Paulu v S (CA 24 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 132 (19 May 2011)

Paulu v S (CA 24 of 2009) [2011] NAHC 132 (19 May 2011)

Mens rea is an essential element of the offence under section 35(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, Act no 8 of 2003. The form of mens rea required is dolus (intention). The State bears the burden of proving mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's evidence created a reasonable doubt as to the existence of mens rea, and the State failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

Citation
[2011] NAHC 132
Parties
Appellant: Joel Paulus; Respondent: The State
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Case Number
CA 24 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
Legal Topics
Statutory Offences, Mens Rea, Strict Liability, Anti Corruption, Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Statutory Offences Mens Rea Strict Liability Anti Corruption Presumption of Innocence Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Paulus

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence created by section 35(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, Act no 8 of 2003
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of strict liability applies to section 35(1) offences under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the conviction was proper given the evidence on the appellant's intention

Ratio Decidendi

Mens rea is an essential element of the offence under section 35(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, Act no 8 of 2003. The form of mens rea required is dolus (intention). The State bears the burden of proving mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's evidence created a reasonable doubt as to the existence of mens rea, and the State failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.