What about the behavior of that Supreme Court of Appeal there and its being complicit and part of the game in not reversing the acquittal that the guy intentionally shot dead that girl targeting her?
In the link mentioned in the preceding post the writer says:
"... as was observed by
Corbett CJ in Magmoed[8] „the traditional policy and practice of our law‟ is that
an acquittal by a competent court in a criminal case is final and conclusive and
may not be questioned in any subsequent proceeding." (page 13)
What point there is in the difference in treatment for the state challenging acquittal versus the state challenging conviction to turn it to a worse conviction for the defendant?
Anyway, he spoke about a "competent court". The judgment of the acquittal here itself shows how the trial court was far from being competent.
No comments:
Post a Comment