The State v Likezo and Hoho v The State (Essay Sample)

Institution’s Name:
Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Date:
The State v Likezo and Hoho v The State
The State v Likezo
In the case of the state versus Likezo, Likezo is accused of a rape case that involved a girl below 14 years of age. According to the law - Contravening s2(1)(a) – the intentional commission of a sexual harrassment act with a complainant going through harsh situations as outlined in s2(2) of the Act, the accused, Mr Likezo pleaded that he was ignorant according to law clause.Here the role of the state will be to prove if the accused was ignorant of the age that the complainant had. The state found that the accused was unsophisticated and illiterate. The state found out that the accused had the knowledge that for an adult to have sex with a minor was wrong and that the complainant was minor. However, the state could not find anything beyond doubt to show that the accused had the knowledge that the complainant was below 14 years old and that she was not mature enough to give a valid consent. Moreover, the state could not prove that that accused was aware of the definitions of the offence.
The accused, however, admitted having had sex with the complainant under her consent.However,he pleaded that he knew not that the complainant had an age of 12 years. He further admitted that he was also ignorant of the law. On the side of the complainant, she said that the accused had forced her into the act by grabbing her and dragging her while covering her mouth to the nearby where he raped her. After the rape, she said she could hear the call of her grandmother but could not respond immediately. She said that she later responded after she heard her grandmother’s insisted call. Her grandmother said that it took some time to locate her granddaughter after searching for her in the neighbourhood. According to the court finding, there were some inconstancies and drawbacks on both the complainant’s side and the accused side. The court, however, could not rely on one accuse that was not confirmed by thecomplainant’s evidence. The court found that the accused had the knowledge of the wrong of an adult having sex with a minor, however, the court was not satisfied by the state having succeeded in discharging the onus to prove that the accused had the knowledge of the definitional of the offence that included the accused awareness of the age of the complainant and that she was below the age of giving a valid consent. Finally the accused is found not to be guilty and is released on both accounts.
Hoho v The State
In this second case, the issue of whether the law of deformation is still applicable in South Africa. An appellant by the name Luzulo Kerr Hoho was accused of compiling, producing and publishing pamphlets between the year 2001 and 2002 that defamed the premier. The speaker, members of the EasternCape provincial legislature, the chief whip of the African NationalCongress, two national ministers, alegislative, legal advisor and a deputy minister. Hoho was an employee of the Eastern Cape Legislature as a researcher at that time. He is accused of alleging against worthies such as corruption and bribery, favouritism, fraud and embezzlement of funds, nepotism, murder, tribalism and racism and sexual impropriety. The storm in politics that ensued as a result of the allegations resulted in the criminal accusation of Mr Hoho for deformation crime. The deformation crime is considered a civil wrong that causes financial punishment as a consequence but does not deny the accused his or liberty. In the long run, Mr Hoho Denys being the author and he further admits that he didn’t even attempt to defend the " the truth and public benefit”. The state called for witness to prove that Mr Hoho was not the author but Bishop court found that the statements were actually defamatory and that indeed Mr Hoho was the actual author of the pamphlets and had published them and disposed them to the public.
Even without his call for plead to defence as required by Act s107, in an event of the same. The state also called for witnesses that would prove that the claims of the defamation were wrong besides calling for witnesses to show that the actual author of the pamphlets was not the accused. The appellant also strongly disagreed claim that he was the author of the pamphlets and also called for witnesses.
The court found Mr Hoho guilty of 22 out of the 23 claimed...