About: S v Morrison

An Entity of Type: person, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

In S v Morrison 1988 (4) SA 164 (T), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the court considered whether or not there is a duty on the presiding officer to inform the accused of his right to legal representation. In terms of section 73(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, the accused has a right to legal representation, but the court held that this right is generally known to most people, and that no rule of law or practice requires a trial court to spell this out to every unrepresented accused.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • In S v Morrison 1988 (4) SA 164 (T), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the court considered whether or not there is a duty on the presiding officer to inform the accused of his right to legal representation. In terms of section 73(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, the accused has a right to legal representation, but the court held that this right is generally known to most people, and that no rule of law or practice requires a trial court to spell this out to every unrepresented accused. The court held that whether there is such a duty depends on the circumstances of the case. This case was heard before the Constitution came into force. The Constitution now explicitly protects the right of the accused to be informed of his right to legal representation. (en)
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 39628966 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 1213 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1084904259 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
gold:hypernym
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • In S v Morrison 1988 (4) SA 164 (T), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the court considered whether or not there is a duty on the presiding officer to inform the accused of his right to legal representation. In terms of section 73(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, the accused has a right to legal representation, but the court held that this right is generally known to most people, and that no rule of law or practice requires a trial court to spell this out to every unrepresented accused. (en)
rdfs:label
  • S v Morrison (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License