Legal Concepts in Criminal Law

A principle that states that labels given to criminal offenses should accurately reflect the wrongfulness of the act and be clear enough for citizens to understand.

The idea that criminal labels should be consistent with the principle of "TROL" (Treatment of Like Offences).

A situation where a prosecutor charges a defendant with multiple offenses, even though only one may be the most serious.

The argument that overcharging can create confusion and make it difficult for a defendant to understand the charges against them.

The idea that the fairness of labels can be undermined if the system creates too many new offenses.

A legal principle that states defendants should be treated similarly for similar offenses.

A legal case that challenged a provision in the Criminal Procedure Act, which created a presumption of guilt for company directors.

The section of the Criminal Procedure Act challenged in the S v Coetzee case, which created a presumption of guilt for company directors if the company was convicted of an offense.

The principle that a person should not be held criminally liable unless they have committed a wrongful act with a guilty mind, meaning they intended to do wrong or were reckless.

The requirement in criminal law that the prosecution must prove that the accused was aware of their actions and that these actions were wrongful.

The principle of law that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.

The case where the South African Constitutional Court addressed the definition of the crime of rape, including the types of penetration that constitute rape. This case focused on the importance of fair labelling in criminal law and ensuring that definitions of crimes are clear and just.

The principle that the allocation of blameworthiness is essential for a just legal system. This means that a person should be held liable only if they are proven to be at fault for their actions.

This case shows the importance of fair labelling in ensuring that everyone is treated equally under the law and that the definitions of crimes are not arbitrarily applied.

The argument that individuals cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, which is a fundamental right. This principle is closely tied to the presumption of innocence and fair labelling, as it ensures that people are not punished without a just cause.

Theft doesn't always involve taking an entire item; it can also be about depriving the owner of some control or rights.

The act of taking possession of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.

The intention to permanently deprive someone of their property, even if you don't actually take the item itself.

You can take something without the intention to permanently deprive the owner. Think of finding a lost wallet.

The legal justification for taking someone's property, even if they don't agree. It's often used in police investigations to prevent the destruction of evidence.

A system used by authorities to seize assets believed to be linked to criminal activities.

Theft is a crime that has roots in protecting property rights and preventing damage.

The legal principle that the accused's actions must be a direct and substantial cause of the harm suffered by the victim. It determines whether the accused's actions are sufficiently connected to the resulting harm to hold them legally responsible.

An intervening act that breaks the causal chain, potentially absolving the accused of legal responsibility. This act must be independent of the accused's initial actions and be a sufficiently significant cause of the harm.

The principle that punishment should be justly applied in accordance with the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.

The legal principle that the court should give due weight to the decisions of the legislature, especially when it comes to setting punishments and defining criminal offenses.

The legal principle that judges have the inherent power to determine appropriate punishment based on the specific circumstances of the case.

The legal principle that actions are only considered illegal if they are specifically defined as such by law. The accused cannot be punished for actions that weren't explicitly criminalized.

A situation where there is conflicting legal principles or interpretations, requiring the court to make a decision based on its own understanding of the law. Similar to the 'But For' test where the court determines if the harm would have occurred without the accused's actions.

The causal chain of events in a criminal case. This refers to the sequence of events that directly led to the harmful outcome, starting from the accused's actions and ending with the victim's harm.

Minimum sentencing legislation aims to standardize punishments by setting minimum sentences for specific crimes. This approach limits judicial discretion and helps ensure consistency in sentencing.

Judges are required to follow the minimum sentence prescribed by law unless there are 'substantial and compelling circumstances' that warrant a departure. The judge must provide a clear explanation for any deviation from the minimum sentence.

The principle of 'rule of law' (ROL) emphasizes the importance of laws being applied fairly and consistently. This principle requires the legal system to be predictable and transparent, preventing arbitrary or discriminatory application of the law.

Judges can interpret and apply the law in two ways: (1) through strict general rules, where they follow established principles and precedents, or (2) through a context-sensitive approach where they consider the specific circumstances of each case to ensure a fair outcome.

The principle of 'fair trial rights' guarantees individuals the right to a fair and impartial hearing in court, protecting their fundamental rights and ensuring they receive due process of law.

To adequately address the 'just punishment' principle while also safeguarding the 'rule of law', courts need to balance the need for consistency in sentencing with the need for flexibility to consider individual circumstances of each case.

Judges are not merely passive enforcers of the law, but ultimately responsible for the moral implications of their decisions. They cannot simply claim to be following the law without acknowledging the ethical consequences of their judgments.

In robbery, the violence doesn't have to happen before the taking. It just needs to be closely related to the taking. This means the violence has to be a part of the same action that involves taking the property.

Even if violence happens after the taking, it can still be considered robbery if it's closely related to the taking and part of the same action.

If the violence is too far removed from the taking and not connected to the taking, it's unlikely to be considered robbery.

In robbery, the violence needs to be clearly linked to the taking. This connection can be direct, like threatening the victim during the theft, or indirect, like violence used to secure the stolen goods.

The principle of robbery focuses on the relationship between the violence and the taking, not the order in which they happen.

Even if violence happens much later, it can be considered robbery if it's directly related to the taking and makes the taking more secure.

The legal concept of causation, used to determine the link between actions and consequences, is borrowed in robbery to describe the connection between violence and taking.

Robbery involves a normative component, which means it considers societal values and norms, not just factual elements. It's about understanding the purpose and intent behind the violence, beyond the simple actions involved.