State vs Lehnberg

“In any event, the impression I gained from Dr. Morgan's evidence was that she relied for her finding principally on features which Dr. Shubitz also found to be present: absence of remorse, lack of guilt, defect in feeling for others and an absence of anxiety* 

Dr. Pascoe also found these features to be present but in the absence of any pattern of any irresponsible behaviour was not prepared to state that they proved that Lehnberg was a psychopath.

I find Dr. Pascoe's evidence clear and con­vincing and I do not think that on balance another Court would hold that the applicant has discharged the onus of proving that she is a psychopath, more particularly when it is remembered that notone of the four psychiatrists who examined Lehnberg before the trial came forward to say that she was -( 14 -)  a psychopath.» The most that can be said is that she displays some psychopathic tendencies»”



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN SOUTH AFRICAN BAIL LAW

Image
Revised from my Post Graduate Diploma in Law Dissertation, UCT (1998), Supervisor: Prof Dirk Van Zyl Smit (Dean) [Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory citations relate to the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977] INTRODUCTION In respect of more serious offences, the legislature placed the onus in bail proceedings squarely on the arrested (s60(11). On the other hand, the implications of the approach adopted in the case law is that, regarding less serious offences, that one should not have regard to an onus and that the proceedings  are inquisitorial with no onus on either the state or the arrested. In other words, under no circumstances is the onus on the State (whether the offences with which the arrested would be charged relate to either serious or less serious offences). This is ostensibly an anomaly in a Constitutional Democracy sporting a Bill of Rights granting the right to bail. But their again, this right is accorded the arrested only if the interests of justic...
Read more

THE CONSTITUITONAL POSITION OF THE SUSPECT

Image
Satchwell J unleashed the debate in the discussion at hand in  S v Sebejan and Others  1997 (1) SACR 626 (W). The accused was under cross-examination by counsel for another accused who put it to the accused that she had made a statement to the Sergeant. The accused confirmed this. When the cross-examining counsel put this statement to  her, her own counsel contested the admissibility of the statement, arguing that, at the time of making the statement she was a suspect and that she had not, before making her statement, been warned of her right to legal representation. Counsel submitted that this failure rendered the statement constitutionally objectionable and that it should be disallowed as evidence (at 627 j -628 c ). Judge Satchwell summarised the position with regard to those categories of persons that enjoy constitutional protection as follows: s 25 of the [Interim] Constitution secures certain rights for 'detained, arrested and accused persons'. Acco...
Read more

BAIL MANUAL FOR SOUTH AFRICAN PRCTITIONERS

Image
(Revision in Progress) [Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations refer to the Criminal Procedure Act (51 of 1977)] GROUNDS FOR REFUSING BAIL 1)      There are 5 grounds on which bail could be refused  [s60(4)(a)-(e)] ; 2)      For the factors which  could be taken into account in for refusal, consult  s60(5)-(8A) .   In other words: When bail is opposed in terms of — s60(4)(a) — the factors laid down in  s60(5 ) may be relied on. s60(4)(b) — the factors laid down in  s60(6)  may be relied on s60(4)(c) — the factors laid down in  s60(7)  may be relied on s60(4)(d) — the factors laid down in  s60(8)  may be relied on s60(4)(e) — the factors laid down in  s60(8A)  may be relied on 3)      There isn’t a fixed number ( numerus clausus)  of grounds for refusing bai; other grounds not specified may be considered. ...
Read more