Penal Code Penal Code
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Code of Administrative Justice
Code of Administrative Justice Legislative Part Preliminary Title Article L1 This code applies to the Council of State and to administrative tribunals and administrative courts of appeal. Article L2 Judgments are rendered in the name of the French people. Article L3 Judgments are rendered by judges acting as a collegial body, unless the law provides otherwise. Article L4 Applications do not cause proceedings to be suspended, unless the court orders otherwise, or unless there are special statutory provisions. Article L5 Both parties are represented in the preparation of the case. Certain requirements flow from the fact that both parties are represented; if the case is urgent, these former requirements will be adapted to those of the urgent situation. Article L6 Hearings are held in open court. Article L7 A member of the court, appointed to act as consultant judge, presents his or her opinion, in public and with total independence, on the issues that must be decided by the court, that arise from the applications or appeals, and on the possible solutions. Article L8 Text last revised 3 October 2013 - Document generated 11 November 2013 - The judges' deliberations are secret. Article L9 The judges must give reasons for their judgments. Article L10 Judgments are rendered in public. Judgments must mention the names of the judges by whom they were rendered. Article L11 Judgments are enforceable. Text last revised 3 October 2013 - Document generated 11 November 2013 - Legislative Part Book I: The Council of State Title I – Powers Chapter I: Powers in contentious matters Article L111-1 The Council of State is the highest administrative court. -
Penal Code Chapter 32. Fraud
PENAL CODE TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTER 32. FRAUD SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec.A32.01.AADEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1)AA"Financial institution" means a bank, trust company, insurance company, credit union, building and loan association, savings and loan association, investment trust, investment company, or any other organization held out to the public as a place for deposit of funds or medium of savings or collective investment. (2)AA"Property" means: (A)AAreal property; (B)AAtangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or (C)AAa document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value. (3)AA"Service" includes: (A)AAlabor and professional service; (B)AAtelecommunication, public utility, and transportation service; (C)AAlodging, restaurant service, and entertainment; and (D)AAthe supply of a motor vehicle or other property for use. (4)AA"Steal" means to acquire property or service by theft. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec.A32.02.AAVALUE. (a) Subject to the additional criteria of Subsections (b) and (c), value under this chapter is: (1)AAthe fair market value of the property or service at the time and place of the offense; or 1 (2)AAif the fair market value of the property cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the offense. (b)AAThe value of documents, other than those having a readily ascertainable market value, is: (1)AAthe amount due and collectible at maturity less any part that has been satisfied, if the document constitutes evidence of a debt; or (2)AAthe greatest amount of economic loss that the owner might reasonably suffer by virtue of loss of the document, if the document is other than evidence of a debt. -
Constitutional Court Ruling on Criminal Defamation
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA 5 CORAM: HON. JUSTICE A.E.N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA HON. JUSTICE S.G. ENGWAU, JA HON. JUSTICE C.K. BYAMUGISHA, JA HON. JUSTICE S.B.K. KAVUMA, JA 10 HON. JUSTICE A.S. NSHIMYE, JA CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE NO. 1/2008 (Arising out of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2008 in the Chief Magistrates Court at Nakawa) 15 1. JOACHIM BUWEMBO 2. BERNARD TABAIRE 3. EMMANUEL DAVIES GYEZAHO 4. MUKASA ROBERT ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS VERSUS 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT (Statutory interpretation - Whether Section 179 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120) is inconsistent with Article 29(1) (a) of the Constitution. - Whether or not Sections 179 of the Penal Code Act is a restriction permitted under Article 43 of the Constitution as being demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.) 25 Ruling of the Court This Constitutional Reference arose out of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2008, instituted at Nakawa Magistrates Court, wherein the four applicants, namely Joachim Buwembo, Bernard Tabaire, 30 Emmanuel Davies Gyezaho and Mukasa Robert, were jointly charged with libel, contrary to sections 179 and 22 of the Penal Code Act. 1 The facts giving rise to this charge are that the said applicants who are journalists with the Monitor Newspaper, published articles in their Sunday issues of 19th and 26th August 2007 captioned “IGG IN SALARY SCANDAL” and “GOD’S WARRIOR FAITH MWONDHA 5 STUMBLES” respectively. Following a complaint to the police by the Hon. Lady Justice Faith Mwondha, the IGG, the applicants were investigated and later charged, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nakawa, with the offence of unlawful publication of defamatory matter under sections 179 and 22 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120). -
Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 .............................................................................................. -
Capital Punishment
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY S~NATOR BILL LOCKYER, CHAIRMAN Special Hearing on THE PROCESS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MARCH 19, 1985 111137 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated l' in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 1'1 represent the official position or pOlicies of the National !l1stitute of ........ Justice . ....... ...... ....... r p. 0:::«z -<C Z to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~~ Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis [J,J '--J.U sion of the copyright owner. 0:= oe= O~ ::J ::><C l -:>J: CI}:C « e= to -I zC: t:f) Cl)CrJ CO Ql (/) offi r: 0"1,........ ?Z ..... "'-I .... &) Q;:) lad .. C<Q 0 -c.9 UJr 0"1 'f:" fa Z ,........ ~ [J,J UJ~ C» U as r -I (---4U .., Q :: O;J :r: I""'l (3)""'" « (-0_ -I I'!~ IG U U >- ;:J -z -0"" ~~ 0:: < 2:-1 U ~ ~ 0 0:= <» « ::Ed ,..J ~ 0 o 00 e- ~ ~ 0 el) -I--- '-U~ « uO:=o U LLll :ct: (-<C ~~ ZllJ«Z W{/) ~ en U SPECIAL HEARING ON THE PROCESS OF CAPITAL PUNISFlMENl' CASES March 19, 1985 Senate Judiciary Committee Bill Lockyer, Chairman Ed Davis Nicholas C. Pettis Jolm Doolittle Robert Presley Barry Keene Art Torres Mil ton Marks Diane Watson Senate Judiciary Ccmnittee Tuesday, March 19, 1985 1 :30 p.m., Roan 4203 AGENDA: TI1E PROCESS OF A CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASE 1 . -
146435NCJRS.Pdf
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • BASIC COURSE INSTRUCTOR· UNIT GUIDE c 7 ) ~___________ C_R_IM_E_S __ A_G_A_IN_S_T_P_E_R_S_O_N_S ___________) (November 1~ l L1 6435 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of JU!~tice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been grantedcaliforTIla by. Camm1SS10n•• on p eace - Offlcer StandardS ana: Tf'alning to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the copyright owner . • ---~------;----------.----~ - ------ - ------ • The curricula contained in this document is designed as a guideline for the delivery of performance-based law enforcement training. It is part of the POST Basic Course guidelines system developed by California law enforcement trainers and criminal justice educators in cooperation with the California • Commission on Peace Officer Sandards and Training . • ,, ,. II UNIT GUIDE 7 :: • TABLE OF CONTENTS LEARNING DOMAIN 7 Crimes Against Persons Page Knowledge Test 7 (POSTRAC) 3.10.1 Extortion ...................................... 1 3.17." Assault 3 3.17.2 Battery 5 3.18.1 Assault \I\Iith a Deadly Weapon .. 7 3.19.1 Mayhem ....................................... 9 3.20.1 Inflicting Corporal Injury Upon a Spouse, etc. ............ 11 3.23.6 Terrorism (Hate Crime) ............................ 13 3.25.1 Robbery ....................................... 17 • 3.26.1 Kidnapping or False Imprisonment .................... 21 3.27.1 Aiding or Encouraging a Suicide . -
1192.7. (C) As Used in This Section, "Serious Felony"
Penal Code 1192.7 (c) 1192.7. (c) As used in this section, "serious felony" means any of the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison -
Counter-Terrorism Measures and Human Rights: When the Exception
FRANCE INTERNATIONAL FACT-FINDING MISSION REPORT Counter-terrorism measures & human rights When the exception becomes the norm June 2016 / N°676a TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 I. THE STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER SCRUTINY 6 A. Factual background 6 1. Measures implemented under the state of emergency 7 2. Searches and house arrests: facts and figures 8 3. Parliamentary oversight 10 4. Judicial oversight 11 B. Analysis of consequences and assessment of oversight mechanisms 16 1. The consequences of state of emergency measures 16 2. Questioning the efficacy of state of emergency measures 19 3. What kind of safeguards are in place? 22 II. WHEN THE EXCEPTION BECOMES THE NORM: THE SHARP INCREASE IN COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION 27 1. The Law of 24 July 2015: intelligence 28 2. Draft reforms to French criminal procedure, another reason for concern 29 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 ANNEX 1 : INSTITUTIONS AND PERSONS INTERVIEWED 40 ANNEX 2 : LETTER FROM THE INTERIOR MINISTER BERNARD CAZENEUVE, IN RESPONSE TO MEETING REQUEST BY THE FIDH DELEGATION 41 En couverture : Fouille intervenue dans le cadre d’une opération de police effectuée le 27 novembre 2015 au matin dans un squat au Pré Saint Gervais, occupé par des personnes suspectées de « trouble à l’ordre public pendant la COP21 », selon des sources policières. © AFP PHOTO / LAURENT EMMANUEL 2 FIDH – France - Counter-terrorism measures & human rights FIDH – France - Counter-terrorism measures & human rights 3 INTRODUCTION In the weeks following the attacks, the government also presented to Parliament draft legislation seeking to modify French criminal procedure, adapting it to address such exceptional situations. -
Organization Interpol
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. APR ~1976 , INTERNATIONAL' CRIMINAL ,POLICE ORGANIZATION INTERPOL / XXXVlllth GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION MEXICO 13th - 18th OCTOBER 1969 Report submitted by ~he GENERAL SECRETARIAT Subject : POWERS. AND DUTIES OF THE POLICE WITH REGARD TO DETENTION. A INTRODUCTION Backa-FC?1l.?d to. the survey. The Organisation's programme of activities adopted by tho G:~:c9ral Assembly sessions in.1965 and 1967 included an important survey, to be conctucted in several stages 7 of tho powers and duties of the police whon investigating offences against criminal law. The first part of this survey covers thG pm-Ters and dutios of the police with regard to the detention of persons. Circula.r N° 1898-POLNA!112 lias sent oat on 8th April 1968 to all ,'.' Interpol Nation9.l Central Bureaus 7 enclosing a q.uestionnaire on this subject. t. ; The Circular explained that the aim of the survey was to obtain information t~ from each a.ffiliated country on the legal conditions in which "the pOli.ce m~y ~ hold for a certain time for th~ purposes of criminal enquiries a person who • has not boen charged and for whom a 'tITarrant of arrest has nO'b been issued by ~.. \:0 a magistrate". .j. ~ 'r - 2 - - 3 - Power to datal'n or hold a person fO)' qu t' , vTe felt there was little point in dealing with arrests made by order exercise of the power of arrest. Fo~ t es lOnlng ~s subordinate to the of a magistrate with a view to bringing a person to trial, or arrests made in to the power of detaining a parson Whoh~:en~~un~rles therefors 7 with regard execution of a conviction, since the regulations governing such cases are arrest warrant has been; "''''ued 't c arged and for Vlhom no probably of a similar natuy.o in most oountries. -
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE in EUROPE INTRODUCTION (History
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN EUROPE - Report for France - INTRODUCTION (History, purpose of the review and classification of administrative acts, definition of an administrative authority) 1. Main dates in the evolution of the review of administrative acts If the principle of separation of the administrative and judicial authorities originates in the edict of Saint-Germain-en-Laye of February 1641, it was established, in its modern accepted meaning, by the revolutionary law of August 16 and 24, 1790. The creation, in Year VIII (1799), of the councils of prefecture and the Council of State, heir of the king’s council, completed the birth of French administrative justice. Thanks to the recognized special nature of the rules applicable to the administration by the Court dispute tribunal’s Blanco ruling of February 8, 1873, and according to the law of May 24, 1872, that enabled the Council of State to become a full-fledged adjudicator making its own decisions, according to the system called “delegated justice,” whereas until that time the final decision lay with the executive power, administrative law will develop, and consequently the administration’s control will assert itself. Since the early 19th century, the powers of the Council of State, of the administrative courts of appeal, created in 1987, and of the administrative courts, which in 1953 succeeded the councils of prefecture as common law judges in the administrative disputes of first resort, never ceased to assert themselves at the initiative of the legislator or the adjudicator him/herself, so as to exert ever broader and more efficient control of the administration’s acts and actions. -
63Dd25a4-3Fd7-4A6b-8709
THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE PENAL CODE (CHAPTER 224) (Original Enactment: Ordinance 4 of 1871) REVISED EDITION 2008 (30th November 2008) Prepared and Published by THE LAW REVISION COMMISSION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS ACT (CHAPTER 275) Informal Consolidation – version in force from 2/1/2021 CHAPTER 224 2008 Ed. Penal Code ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Chapter I — Preliminary Section 1. Short title 2. Punishment of offences committed within Singapore 3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within Singapore 4. Jurisdiction over public servants for offences committed outside Singapore 4A. Offences against State and genocide committed outside Singapore by citizen or permanent resident 4B. Punishment of specified offences with elements occurring in Singapore but others occurring outside Singapore 5. Certain laws not to be affected by this Code Chapter II — General Explanations 6. Definitions in this Code to be understood subject to exceptions 6A. Definitions to apply to this Code and other written law 7. Expression once explained is used in the same sense throughout this Code 8. “Gender” 9. “Number” 10. “Man” and “woman” 11. “Person” 12. “Public” 17. “Government” 19. “Judge” 20. “Court of justice” 21. “Public servant” 22. “Property” 22A. “Fault element” and “physical element” 23. “Wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” 24. “Dishonestly” 25. “Fraudulently” 1 Informal Consolidation – version in force from 2/1/2021 2008 Ed. Penal Code CAP. 224 2 Section 26. “Reason to believe” 26A. “Voluntarily” 26B. “Good faith” 26C. “Intentionally” 26D. “Knowingly” 26E. “Rashly” 26F. “Negligently” 26G. “Transferred fault” 26H. “Strict liability” 27. -
World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems
WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS SINGAPORE Mahesh Nalla Michigan State University This country report is one of many prepared for the World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems under Bureau of Justice Statistics grant No. 90-BJ-CX-0002 to the State University of New York at Albany. The project director was Graeme R. Newman, but responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in each report is that of the individual author. The contents of these reports do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U. S. Department of Justice. GENERAL OVERVIEW I. Political system. Singapore is a city/nation with a population of 2.6 million. 77% of its population are Chinese, 15%, Malays, and 6%, Indian. The four official languages of Singapore are English, Mandarin Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. (Vreeland, et.al., 1977). The Republic of Singapore is a parliamentary government patterned after the English Westminster model. The constitution provides the structure and organization of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. (Vreeland, et.al., 1977). 2. Legal system The legal system in Singapore is adversarial in nature. English common law was superimposed on the existing Malay customary law and Muslim law. Consequently, the legal system in Singapore can be characterized as pluralistic. While the dominant common law which shaped the Singapore legal system applies to all segments of the population, Muslim law governs the Muslim community in religious and matrimonial matters. Muslim law is administered in accordance with the Administration of Muslim Law Act, Cap.42.