Summary
Summary Criminal law 171 Case Law summaries
- Module
- Institution
This document includes all the relevant cases, summarized comprehensively so you wont have to read the whole case documents.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
SmarterStudentStudies
Content preview
S v Tabethe & DPP v Tabethe (Punishment Theories → Restorative Justice)- Tabethe raped his life companion’s daughter
- Court found that this was a good case for restorative justice.
- LQ; Could restorative justice be fair when used in serious cases of rape, such as this?
- Was granted restorative justice, until APPEALED and previous punishments are set aside
and replaced with 10 years imprisonment.
S v Grobler (Conduct → Actio Libera in Causa)
- Lift operator of mine
- Very tired, did not sleep much the previous night.
- Came to work anyway.
- Fell asleep at the controls.
- Did not stop lift in time, so it crashed into the roof.
- Many people died.
- Court: Guilty, Actio Libera in Causa
S v van Rensburg ( Conduct →Sleep)
- Fell asleep behind wheel (after blood tests at doctor; low blood sugar, couldn’t eat
before) – crashed into someone else – doesn’t remember anything – wasn’t warned by
doctor
- Succeeded – medical evidence.
Possible Question – Compare Grobler to van Rensburg
Principles of Legality
- S v Solomons 1973 (Ius Acceptum)
- Masiya v Director of Public Prosecutions 2007(CC) (Ius Praevium)
o Raped someone anally.
o Common law definition of rape still applied.
o Thus he was acquitted.
o Law was changed → definition of rape changed.
- S v Francis en ‘n ander 1994 – escape from rehab centre
▪ Prohibited but not criminalised; goes against principle of
legality to convict
▪ Just because it is a prohibited does not make it a crime
- Veldman v DPP (Nulla Poena Sine Lege, Ius Acceptum, Ius Praevium)
o Accused had already plead
o Law changed
o Could accused be sentenced in terms of the increased jurisdiction?
o The court held it could not, observing that, once an accused has pleaded, the
constitutionally-enshrined principle of legality requires that the sentencing
jurisdiction of a court could not be varied to the detriment of the accused, even
where it was clear that the increased sentence was a permissible sentence for
the charge involved.
,S v Goliath (Conduct → Vis Compulsiva/ Relative force)
- Person was going to kill accused’s family if he did not help with killing another man –
involuntary conduct? You still have a choice albeit a tough one; defence if life v life if not
really justified (see: unlawfulness)
- Not being forced = absolute force not a defence in RSA law
S v Erwin 1974 (Conduct – Reflex actions)
- Man overtaking car but bee flies in window at this time
- He instinctively moved head and banged against right side of car; glasses then broke
- He took his hands off wheel instinctively to protect face; therefore crashed into other
vehicle
- Charged with negligent driving; claimed sane automatism
- Court looked at his evidence (removing of hands) and said he had thought process, so
could have thought about crashing as well – conduct was voluntary
S v Smit 1963 (Conduct – Reflex actions)
- S driving, 2 passengers on back of bakkie
- 1 passenger knocks on bakkie window – turns around, loses control of car – kills knocker
(Pieterson)
- Defence: sane automatism
- Court: Smit had thought process - did not succeed either
S v Arnold 1985 (Provocation/ emotional stress)
- Arnold married to younger lady: infatuated
- She hated his son + mother-in-law – couple often fought over these issues
- During a fight, Arnold fires a short and kills his wife
- Court: she provokes him + he never lied to the police + fully co-operated + medical
evidence of his state of mind = conduct was involuntary
- Succeeded – did not perform act consciously
- Swayed by his love + honesty + background
S v Eadie 2002 (Provocation/ emotional stress)
→ May have changed the position
- Road rage – Killed another motorist
- SCA effectively restricted provocation as a defence
- Ripple effect on domestic violence + intoxication related situations
R v Miller 1983 (Conduct - Omissio per commisionem)
- Homeless person slept in a house
- Mattress caught on fire from cigarette
- Failed to put it out - house set on fire
- Court: liable for arson
,S v Fernandez 1966 (Conduct - Control of a potentially dangerous thing or animal)
- Owner of a small shop had
- a pet baboon
- Baboon escaped from the cage but owner managed to coax the baboon back into its
cage
- Owner failed to fix the hole through which the baboon initially escaped
- Baboon escaped again and attacked and killed a baby
- Court: culpable homicide – had a legal duty to prevent harm: did not take measures to
ensure the baboon would not harm another person.
S v B and Another 1994 (Conduct – Protective relationship)
- 2-year-old boy assaulted by mother’s boyfriend continually – eventually killed
- Mother: failed to protect her child – court looked at the injuries sustained (burns,
broken bones etc.) which proved she did know of the abuse
- Court: mother foresaw the possibility that child might be harmed and did not protect
child – convicted assault
- Boyfriend: murder
*Parents will also be liable if child starves to death
Minister van polisie v Ewels (Public office or quasi-public office/ Special relationship)
- Ewels was assaulted by off-duty police officer at station in front of other officers that did
nothing - minister to be held liable as policemen have a legal duty to protect citizens
- Point of Departure: no liability for omissions
- But are cases for exceptions: where there is a legal duty to act positively arising from a
protective relationship
- Must prevent crime / protect community; exercise control over police station (crime of
assault)
Minister of law and order v Kadir (UNSUCSESSFUL Public office or quasi-public office/ Special
relationship)
- Kadir is driving and a bundle of clothes falls off the back of the car in front of him: cause
accident
- Other car comes to collect the clothes and drives off
- Police didn’t take any details of car with clothes and now Kadir cannot claim from Road
Accident Fund
- SCA: no legal duty
- Duty of police = to maintain law and order; not to assist people to obtain evidence for
civil claims (delict)
, Carmichele v Minister of safety and security (Public office or quasi-public office/ Special
relationship)
- Coetzee out on bail even though very dangerous, attempted rape, murder
- Coetzee assaulted Carmichele in her own home
- Carmichele: police and prosecutor had responsibility to keep people like her safe –
police should have told court about his previous actions, given magistrate the
information. They could have prevented the crime.
- Court: agree with Carmichele
- Constitutionally: inflicts on potential victims right to freedom from violence, right to life,
right to human dignity
- Police + prosecutor: duty to oppose bail or inform court about all the relevant facts (that
he was dangerous)
- State has a duty to protect women and children
- Carmichele: class of potential victims
- She was entitled to claim damages
Minister of safety and security v Hamilton (Public office or quasi-public office/ Special
relationship)
- Mrs Arnold had psychological problems + an alcoholic
- She applied for a firearm licence and received it
- Hamilton + Arnold argument in parking lot and Arnold shot Hamilton – now paraplegic
- Sue Minister but no evidence obtained firearm illegally but the police did not stop her
from obtaining it – should have done an investigation and declined her application
- Court: a legal duty to prevent
Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (Causation – Conditio cum qua non)
- Drunk driver arrested and beaten by police – left in police cell – began complaining
about stomach pains, doctor was only called after much delay – died a few hours later,
could have stayed alive if he had received medical assistance
- Legal question: on balance of probabilities, would reasonable conduct have prevented
his death?
- Majority of the judges found that earlier medical treatment could have saved his life
→ Significant connection between negligent conduct (slow/delayed) and death of
Skosana
→ Constables failed to act reasonably
*See full case for all 3 judgements
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SmarterStudentStudies. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.25. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now