More informationJAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and
[2014] JMCA Crim 52 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McINTOSH JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA JEROME
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 20450/2014 In the matter between: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG APPELLANT and MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 463/2016 ROBOR (PTY) LTD First Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and
Case No 385/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and THE STATE Respondant CORAM : VAN HEERDEN, HEFER et SCOTT JJA HEARD : 21 MAY 1998 DELIVERED : 27 MAY 1998 JUDGEMENT SCOTT
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 14108 Vredendal Case No: 864/13 In the matter between: STATE And JANNIE MOSTERT ACCUSED Coram: DLODLO & ROGERS JJ Delivered:
More informationThe Law Enforcement Review Act Complaint #3704
IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Law Enforcement Review Act Complaint #3704 An Application pursuant to s.17(1) of The Law Enforcement Review Act R.S.M. 1987, c.l75 B E T W E E N: J.W.P. ) T.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v JMS, 2018 MBCA 117 Date: 20181102 Docket: AR17-30-08983 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Aug 21 2014 17:48:58 2014-KA-00188-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JEFFREY ALLEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-00188-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-2956 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, WILLIAM DINGA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Cr. App. No. 13 of 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN RICK GOMES Appellant AND THE STATE Respondent PANEL: P. Weekes, J.A A. Yorke-SooHon, J.A R. Narine, J.A APPEARANCES:
More informationDocument references: Prior decisions - Special Rapporteur s rule 91 decision, dated 28 December 1992 (not issued in document form)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Kulomin v. Hungary Communication No. 521/1992 16 March 1994 CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992 * ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: Vladimir Kulomin Alleged victim: The author State party: Hungary Date
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Fhetani v S [2007] JOL 20663 (SCA) Issue Order Reportable CASE NO 158/2007 In the matter between TAKALANI FHETANI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Coram: Nugent,
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationEASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN REVIEW NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN REVIEW NO. 20170040 Delivered: 9 May 2017 In the matter between: THE STATE and ANDA NKALA Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT Bloem J. [1] The accused
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,399 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SARAH B. ALCORN, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,399 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SARAH B. ALCORN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TIMOTHY
More informationDomestic. Violence. In the State of Florida. Beware. Know Your Rights Get a Lawyer. Ruth Ann Hepler, Esq. & Michael P. Sullivan, Esq.
Domestic Violence In the State of Florida Beware Know Your Rights Get a Lawyer Ruth Ann Hepler, Esq. & Michael P. Sullivan, Esq. Introduction You ve been charged with domestic battery. The judge is threatening
More informationINDIA Harjit Singh: In continuing pursuit of justice
INDIA Harjit Singh: In continuing pursuit of justice Amnesty International continues to be concerned for the safety of Harjit Singh, an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board, who was arrested
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED December 23, 1997 WILLIE JOSEPH LAGANO, Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk Appellant, No. 01C01-9701-CC-00009
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00479/17] [MAY 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00479/17] [MAY 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all material information from Police
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 11224/11 In the matter between: STEVEN McGREGOR APPLICANT and THE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE Ms B. ASMAL N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AR238/08 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY First Appellant THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Second Appellant
More informationCriminal Procedure Act 51 of Civil procedure Absolution from the instance Test Unlawful arrest and detention Claim for damages Notion of arrest
Gali obo Gali & another v Kok & another [2009] JOL 24232 (E) Key Words Reported in: Judgments Online, a LexisNexis Electronic Law Report Series Case No: CA 115 / 06 Judgment Date(s): 27/ 08 /2009 Hearing
More informationThe Criminal Court System. Law 521 Chapter Seven
The Criminal Court System Law 521 Chapter Seven The Feds make criminal law and procedure. Criminal Court Structure Provinces responsible for organizing, administering, and maintaining the criminal court
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More informationv No Macomb Probate Court KAREN MAHER, EDWARD SADORSKI, JR., LC No DE KENNETH SADORSKI, AND ESTELLE SADORSKI,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S In re Estate of EDWARD SADORSKI, SR., Deceased. ANN SADORSKI, Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2017 v No. 332416 Macomb Probate Court KAREN MAHER,
More informationSubmitted by: Barry Stephen Harward [represented by counsel] Date of communication: 17 September 1990 (initial submission)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Harward v. Norway Communication No. 451/1991 15 July 1994 CCPR/C/51/D/451/1991* VIEWS Submitted by: Barry Stephen Harward [represented by counsel] Victim: The author State party:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: KUTETE HLANTLALALA First Appellant NOPOJANA MHLABA Second Appellant SIBAYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: KUTETE HLANTLALALA First Appellant NOPOJANA MHLABA Second Appellant SIBAYA HLANTLALALA Third Appellant and N Y DYANTYI NO First Respondent
More informationTRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE
TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL) DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 August 2017 On 28 September 2017 Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS. Case number: PAKR 429/16. Date: 20 and 27 October Basic Court of Pristina: PKR. no. 357/14
COURT OF APPEALS Case number: PAKR 429/16 Date: 20 and 27 October 2016 Basic Court of Pristina: PKR. no. 357/14 The Court of Appeals, in the Panel composed of EULEX Judge Roman Raab, as presiding and reporting
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationCAT/C/49/D/385/2009. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. United Nations
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 Distr.: General 4 February 2013 Original: English Committee against Torture Communication
More informationBurdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 1, Number 2 (April 1959) Article 6 Burdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession J. D. Morton Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DANIEL WILLIAM MOKELA. (135/11) [2011] ZASCA 166 (29 September 2011)
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 135/11 In the matter between: DANIEL WILLIAM MOKELA Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Mokela v The State (135/11) [2011]
More informationTHE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPELLANT VERSUS MT SGT FABIAN KIMARO.. RESPONDENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2004 (Original Criminal Case No. 739 of 2002, Originating from the Resident Magistrate s Court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu) THE DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session KENTAVIS JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-14-251 Donald H. Allen, Judge
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 238 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. 1434 OF 2018 PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR... APPELLANTS Versus
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of decision: CRL.L.P. 598/2011, Crl. M.A.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of decision: 07.03.2012 CRL.L.P. 598/2011, Crl. M.A. 19759/2011 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through : Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC.... Petitioner
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,292 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ANDREA J. ROSS, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,292 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ANDREA J. ROSS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationNOV Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDE.R. I Ienry William Saad. Cynthia Diane Stephens Presiding Judge
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDE.R People of Michigan v Shunta Tcmar Small Dock~ o. 328476 LC o. 14-008713-FH Cynthia Diane Stephens Presiding Judge I Ienry William Saad Patrick M. Meter Judges
More informationCase No. SCSL T THE INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR -V- ERIC KOI SENESSIE. Thomas Alpha. For the Accused: Eric Koi Senessie:
Before the Judge: For Chambers: For the Registry: For WVS: Case No. SCSL 0-0-T THE INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR -V- ERIC KOI SENESSIE Justice Teresa Doherty Elizabeth Budnitz Elaine-Bola Clarkson Thomas Alpha
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO
. THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASES NOS. SLUCRD 2007/0653, 0669 & 0670 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO Claimant Defendant Appearances:
More informationSHELDON THOMAS. and THE QUEEN : March 11; October
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2002 BETWEEN: SHELDON THOMAS and THE QUEEN Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Appellant Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL
-1 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL No 846 of 2008 THE QUEEN v MAGID SAID --- JUDGES: WHERE HELD: MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and COGHLAN AJA MELBOURNE DATE OF HEARING: 20 October 2009 DATE OF JUDGMENT:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. CLCLB-009-08 HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55-05 In the matter between: RAPULA MOLEFE Appellant And
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Owing Goring AND. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-03769 BETWEEN Owing Goring AND Claimant The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationAn Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota
An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender s Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Federal Public Defender's Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Table of Contents
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. San Fernando Magisterial Appeal No. 35 of 2005 BETWEEN AND ALLISTER COWIE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL San Fernando Magisterial Appeal No. 35 of 2005 BETWEEN PETER ELLIS APPELLANT AND ALLISTER COWIE P.C. #14515 RESPONDENT PANEL: R. Hamel-Smith, J.A.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CA No. S 256/2017 Between ROY FELIX And DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO Claimant Defendant PANEL: BEREAUX J.A. NARINE J.A. RAJKUMAR J.A. APPEARANCES:
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV BETWEEN AND. Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2011 00977 BETWEEN ADINA HOYTE CLAIMANT AND DONALD WOHLER DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh Appearances:
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Applicant
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 122/17, 220/17 and 298/17 CCT 122/17 M T Applicant and THE STATE Respondent CCT 220/17 In the matter between: A S B Applicant and THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03-0669 444444444444 DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., PETITIONER, v. LYNDON SILVA, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF RYAN RIGLER, A STUDENT-AT-LAW OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF
More informationJurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Court (Third Section)
Case Summary Eremia and Others v The Republic of Moldova Application Number: 3564/11 1. Reference Details Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Court (Third Section) Date of Decision: 28
More informationRules of Evidence (Abridged)
Rules of Evidence (Abridged) Article IV: Relevancy and its Limits Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN [Reportable] High Court Ref. No. : 14552 Case No. : WRC 85/2009 In the matter between: ANTHONY KOK Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 In the matter between: NATASHA GOLIATH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF POLICE Respondent APPEAL JUDGMENT Bloem J
More informationJury Directions Act 2015
Examinable excerpts of Jury Directions Act 2015 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes 3 Definitions Part 1 Preliminary The purposes of this Act are (a) to reduce the complexity of jury directions in criminal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RAYMOND BAUGH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D02-2758 REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Discretionary
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CHAPTER 4.05 CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. Laws of Saint Christopher and Nevis. Criminal Law Amendment Act Cap 4.
Laws of Saint Christopher Criminal Law Amendment Act Cap 4.05 1 ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CHAPTER 4.05 CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT Revised Edition showing the law as at 31 December 2002 This is a revised
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 06/134 In the matter between: KEVIN NAIDOO Appellant (Accused 2) and THE STATE Respondent J U D G M E N T BLIEDEN, J:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016) DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL... APPELLANT
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ no: 138 PARTIES: RASHAAD SOOMAR APPLICANT and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KROON THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS MR ALWYN GRIEBENOW FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. 8774/09 In the matter between: THULANI SIFISO MAZIBUKO AMBROSE SIMPHIWE CEBEKHULU FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT
More informationBerger, Arthur, Reed,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0634 September Term, 2015 JAMES PATRICK LAW v. STATE OF MARYLAND Berger, Arthur, Reed, JJ. Opinion by Berger, J. Filed: July 19, 2016 *This is
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,969 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAVID GARCIA, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,969 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DAVID GARCIA, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ford District Court; E. LEIGH
More informationM.A. SANUSI V THE STATE (1984) LPELR-3007(SC)
insanity M.A. SANUSI V THE STATE (1984) LPELR-3007(SC) OPUTA JSC - Proof of insanity provides a complete answer to the charge as the accused will not be "criminally responsible for the act". That is one
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS. 8.2 in conjunction to Sec 8.6 of UNMIK Regulation 2001/7 read with Art-s 2 and 328 (2) CCK;
COURT OF APPEALS Case number: PaKr 1/13 Date: 16 April 2014 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KOSOVO in the Panel composed of EULEX Judge James Hargreaves as Presiding and Reporting Judge, EULEX Judge Annemarie
More informationHIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo,
HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE No. CA & R 21/2000 DUMISANIMBEBE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo, was convicted
More informationBEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 79. Reference No: IACDT 020/14
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 79 Reference No: IACDT 020/14 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationTake the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:
Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR HIGH COURT - BISHO JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR HIGH COURT - BISHO JUDGMENT PARTIES: THE STATE and LANDELA JONAS Case Number: CA&R 21/08 High Court: Bisho DATE HEARD: -- DATE DELIVERED: 8 September 2008 JUDGE(S): EBRAHIM J LEGAL
More information21:03 PREVIOUS CHAPTER
TITLE 21 Chapter 21:03 TITLE 21 PREVIOUS CHAPTER GOLD TRADE ACT Acts 19/1940, 40/1952, 12/1954, 25/1956 (s. 15), 14/1962 (s. 2), 19/1963 (s. 12), 10/1964, 31/1964, 18/1965 (s. 32), 6/1967 (s. 15), 11/1968
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley) Saakno
More information