Results.
17 judgments found.
|
|
|
| December 1966 |
|
|
Burglary conviction overturned: prosecution failed to prove 'night' breaking and magistrate improperly relied on another court's record.
-
Criminal law — Burglary: requirement to prove breaking at 'night' (7pm–6am); Evidence — inadmissibility of another court's record without formal production and oral testimony; Confession — inadmissible where magistrate relied on improperly inspected record; Procedure — correct method to prove prior court events is by formal production and witness evidence.
|
30 December 1966 |
|
An honest but unreasonable mistake of spousal adultery does not excuse murder; accused convicted.
-
Criminal law — Provocation — Discovery of spouse in flagrante delicto as grave provocation; Mistake of fact — defence available only if mistake is honest and reasonable; Intoxication and reasonableness of belief; Causation and malice aforethought in death by arson.
|
14 December 1966 |
| November 1966 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: charge should have been dismissed where sexual-element evidence lacked corroboration and substitution of charge was improper.
-
Criminal procedure — Amendment of charge under s.192 (as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1965) — Limits where prosecution fails to make out case under s.189; Evidence — Corroboration required in sexual offences and in assaults motivated by indecency; Court should dismiss rather than amend where case not made out.
|
18 November 1966 |
|
Provocation under ss.182–183 requires actual physical presence; constructive or near presence does not suffice.
-
Criminal law — Provocation — requirement of actual physical presence — Penal Code ss.182, 183 — constructive or 'near' presence insufficient.
|
15 November 1966 |
| October 1966 |
|
|
A 'second offence' requires an earlier conviction prior to commission of the later offence; enhanced penalties and licence orders therefore inapplicable.
-
Road traffic law — construction of 'second or subsequent offence' — previous conviction must precede commission of later offence; s.149A(2),(4) — licence cancellation and enhanced penalties inapplicable where conviction postdates later offence; harmless error in charging subsection; sentencing relevance of number of passengers.
|
19 October 1966 |
|
An appeal from a registrar must be promptly filed; extensions require sufficient material and were refused here.
-
Civil procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Notice in writing to attend before judge within seven days (filed within five days to allow one clear day) — Time runs during vacation unless excluded — Court’s discretion to enlarge time requires sufficient material — Extension refused.
|
12 October 1966 |
|
Appeals from a registrar require strict seven-day notice; court refused extension absent sufficient supporting material.
-
Civil procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Notice to attend before judge within seven days — Notice should be filed within five days to allow one clear day's service — Time runs during vacation unless expressly excluded — Court may enlarge time but only upon material supporting exercise of discretion.
|
12 October 1966 |
| September 1966 |
|
|
No appeal lies against a magistrate's refusal to restore a suspended driving licence under s.127(1); reapplication after three months is the remedy.
-
Road traffic law — Suspension and restoration of driving licence — Application under s.127(1) — Whether refusal is appealable — Statutory construction — No appeal; reapplication after three months provided.
|
16 September 1966 |
|
An accused may adduce further defence evidence before judgment; wrongful exclusion of such evidence warrants setting aside the conviction and retrial.
-
Criminal procedure — closure of prosecution and defence cases — prosecution case closes when court must consider putting accused on defence; defence may call further witnesses until accused has no more evidence to offer — exclusion of admissible defence evidence before judgment breaches s.193 CPC and may require retrial.
|
2 September 1966 |
| August 1966 |
|
|
Relief against forfeiture refused where lessee breached building covenant, lacked intent to perform, and s.14 notice was valid.
-
Landlord and tenant — Forfeiture — Section 14 Conveyancing Act 1881 — Notice valid despite omission of monetary compensation — Relief against forfeiture to be granted sparingly — Lessee’s lack of intention to perform building covenant — Refusal to licence assignment reasonable.
|
6 August 1966 |
|
The State must disprove provocation beyond reasonable doubt; provocation can reduce murder to manslaughter despite intent to cause serious harm.
-
Criminal law — Provocation: State must negative provocation beyond reasonable doubt; provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter even where accused intended serious harm; Self-defence — retreat available negates claim.
|
2 August 1966 |
| June 1966 |
|
|
Damages for adultery are compensatory, must be proved despite default, and assessed by conduct, pecuniary and consortial loss.
-
Family law — Divorce — Damages for adultery; compensatory not punitive — Petitioner must prove damages despite respondent’s default — Assessment considers pre-existing marital state, conduct of parties, pecuniary and consortial loss — Connivance, collusion or condonation bar recovery — Co-respondent’s ignorance of marital status relevant but not a bar.
|
27 June 1966 |
| May 1966 |
|
|
Whether payments to buy shares are capital and non‑deductible, while payments to preserve professional reputation may be deductible.
-
Income tax — Burden of proof on taxpayer — s.56, s.13(2)(a) — Capital v. revenue expenditure — Test: produces asset or permanent and enduring advantage — Purchase of shares prima facie capital — Payments to preserve professional reputation can be revenue and deductible if wholly and exclusively for trade.
|
1 May 1966 |
| April 1966 |
|
|
Section 191 directs the accused to testify before defence witnesses unless court departs; conflicting prosecution evidence resolved for accused.
-
Criminal procedure — Order of calling witnesses — s.191 Criminal Procedure Code construed; accused’s evidence should ordinarily precede defence witnesses unless court in discretion departs
-
Evidence — Credibility — Where prosecution witnesses conflict, doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused absent good reason to prefer one account. Reasonable doubt — convictions overturned where standard of proof not met
|
29 April 1966 |
|
Section 191 ordinarily requires accused to testify before defence witnesses; court may depart in its discretion; doubts favour accused.
-
Criminal procedure — Order of calling witnesses — Construction of s.191 Criminal Procedure Code; ordinary rule that accused gives evidence before defence witnesses but requirement directory — court may, in discretion, depart — defence cannot insist on different order as of right
-
Credibility — Conflicting prosecution witnesses — where no reason to prefer one, doubt resolved for accused. Standard of proof — guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt; substantial miscarriage test for reversal (s.323)
|
29 April 1966 |
| March 1966 |
|
|
Fine payment is not admission of guilt; Native Courts follow customary law; appellate sentence enhancement is constrained.
-
Criminal procedure — Native/Local Courts — payment of fine not tacit admission of guilt; Criminal Procedure Code not generally applicable to Native Courts; conviction for lesser offence depends on customary law; complainant an "interested party"; limits on authorised officer's questioning (s.38); appellate enhancement of sentence restricted by substantial justice (s.44).
|
25 March 1966 |
| January 1966 |
|
|
Appellate judge must rehear registrar appeals afresh; further security for costs permissible where defendant counterclaims a larger sum.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal from registrar — Appellate judge must rehear matter afresh; Security for costs — out-of-jurisdiction plaintiff may be ordered to give further security where defendant admits some liability but counterclaims for a larger sum.
|
24 January 1966 |