|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 1996 |
|
|
Aggravated robbery conviction set aside and substituted with receiving stolen property where information defective and evidence insufficient.
Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — Sufficiency of evidence; Defective information — failure to allege joint action or that accused was armed; Substitution of conviction — receiving stolen property (s.318(1)); Sentence substitution.
|
17 April 1996 |
|
Appellant's aggravated robbery conviction upheld: possession of knife and recovered goods supported conviction despite bias complaint.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Identification and credibility – Possession of weapon and recovered stolen goods as corroboration – Requirement to call all witnesses – Appellate review of alleged judicial bias.
|
16 April 1996 |
|
Section 69 criminalising defamation of the President upheld as constitutionally permissible and non‑discriminatory.
Constitutional law — freedom of expression — criminal defamation of the Head of State (s.69 Penal Code) — Article 20(3) exceptions (public order) — "law", vagueness and overbreadth — proportionality and democratic‑society test — Article 23 discrimination (exhaustive grounds) — burden of proof on State.
|
11 April 1996 |
|
Criminal defamation of the President upheld as a constitutionally permissible, non‑discriminatory limitation on free expression.
Criminal defamation of the President; constitutional law—freedom of expression (Art.20) and permissible limitations; vagueness/precision of law; proportionality and public order; non-discrimination (Art.23).
|
10 April 1996 |
|
Fair-comment defence upheld where a newspaper published balanced reader opinions based on prior reports, absent evidence of malice.
Defamation — Libel — Defence of fair comment — Publication of readers' opinions — Basis in prior press reports — Burden of proof on defendant — Malice required to defeat fair comment — Failure to verify not per se malice — Admissibility of prior articles to show source of public opinion.
|
4 April 1996 |