Search results

~rsbm~ On his own version(s), if she actually did that, it surely would have startled him...

I guess they thought better of leaving in the demerits :facepalm:

No prescribed deadline for the state to appeal the conviction, but last day to appeal the sentence is tomorrow, Tuesday. I think the NPA have hinted they aim to land both on the bench together. I'm excited but nervous to see any papers, if and when they are released. (At the risk of...

I posted these points before, but to recap... The procedures to be followed as specified in Law Conviction: - The prosecutor must apply to the trial court and request that it reserve question(s) of law - These must be question(s) of law that arose on the trial (therefore Seekoei cannot be one...

Huh..?

The Criminal Procedure Act states that the prosecutor must first request the reservation of question(s) of law (the method by which the state can appeal the verdict) to the high court which heard the trial, and if refused there are 21 days to ask the Supreme Court of Appeal. (Because Seekoei...

NPA has just announced decision to appeal verdict and sentence.

Well, he was a sprinter not a marathon runner!

There is no universal definition in law. Each Act, and each specific Section of an act, can define it differently. There is one section for the state to appeal the sentence: it says '14 days' and the Act defines a 'day' as a calendar day. There is a (very!) different section for the state to...

Hi jay-jay, I didn't quite say that It is 14 calendar days for the state to appeal the sentence (and for OP to appeal the verdict or sentence) For the state to appeal the verdict though, there doesn't appear to be a time restriction that I can see (though if this is so, I guess it would be...

I've checked the days by consulting the Acts and Court Rules themselves. It is 14 calendar days for an accused to apply for leave to appeal the sentence or verdict, and for the state to apply for leave to appeal the sentence. It would be 15 court days (that excludes Sat, Sun and public...

even the breakfasts are more efficient in Germany!

Ha, I don't think so, lol. Mr jitty understands the point and principle perfectly, he just got mixed up with the terminology because he is not used to it. (I was worried he was going to use 'self-defence' for the murder part, and 'putative self defence' for the negligence part)

Too true mr jitty. When I first studied the bail application (no mention of thinking someone started to come out of toilet), this was immediately my view. I used that exact phrase here before to describe it. Based on this, I was always absolutely expecting a rock-solid defence and a watertight...

If one has subjective intention to deploy excessive or unnecessary force, yes. The point was correct, just I foresaw the terminology getting very confusing if you carried on down that road! By the way, if you see that post of mine I quoted from a while back: it is exactly what I say for OP's...

This is a totally different point to the one you made. You said one cannot claim justification in killing and also claim lack of intention to kill. I showed you can. This is different to your new point: if one did have intention to kill, one must be justified. I think this is obvious, I do...

You are getting a bit mixed up with the terminology I think. Private defence only exists when there was a real attack. Putative private defence means you mistakenly believed you were acting in private defence. So, the putative element of putative private defence starts from the...

When I say the court made a finding of X, that's all I mean, I do not mean I believe it properly applied legal principles and correctly found X. One can intend to use force in putative self defence without intention to kill. It is not contradictory. It is also possible that one did not have...

The court in its judgment did find OP intentionally shot in putative self defence. It didn't make a finding as to whether his mistaken beliefs were reasonable, but it did make a finding that he took steps in response to his mistaken beliefs which the reasonable man would not have done as he...

I think maybe you are mistakenly attaching opinions to me which I do not hold. My points were just what I said they were, nothing more. You might be trying to disagree with someone who agrees with you. Here's my opinion from a post I once made: "Even on the court's own findings of fact, if...