注:根据《防止罪案防治法》管理和参与犯罪活动:重复定罪?论S诉普林斯洛案与S诉蒂里案之间的冲突

Q3 Social Sciences
Delano Cole Van der Linde
{"title":"注:根据《防止罪案防治法》管理和参与犯罪活动:重复定罪?论S诉普林斯洛案与S诉蒂里案之间的冲突","authors":"Delano Cole Van der Linde","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i3a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some debate exists as to whether convicting an accused of both participating in and managing a criminal enterprise under chap 2 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 constitutes an impermissible duplication of convictions. This note analyses the relevant provisions of the Act, and the concept of duplication of convictions, against two conflicting Supreme Court of Appeal judgments, namely S v Prinsloo 2016 (2) SACR 25 (SCA) and S v Tiry 2021 (1) SACR 349 (SCA). In these two cases the court reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same legal question, creating uncertainty. Ultimately, the question whether a duplication of convictions has occurred depends on the facts of each case, and the extent to which managers-cum-participants have ‘dirtied their hands’ in the pursuit of the criminal enterprise. Foreign perspectives from United States constitutional jurisprudence will also be considered.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Notes: Managing and participating in a criminal enterprise under POCA: Duplication of convictions? A discussion of the conflict between S v Prinsloo and S v Tiry\",\"authors\":\"Delano Cole Van der Linde\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v139/i3a3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some debate exists as to whether convicting an accused of both participating in and managing a criminal enterprise under chap 2 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 constitutes an impermissible duplication of convictions. This note analyses the relevant provisions of the Act, and the concept of duplication of convictions, against two conflicting Supreme Court of Appeal judgments, namely S v Prinsloo 2016 (2) SACR 25 (SCA) and S v Tiry 2021 (1) SACR 349 (SCA). In these two cases the court reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same legal question, creating uncertainty. Ultimately, the question whether a duplication of convictions has occurred depends on the facts of each case, and the extent to which managers-cum-participants have ‘dirtied their hands’ in the pursuit of the criminal enterprise. Foreign perspectives from United States constitutional jurisprudence will also be considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i3a3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i3a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据1998年颁布的《防止有组织犯罪法》第2章,对参与和管理犯罪企业的被告定罪是否构成不允许的重复定罪,存在一些争论。本文分析了该法案的相关条款,以及重复定罪的概念,针对两个相互冲突的最高上诉法院判决,即S诉Prinsloo 2016 (2) SACR 25 (SCA)和S诉Tiry 2021 (1) SACR 349 (SCA)。在这两个案件中,法院对同一法律问题作出了截然相反的结论,造成了不确定性。最终,是否发生了重复定罪的问题取决于每个案件的事实,以及管理者兼参与者在追捕犯罪企业时“脏了手”的程度。也将考虑来自美国宪法学的外国观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Notes: Managing and participating in a criminal enterprise under POCA: Duplication of convictions? A discussion of the conflict between S v Prinsloo and S v Tiry
Some debate exists as to whether convicting an accused of both participating in and managing a criminal enterprise under chap 2 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 constitutes an impermissible duplication of convictions. This note analyses the relevant provisions of the Act, and the concept of duplication of convictions, against two conflicting Supreme Court of Appeal judgments, namely S v Prinsloo 2016 (2) SACR 25 (SCA) and S v Tiry 2021 (1) SACR 349 (SCA). In these two cases the court reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same legal question, creating uncertainty. Ultimately, the question whether a duplication of convictions has occurred depends on the facts of each case, and the extent to which managers-cum-participants have ‘dirtied their hands’ in the pursuit of the criminal enterprise. Foreign perspectives from United States constitutional jurisprudence will also be considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信