Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a29f9174fc2e3337

Jump to content

R v Schoonwinkel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R v Schoonwinkel
CourtCape Provincial Division
Full case name R v Schoonwinkel
Argued11 March 1953 (1953-03-11)
Decided11 March 1953 (1953-03-11)
Chargeculpable homicide
Citation1953 (3) SA 136 (C)
Court membership
Judge sittingSteyn J and assessors
Case opinions
Decision bySteyn J
Keywords
Criminal law, criminal liability, automatism, epilepsy, culpable homicide

In R v Schoonwinkel, an important case in South African criminal law, particularly as it applies to the defence of automatism, the driver of a motor vehicle was charged with culpable homicide, having collided with and killed a passenger in another car.[1] The accused had had an epileptic seizure at the time of the accident, rendering his mind a blank. The nature of his epilepsy was such that he would normally not have realised or foreseen the dangers of driving, having had only two previous minor attacks, the last a long time before the accident. This evidence, distinguishing this case from R v Victor, exonerated him from criminal responsibility. The court found additionally that this was not a case falling under the provisions of the Mental Disorders Act, read with section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act.[2][3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • R v Schoonwinkel 1953 (3) SA 136 (C).

Notes

[edit]
  1. 1953 (3) SA 136 (C).
  2. Act 38 of 1916.
  3. Act 31 of 1917.