R v Mailos (Criminal Review Case 1 of 1934) [1934] ZMHCNR 2 (31 December 1934)

R v Mailos (Criminal Review Case 1 of 1934) [1934] ZMHCNR 2 (31 December 1934)

A person is not 'unauthorised' under Regulation 12 if they have a lawful excuse, which may arise from implication, invitation, or custom, and it is for the magistrate to determine if the circumstances amount to lawful excuse.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1934] ZMHCNR 2
Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Accused: Mailos
Court
High Court of Northern Rhodesia
Jurisdiction
Zambia
Case Number
Criminal Review Case 1 of 1934
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Outcome
Interpretation of 'unauthorised person' clarified; remitted to magistrate for determination based on facts.
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Entry, Mining Regulations, Lawful Excuse
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Mining Law Unauthorised Entry Mining Regulations Lawful Excuse

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Mailos

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Meaning of 'unauthorised person' under Regulation 12 of the Mining Regulations, 1912
  2. 2 Whether lawful excuse constitutes authorisation to enter mining property

Ratio Decidendi

A person is not 'unauthorised' under Regulation 12 if they have a lawful excuse, which may arise from implication, invitation, or custom, and it is for the magistrate to determine if the circumstances amount to lawful excuse.

Court Disposition

Interpretation of 'unauthorised person' clarified; remitted to magistrate for determination based on facts.