The appellant, convicted of hiring two workers to kill her abusive husband, argued for a reduced sentence. The court held that a lesser sentence is permitted only when there are "truly convincing" circumstances or where a life sentence is disproportionate or unjust.
The appellant, M., was tried before a regional magistrate for the rape of his six-year-old daughter during 1989. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which he appealed. The Court held that, especially given the age of the complainant at the time, the question of a consensual sexual relationship is moot and further stipulated that the sexual history of the complainant is not relevant in a charge of rape, unless the Court specifically judges it to be so.
The appellant, a 24-year-old police officer at the time of the charged conduct, was convicted of the attempted rape of a 17-year-old girl. She fought him off and managed to escape the car. The examining physician found some evidence of unlubricated sexual contact, but no conclusive evidence of penetration. He appealed on the grounds of the cautionary rule, encouraging the court to handle accusations of rape cautiously to prevent false convictions. The Court held that the cautionary rule was based on outdated stereotypes against women and that in crimin
The accused was charged and convicted on two separate counts of rape for raping two 15-year-old girls more than once and sentenced to six years imprisonment for the first count and 10 years imprisonment for the second. On appeal, the defense argued that the sentence was too severe because of mitigating circumstances, specifically that the victims did not suffer serious physical or psychological injuries and that both victims had previously been sexually active.
Section 9 of the Constitution provides for the right to equality. Section 9(1) provides that "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." Section 9(3) states that "The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth".
This Act amends the Criminal Procedure Act of 1997 and provides for the further regulation of detention and bail of those who are arrested. The Act substitutes subsection 11(b) of §60 of the original Act, tightening bail conditions for schedule 5 crimes, which includes rape. The substituted section holds that the court must order an accused to be detained in custody until they are dealt with in accordance with law, unless the accused can offer sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that they should be released in the interests of justice.
The issue on appeal in this case was whether the doctrine of common purpose can be applied to the common law crime of rape. Under the common law, rape is an instrumentality offense, which means that the perpetrator must have committed the act himself or facilitated the offense by his conduct.
The appellant was assaulted, raped, and robbed by Andre Gregory Mohamed, who had escaped from prison where he was facing 22 charges for indecent assault, rape and armed robbery.
The appellant suffered years of sexual abuse by her uncle, the respondent, during her childhood. She sued him for damages at the age of 48 and the respondent claimed that her suit should have been brought within one year of her attaining her majority. The Court held that the victim of sexual abuse as a child who only in adulthood acquired an appreciation of the responsibility of the abuser for the abuse may sue the abuser within three years of acquiring that appreciation.
The appellant, a minor, was sentenced to 10 years for the rape of a fellow classmate and appeals his sentence on the grounds that it was too excessive. The lower court sentenced the appellant-defendant to direct imprisonment rather than probation after hearing testimony about the appellant's unrepentant nature and lack of parental supervision. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that correctional supervision would have lacked the appropriate punitive impact demanded by the offense and deterrent effect.
