Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T16:56:18Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T16:56:18Z
dc.date.created 2004-11-30 en
dc.identifier.citation [1996] ZACC 21
dc.identifier.citation 1996 (12) BCLR 1588 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 1997 (2) SA 887 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/1998
dc.title S v Bequinot en
dc.title.alternative CCT24/95 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT24/95 en
dc.date.hearing 25 September 1996
dc.contributor.judge Kriegler J
dc.date.judgment 18 November 1996
dc.link.judgment https://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/1998/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2018%20November%201996.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Referral in terms of s102(1). Constitutionality of section 37 of the General Law Amendment Act 62, 1955 challenged which provides that after the prosecution has proved that an accused received stolen goods, the accused has the burden to prove that at the time s/he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the person from whom the goods were received owned them or was authorised by the owner to dispose of them. Referral incompetent, remitted to WLD. Maj: Kriegler J (unanimous).
dc.concourt.casehistory A mero motu referral by the High Court during an appeal against a decision of the Magistrate's Court, to the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of s 37 of Act 62 of 1955, referral held to be invalid.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account