词条 | R v Korsten |
释义 |
Rex v Korsten[1] is an important case in South African criminal law, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on February 7, 1927, by Dove-Wilson JP, Carter J and Matthews J. The case was an application for a ruling in terms of section 58 of the Criminal and Magistrates' Courts Procedure (Amendment) Act,[2] in respect of a decision by the Magistrate of Eshowe. FactsAn accused person drove his cattle to be dipped in a township dip, but was prevented from dipping them by the township foreman, because he had not complied with a by-law which provided that no person should use the dipping tank except upon production of coupons previously purchased entitling him to do so. The accused's excuse for not having purchased such coupons was that he had not known it was necessary to do so. ArgumentLennox Ward for the Crown referred to Rex v Dabulamanzi; Rex v Nkombo.[3] JudgmentThe court held that, inasmuch as Act 14 of 1911 imposed an absolute duty on the accused to dip his cattle, the facts above set out afforded no defence:
In Jetha v R, some two years later, Dove-Wilson JP found that the requirements of impossibility had been met. See also
References
Notes1. ^(1927) 48 NPD 12. {{SouthAfrica-case-law-stub}}2. ^Act 39 of 1926. 3. ^1924 SR 66. 4. ^13. 5 : 1927 in South African law|1927 in case law|South African criminal case law|KwaZulu-Natal Division cases|Agriculture in South Africa |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。