Splet27. mar. 2012 · 17 S v Brophy 2007(2) 56 SACR (W) para 18. This is a decision of the full court of the Johannesburg High Court. It agreed with the dictum in S v Stephen 1994 (2) SACR 163 (W) at 168f where the court, following Canadian authority, approved the statement that ‘Imprisonment whilst awaiting trial is the equivalent of twice that length.’ … http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/toc-S.html
Case law summary 2024 - Case law - Criminal Law Specific
SpletS v Mbuyisa. 2012 (1) SACR 571 (SCA) Spousal violence met with harsh sentence . In determining an appropriate sentence for spousal violence, a court is justified in taking into ... • Pascoal and Another v Wurdeman and Others 2012 (3) SA 422 (GSJ) • South Coast Furnishers CC v Secprop 30 Investments (Pty) Ltd 2012 (3) SA 431 (KZP) SpletS v Ndebele and Others 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ) Offenders not to be punished to point of being broken Where the court is dealing with an appropriate sentence for multiple offences, care must be taken that the aggregate penalty is not too severe. The Supreme Court of Appeal provided a COPYRIGHT JUTA & CO LTD, 2011 more balanced sentence for an ... mallard duck clip art black and white
Theft of electricity : a short circuit? - ConCourt
SpletS v Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ) The three accused were charged with theft for the unlawful use of electricity vending machines known as credit dispensing units that could … SpletIn S v Ndebele and others 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ) the accused were found guilty of theft of electricity, even though the crime of theft provides that intangible things (things that cannot be touched) cannot be stolen (theft of money in the form of credit is an exception to this rule). What is the danger with the verdict in Ndebele? SpletS v Ndebele 2012 1 SACR 245 (GSJ): S v Mintoor 1996 1 SACR 514 (C) S.A. Legislation : Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998: Electricity Act 41 of 1987 s. 27(2) … mallard duck egg production