Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing that is untrue and/or otherwise unsupported by facts. [1] False accusations are also known as groundless accusations, unfounded accusations, false allegations, false claims or unsubstantiated allegations. They can occur in any of the following contexts: Informally in everyday life
Khumalo and Others v Holomisa is a landmark decision in the South African law of delict.It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 21 May 2002. Handing down judgment for a unanimous court, Justice Kate O'Regan held that the existing common law of defamation is consistent with the Bill of Rights.
A false accusation of rape happens when a person states that they or another person have been raped when no rape has occurred. Although there are widely varying estimates of the prevalence of false accusation of rape, according to a 2013 book on forensic victimology, very few reliable scientific studies have been conducted. [1]
Zuma was accused of raping her at his home in Forest Town, Johannesburg on 2 November 2005. [4] By then, Khwezi was a 31-year-old HIV/AIDS activist. On the morning of 6 December 2005, Zuma was formally charged with rape, although the media had already reported on the allegations. He strongly denied the accusation. [5]
S v Thebus and Another is a 2003 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal law and criminal procedure.The court unanimously affirmed that the doctrine of common purpose was compatible with the Constitution, upholding two murder convictions on that basis.
In South African law, as Nkabinde J was writing, rape was understood as the non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis. The generally accepted definition of rape, according to Heath J in S v Ncanywa , [ 3 ] was "the ( a ) intentional ( b ) unlawful ( c ) sexual intercourse with a woman ( d ) without her consent."
In S v Lavhengwa, an important case in South African criminal law, it was held that the right created in section 35(3)(a) of the Constitution, which provides that the right to a fair trial includes the right to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it, implies that the criminal charge itself must be clear and unambiguous.
The Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 lists four methods of securing the attendance of an accused person in court. [4] These bear an important relationship to the constitutional rights of freedom and security of the person, [5] of freedom of movement and residence, [6] of access to the courts [7] and of "arrested, detained and accused persons."