Stuvia 833724 Crw2602 Exam Pack

CRW2602 EXAM PACK
written by
vcube
www.stuvia.com
Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
CRW2602
EXAM PACK

THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF SEVEN (7) PAGES PLUS INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF
A MARK READING SHEET.
THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PAPER COUNT HUNDRED (100) MARKS. THE PAPER CONSISTS
OF TWO PARTS, MARKED A AND B. YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH PARTS A AND B. PART A
CONSISTS OF TEN (10) MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION COUNTS THREE
(3) MARKS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUESTIONS IN PART A COUNT A TOTAL OF THIRTY
(30) MARKS. IN PART B, THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS MUST BE WRITTEN IN THE
EXAMINATION ANSWER BOOK ITSELF. THE QUESTIONS IN PART B COUNT SEVENTY (70)
MARKS.
PART A (MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS)
IMPORTANT NOTICE. THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART HAVE TO BE ANSWERED ON THE

MARK READING SHEET, WHICH WILL BE ISSUED WITH YOUR EXAMINATION ANSWER
BOOK. YOU HAVE TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE
MARK READING SHEET CAREFULLY. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY MEAN THAT YOUR
ANSWERS CANNOT BE MARKED BY THE COMPUTER.
Ten questions (marked 1 - 10) follow. Each question contains three statements (marked (a)-
(c)). Some of the statements are correct and some are incorrect. You must decide which of
these statements is/are correct. The three statements are followed by five allegations
(marked (1) - (5)). Each of them alleges that a certain statement or combination of statements
is correct. You must decide which allegation accurately reflects the conclusions to which
you have come.

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 1
(a) “Terrorist activities” prohibited in section 1 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against
Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 may consist of any act which causes serious risk
to the health or safety of the public.
(b) “Terrorist activities” as in the above-mentioned Act must be performed with a defined culpability.
(c) The interests protected by the crime of terrorism are the safety and security of the Republic, its
institutions and people.
(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(2) Only statement (b) is correct.
(3) Only statement (c) is correct.
(4) Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
(5) All these statements are correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) For the crime of statutory perjury, the statements must be made in writing in the course of legal
proceedings.
(b) A legal representative, who, in the course of argument, makes a false declaration to the court,
can be charged with common law perjury.
(c) If X persuades Y, a witness in a trial, to give false evidence in court, X may be convicted of the
crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.

(4) Only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
(5) Only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) X can be convicted of the offence of corruption created in section 3 of the Prevention and
Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 if he had merely agreed to accept gratification
unlawfully in the future.
(b) X can be convicted of corruption even if the person to whom he had offered the benefit was a
police trap who had no intention of keeping the benefit for himself.
(c) The crime of corruption is completed only once the benefit is handed over.


QUESTION 4
(a) If X exercises control over ecstasy tablets on behalf of Y but has no intention of using the drugs
personally, X cannot be convicted of the crime known as “use or possession of drugs” in terms
of section 4 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992.
(b) The mental element of possession in the above-mentioned Act relates to the intention with
which somebody exercises control over an article.
(c) If X buys dagga from Y with purpose of smoking it himself, he cannot be found guilty of the
offence of dealing in drugs.

QUESTION 5
(a) The Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 makes it punishable to be aware that somebody else
possesses a firearm unlawfully and then to fail to report this to the police.
(b) The crime of unlawfully possessing a firearm is defined in the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000
in such a way that X commits the crime only if he exercises control over the weapon with the
intention of possessing it as an owner for his own benefit.
(c) A person may lawfully possess ammunition even if he does not have a licence in respect of a
firearm capable of discharging that ammunition.

(5) None of the statements is correct.
QUESTION 6
(a) The National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 provides that no person shall drive a vehicle on a
public road outside an urban area at a speed in excess of 80 km/h.
(b) The definition of “driver” in the above-mentioned Act does not include persons who rides or
attempts to ride any pedal cycle.
(c) Only SAPS members are permitted to exceed the general speed limit in terms of section 60 of
the Act.


CRW2602/102
QUESTION 7
(a) Reckless driving includes inconsiderate driving which might give rise to a risk of harm to others.
(b) The interest protected by the crime of negligent driving is the safety of the public using the
roads.
(c) An intoxicated person sitting behind the steering wheel of a stationary vehicle which has its
engine running may not be found guilty of a contravention of the offence driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.

QUESTION 8
(a) The offence of pointing of a firearm in the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 may overlap with the
crime of assault in the form of inspiring fear of immediate personal violence.
(b) In order to secure a conviction for pointing of a firearm, the state needs to prove that the firearm
was capable of firing a shot.
(c) If X presses a water pistol against the body of Y, and Y thinks it is a real gun, X may be charged
with the unlawful pointing of a firearm.

QUESTION 9
(a) It is not required for robbery that the property should necessarily be on the person of the victim
or in his presence when the violence takes place.
(b) X assaults Y. His intention, at that moment, is merely to assault Y. After having knocked him
unconscious, X sees Y’s watch, decides to take the watch and in fact does so. X can be
convicted of robbery.
(c) X cannot be convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen,
if she received the property with the intention of keeping it merely temporarily for somebody
else.


QUESTION 10
(a) Forgery is a form of fraud.
(b) The reason why the word “malicious” appears in the crime “malicious injury to property” is that
this crime can be committed only if X had an evil motive when he damaged the property.
(c) Stretching one’s arm through an open hole in a wall of a building does not amount to “breaking
in” in the crime of housebreaking with intent to commit a crime.

SUB-TOTAL [30]
PART B
THIS PART CONSISTS OF THREE QUESTIONS, NUMBERED, 1, 2 AND 3. YOU MUST

ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS (WITH THEIR SUB-QUESTIONS). NOTE THAT YOU HAVE
A CHOICE IN CERTAIN OF THE SUB-QUESTIONS. SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWERS AND
REFER TO DECIDED CASES WHERE NECESSARY. IN DECIDING UPON THE LENGTH OF
YOUR ANSWERS YOU SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE MARKS ALLOCATED TO EACH
QUESTION.
Question 1
(a) Define the crime of public violence. (5)
(b) X is in financial trouble and staying with his sister. He uses his sister’s car with her consent but
tells everybody that it is his own car. X’s friend Y, who is under the impression that the car
belongs to X, offers to buy the car from him in order to help him out of his financial crisis. X
agrees, receives R80 000 from Y, and delivers the car to Y’s house, promising that he will
ensure that the car is registered in Y’s name. Answer the following questions:
(i) Fully define the crime of theft. (5)

(ii) Name and explain briefly the form of theft which is present in the factual scenario sketched
above. (1)
(iii) Did X perform an act of appropriation as required for the crime of theft? In your answer you
must define an “act of appropriation”. (3)
(iv) Can X also be convicted of fraud? Briefly discuss by setting out the elements of the offence.
(5)
(c) Discuss ONE of the following cases:
(i) S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E)

(ii) S v Gardener 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA)
(iii) S v Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ) (6)
[25]

CRW2602/102
Question 2
(a) X, a top government official, is convicted by a judge of corruption. She is very unsatisfied with
the outcome of the case, and at a public meeting declares: “The whole bench in this country is
corrupt”.
(i) With which crime may X be charged? Define this crime. (5)
(ii) Identify clearly the specific form of the crime which is identified here. (1)
(iii) What are the reasons for the existence of this crime? (4)
(b) The application of force to the person of Y is the most common way in which the crime of
assault is committed. Define assault and discuss in detail the requirement of “application of
force” for this form of the crime of assault. (8)
(c) X bears a grudge against a previous girlfriend who had left him for another man. The girlfriend,
Y, has a 10-year-old child, Z. One morning, X picks up Z at his school. He tells Z that his
mother is seriously ill, and that she had sent him to pick up Z and to take him home. However,
X takes Z to his own house and keeps him captive in the cellar underneath his house. He does
not tell inform anybody about this and also does not demand a ransom from Y. Discuss
whether X may be found guilty of the crime of kidnapping. (7)
[25]
Question 3
(a) Name the six elements of the offence of extortion. (6)
(b) X, a 26-year-old male and Y, a 20-year-old female, live in a one-roomed shack with their ten-
year-old daughter, Z. X has sexual intercourse with Z with the assistance of Y. While X
penetrates Z sexually, Y puts a piece of cloth in Z’s mouth to prevent the neighbours from
hearing her screams. Y tells nobody about what is going on since she is afraid that X will no
longer support her financially if she reveals his criminal conduct. X also has sex with Y with her
consent, and at the same time locks Z in the room with the intent to make her witness the act.
(i) Merely name the offences in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters
Amendment Act 32 of 2007 of which X may be convicted. (3)
(ii) Merely name any TWO offences in terms of the abovementioned Act of which Y may be
convicted. (2)
(c) In terms of section 1(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment
Act 32 of 2007 “consent” means “voluntary and uncoerced agreement”. Set out the
circumstances in which such consent is deemed to be absent in terms of the said Act. (6)
(d) Name the reasons for the existence of the following offences:
(i) Crimen iniuria (1)
(ii) Criminal defamation (1)
(iii) Abduction (1)
[20]
SUB-TOTAL: [70]
TOTAL: [100]
©
Unisa 2017

3 Feedback and self assessment
Below follows the feedback on the previous exam paper provided above. We find that most
students provide very superficial answers in the examination. Therefore, we advise that you
actually complete the given examination paper on your own as a form of self-assessment. Test
yourself whether you are able to identify the relevant sections of the work. Plan and structure your
answers in accordance with the duration of time provided. Determine the length of your answer
with reference to the marks allocated to each question. Then compare your answers with those
provided in the feedback. This exercise will enable you to know exactly what is expected of you in
the examination.
The following abbreviations are used:
SG - Study Guide
Criminal Law - CR Snyman Criminal Law 6th ed 2014 (the prescribed book)
Case Book - CR Snyman Criminal Law Case Book 5th ed 2013
Reader – Case Law Reader for CRW2602
PART A (MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS)
QUESTION 1
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.2 (iv).

(b) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.2.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.4.
You should therefore have chosen option (5) since all the statements are correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 336. The declaration may be oral or in writing
(in an affidavit).
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 2.1.4. Because only a declaration under oath or its
equivalent can form the basis of perjury, the crime cannot be committed, for example, in the
course of argument to the court by a legal representative.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 2.3 and Criminal Law 328-329.
You should therefore have chosen option (3) since only statement (c) is correct.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 404, 408 and SG 3.2.6.2.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.2.6.5, 3.2.6.6 and 3.2.7.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.2.6.2. The crime of corruption has been completed even
if Y has not yet done what he undertook to do. As such, the benefit need not be handed over
for the completion of the crime; Y must have merely accepted the gratification.
You should therefore have chosen option (4) since only statements (a) and (b) are correct.
10

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.4.2.3(b). X can be convicted of the crime known as
“use or possession of drugs” in terms of section 4 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140
of 1992 as he kept drugs for or on behalf of somebody else (possessio naturalis).
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.4.2.3(b)(i).
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 3.4.3.3.
You should therefore have chosen option (5) since only statements (b) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 5
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.5.4 (1).

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.5.2.1. X may commit the crime of unlawfully
possessing a firearm if he exercises control over the weapon with the intention of possessing
it as an owner for his own benefit (possessio civilis) or if he merely keeps or guards it on
behalf of, or for the benefit of, somebody else (possessio naturalis).
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.5.3(1). Section 90 provides that no person may
possess any ammunition unless he holds a licence in respect of a firearm capable of
discharging that ammunition.
You should therefore have chosen option (1) since only statement (a) is correct.
QUESTION 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.4. The National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996
provides that no person shall drive a vehicle on a public road outside an urban area at a
speed in excess of 100 km/h.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.3. The definition of “driver” in the above-mentioned
Act does include persons who rides or attempts to ride any pedal cycle.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.5. Drivers of an ambulance, fire-fighting vehicle or
response vehicle, a rescue vehicle, an emergency medical response vehicle who are
carrying out their duties or a traffic officer or SAPS member or any other authorized persons
who drive a vehicle in the execution of their duties may exceed the general speed limit in
terms of section 60 of the Act.
You should therefore have chosen option (5) since none of the statements is correct.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.3.2(b).

(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.3.3(b).
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.5.3. An intoxicated person sitting behind the steering
wheel of a stationary vehicle which has its engine running may be found guilty of a
contravention of the offence driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
11

QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 6.2.3 and Criminal Law 459.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.2.3. The state need not prove that the firearm was
capable of firing a shot in order to secure a conviction for pointing of a firearm.
You should therefore have chosen option (5) since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
QUESTION 9
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 9.1.8.

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.1.6. X commits assault and theft, and not robbery.
There must be a causal link between the violence on the one hand and the acquisition of the
property on the other. If X acquires the property not as a result of the violence, but as a result
of some other consideration or event, he does not commit robbery.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9 Summary (10). X may be found guilty of the crime of
receiving stolen property if he receives the property with the intention of keeping it
temporarily for somebody.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 10 Summary (8).

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 11.2.6. X’s motive is not a relevant consideration in
order to be found guilty of the crime of malicious injury to property.
SUB-TOTAL: [30]
PART B
Important advice for answering problem-type questions:
The purpose of asking problem-type questions in this module is to test your understanding of the
various specific crimes. This requires knowledge and understanding of the definitions of these
crimes.
The second step in answering a problem-type question is to discuss the legal principles that are
relevant to providing the answer to the problem. Most of the legal principles discussed in this
module come from court decisions (case law). You must therefore make reference to a decided
case(s) whenever a legal principle is stated. You are reminded that even if you fail to remember the
name of a case, you can simply state: “It has been decided” or “According to a decision” when
stating the principle. Please note, however, that the discussion of an incorrect principle will not be
credited, irrespective of whether the case reference (name) is appropriate. In other words, referring
to the correct case name will not award you a mark if it is done to support an inappropriate legal
principle. Students who do this merely indicate to the lecturer that they do not understand what the
cited case actually decided.
12

CRW2602/102
The third step in answering a problem-type question is to apply the relevant legal principles to
the facts of the problem. Students often combine the second and third steps when answering
problem-type questions. In other words, they would discuss the principle(s) while applying it to the
facts. There is nothing inappropriate about doing this. However, the chances of omitting a relevant
principle (if there is more than one) are greater when adopting this approach. To minimize this
possibility, we would advise the separation of the second from the third step. Another advantage of
discussing the legal principle(s) before applying them to the facts is that you can more easily identify
the relevant facts at the stage of discussing the principle(s). This will enable you to address as many
relevant facts as possible and prepare you for a more in-depth analysis at the stage of application.
The final step in answering a problem-type question is to provide a conclusion to the problem.
Please ensure that you have addressed the question(s) that has (have) been asked. If, for example,
the question requires you to determine the criminal liability of X on a charge of murder, then your
conclusion should state either “X is criminally liable of murder”, or “X is not criminally liable on a
charge of murder”. If the question requires you to determine whether X caused Y’s death, then your
conclusion should state either “X caused Y’s death”, or “X did not cause Y’s death”, et cetera.
Please note also that in order for your conclusion to have any basis it must be a deduction of your
reasoning.
QUESTION 1
(a) Public violence is the unlawful and intentional performance of an act or acts by a number of
persons which assumes serious proportions and is intended to disturb the public peace and
order by violent means or to infringe the rights of another.
(b)(i) Theft is the unlawful, intentional appropriation of movable, corporeal property which
(1) belongs to, and is in the possession of, another
(2) belongs to another but is in the perpetrator’s own possession, or
(3) belongs to the perpetrator but is in another’s possession and such other person has a
right to possess it which legally prevails against the perpetrator’s own right of
possession;
provided that the intention to appropriate the property includes an intention permanently to
deprive the person entitled to the possession of the property, of such property.
(ii) Theft by means of embezzlement / removal of property.
(iii) The answer is yes, because his act of removal complies with both components of the act
required for theft. A person commits an act of appropriation if she commits an act whereby:
(1) he deprives the lawful owner or possessor of his property, (negative component) and
(2) he himself exercises the rights of an owner in respect of the property (positive
component).
By removing the car and delivering it to his friend, X committed an act of appropriation.
(iv) Yes, X can also be convicted of fraud because he complies with all the elements required for
the offence. The elements of fraud are:
13

1. misrepresentation
2. which causes or may cause prejudice and which is
3. unlawful and
4. intentional.
(c) In this question, students had to choose one of three cases to discuss.
(i) Option 1
Reader 31–37 - S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E)
First the facts of the Mshumpha case have to be set out briefly (see p31–33 of the Reader). A
young pregnant woman (S) was ‘hijacked’ together with the father of the child (B). She was
shot in the stomach and the baby was stillborn. B was shot in the shoulder and valuables were
taken. It transpired the father of the child (B) arranged for the incident. B and M (the ‘hijacker’)
were both charged with various offences including: attempted murder; assault; robbery;
attempting to defeat the course of justice and unlawful possession of firearms. M and B were
found guilty of the attempted murder of S.
Legal question: Can they (B and M) be charged with murder of an unborn child/ foetus?
Finding: No, they cannot.
Reasons for finding: One cannot be found guilty of the murder of an unborn child since it is not
included in definition of murder. It will violate the principle of legality. If the definition of murder is
to be broadened, the legislature must effect such change. The Constitution does not afford a
right to life to an unborn child. The development of common law (as allowed in Masiya-case)
must be done incrementally and cautiously in accordance with dictates of the Constitution. The
are practical difficulties with including the killing of an unborn child in the definition of murder
(see para 59 of the judgment for the various difficulties).
(ii) Option 2
Reader 38–41 - S v Gardener and Another 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA)
First the facts of the Gardener case have to be set out briefly (see p38–39 of the Reader). Two
chief executive officers of company A failed to disclose their interests in company B to the board
of company A. Company A had bought shares in company B and as a result of this transaction
X and Y secured substantial profits. They were charged with fraud and duly convicted, and
appealed.
Legal question: Did they have the intention of defrauding company A and did their failure to
disclose their interests resulted in actual or potential prejudice to the company?
Finding: The court upheld the conviction of fraud.
Reasons for finding: The court found that the conduct of X and Y was potentially prejudicial to
company A since, inter alia, it precluded company A from considering the advantages and
disadvantages of the sale and induced company A to raise the finance and pay X and Y for their
interest in company B. Moreover, their conduct was deliberate since it was done to avoid
proper consideration of the transaction by the board in the self-interest of X and Y (para
57). In considering the intention to cause prejudice, the court deemed it unnecessary to be
more specific as to the nature of that prejudice. The court stated (at para 58) that when
company directors directly withhold information material to the affairs of their company from the
board of directors there is, in the absence of an explanation for such conduct which may
reasonably be true, a case of fraudulent non-disclosure. That is because the company can only
make decisions through a board that is properly informed.
14

CRW2602/102
(iii) Option 3
Reader 24–27 - S v Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ)
First the facts of the Ndebele case have to be set out briefly (see p 24 of the Reader). The
three accused were charged with theft for the unlawful use of electricity vending machines
known as credit dispensing units that could be used to dispense pre-paid vouchers for
electricity. They were alleged to have used the machines to steal electricity and electricity
credits.
Legal question: Is electricity capable of being the object of common-law theft?
Finding: Yes, it can be stolen.
Reasons for finding: In Ndebele it was held that the courts have moved away from the
physical handling of the property to a more abstract requirement of appropriation such as the
manipulation of credit. There need not be physical removal but rather the deprivation of a
characteristic and depriving the owner of a characteristic. Energy by electricity consists of
electrons and the characteristic attached to electrons is energy which is consumed and is
capable of theft. This case is contrary to the case of S v Mintoor which held that electricity is not
capable of being stolen. [25]
QUESTION 2
(a)(i) X may be charged with the crime of contempt of court. Contempt of court consists in the
unlawful and intentional
(1) violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or a judicial officer in his
judicial capacity, or
(2) the publication of information or comment concerning a pending judicial proceeding, which
has the tendency to influence the outcome of the proceeding or to interfere with the
administration of justice in that proceeding.
(ii) Scandalising the court.
(iii) Contempt of court is punished not to protect the dignity and repute of an individual judicial
officer, but to protect the administration of justice. In the case of contempt committed by the
publication of information or comments on a pending case, the reason for the crime is that the
court should come to a decision only on the grounds of permissible evidence before it, and
ought not to be influenced by the disclosure of facts or comments from outside, such as those
in the press.
(b) A person commits assault if she unlawfully and intentionally applies force, directly or indirectly,
to the person of another, or inspires a belief in another person that force is immediately to be
applied to her. Force can be applied directly and indirectly. The direct application of force is
the most common way in which the crime can be committed; e.g. X punches Y with her fist, or
kicks her, or slaps her in the face. The fact that Y does not feel much or any physical pain, is
irrelevant. Thus X may commit the crime even if she only spits in Y’s face or trips her so that
she stumbles. In the indirect form of assault, X commits some act which results in Y’s physical
integrity being infringed, as in any given example: X sets a vicious dog on Y, X derails a train
on which Y is travelling, or X frightens a horse on which Y is riding so that Y falls from the
horse. Students could also provide case law for extra marks; e.g. the cases of Marx or A
where a person is forced to consume a specific substance such as alcohol or urine.
15

(c) Yes, X may be found guilty of kidnapping. Kidnapping consists in unlawfully and intentionally
depriving a person of his or her freedom of movement and/or, if such person is under the age
of 18 years, the custodians of their control over the child. X’s conduct complies with the
elements of the crime. X knows that Y (Z’s parent) did not consent to the removal of Z, a
minor. As such, X had intention and knowledge of unlawfulness. Forcible removal is not a
requirement for kidnapping. Motive (whether doing it out of spite or demanding a ransom) is
immaterial for purposes of liability although it may be a factor that is taken into consideration
for sentencing. X will only not be guilty of kidnapping if he is Y’s father as a parent cannot
commit the crime in respect of her own child. This is however not stated in the scenario. This
scenario is not a case of abduction. [25]
QUESTION 3
(a) The elements of the crime of extortion are:

(1) the acquisition of
(2) a benefit
(3) by applying pressure
(4) a causal link (between the pressure and the acquisition of a benefit)
(5) unlawfulness
(6) intention
(b)(i) X may be convicted of rape, incest, sexual assault, compelling children to witness sexual acts,
and exposing genital organs to children (flashing).
(ii) Y may be convicted of aiding or abetting another person to commit a sexual offence (an
accomplice to rape or sexual assault); compelling children to witness sexual acts, failure to
report sexual offences against children.
(c) Circumstances in respect of which Y does not voluntarily or without coercion agree to an act of
sexual penetration:
(1) the use of force or intimidation by X against Y or Z (a third person) or against the property
or a threat of harm or against property
(2) where there is an abuse of power or authority by X
(3) where sexual act is committed under false pretences or by fraudulent means
(4) where Y is incapable in law of appreciating the nature of the sexual act (including where Y
is, at the time of the commission of such sexual act ―
(i) asleep;
(ii) unconscious;
(iii) in an altered state of consciousness, including under the influence of any medicine,
drug, alcohol or other substance, to the extent that Y's consciousness or judgment is
adversely affected;
(iv) a child under the age of 12 years; or
(v) a person who is mentally disabled.
(d)(i) Crimen iniuria protects a person’s dignity and privacy.

(ii) Criminal defamation protects a person’s good name or reputation.
(iii) Abduction protects the factual exercise of control over the minor and the parents’ or
guardian’s right to consent to the minor’s marriage. [20]
SUB-TOTAL: [70]
16

THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF SEVEN (7) PAGES PLUS INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF A
MARK READING SHEET.
THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PAPER COUNT ONE HUNDRED (100) MARKS. THE PAPER CONSISTS
OF TWO PARTS, MARKED A AND B. YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH PARTS A AND B. PART A
CONSISTS OF TEN (10) MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS. YOU MUST WRITE THE ANSWERS TO
THESE QUESTIONS ON THE MARK READING SHEET. EACH QUESTION COUNTS THREE (3)
MARKS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUESTIONS IN PART A COUNT A TOTAL OF THIRTY MARKS
(30). IN PART B, THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS MUST BE WRITTEN IN THE EXAMINATION
SCRIPT ITSELF. THE QUESTIONS IN PART B COUNT SEVENTY MARKS (70).
IMPORTANT NOTICE. THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART HAVE TO BE ANSWERED ON THE MARK
READING SHEET, WHICH WILL BE ISSUED WITH YOUR EXAMINATION ANSWER BOOK. YOU
HAVE TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE MARK READING
SHEET CAREFULLY. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY MEAN THAT YOUR ANSWERS CANNOT BE
MARKED BY THE COMPUTER.
Ten questions (marked 1 - 10) follow. Each question contains three (3) statements (marked (a)-
(c)). Some of the statements are correct and some are incorrect. You must decide which of
these statements is/are correct. The three (3) statements are followed by five (5) allegations
(marked (1)-(5)). Each of them alleges that a certain statement or combination of statements is
correct. You must decide which allegation accurately reflects the conclusions to which you have
come.

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 1
(a) In the crime of terrorism, the interests protected are the safety and security of the Republic, its
institutions and people.
(b) For the crime of terrorism, a specific intention is required which has two components.
(c) Public violence can be committed by an individual acting alone.

(5) All the statements are correct.
QUESTION 2
(a) Proof of mere presence at the scene of the crime is sufficient to be found guilty of public violence.
(b) The status of the participants is one of the factors examined in order to determine whether or not
the act of public violence can be classified as serious.
(c) A witness who intentionally makes a false statement in the course of a legal proceeding commits
perjury even if his statement is not under oath, but merely made after an affirmation to speak the
truth or after being warned to speak the truth.

QUESTION 3
(a) Contempt ex facie curiae concerns acts which refer to pending and non-pending cases.
(b) The crime of defeating the course of justice is only committed where it is proved that as a result of
the conduct of the accused, an innocent person has been convicted or a guilty one discharged.
(c) Defeating or obstructing the course of justice may be committed by either a positive act or an
omission.


QUESTION 4
(a) In the crime of statutory perjury both the statements made under oath need to be made in the
course of a judicial proceeding.
(b) One of the categories of specified persons whose corrupt activities are criminalised by the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 are agents.
(c) In the crime of corruption, no distinction is made between the main crime on the one hand, and
conspiracy or incitement to commit the main crime on the other.

QUESTION 5
(a) In the instance where X unlawfully acquires property from Y by bringing pressure in the form of a
threat of physical violence to Y himself, extortion and robbery overlap.
(b) If X obtains drugs for her own personal use, she can be convicted of the crime known as “dealing
in drugs”.
(c) The Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 draws a distinction between “firearms”, “prohibited firearms”
and “weapons of war”.

QUESTION 6
(a) Road traffic offences fall under crimes against public welfare.
(b) A person pushing his vehicle by exercising control over the steering wheel and handbrake from
outside the vehicle is “driving” the vehicle in terms of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.
(c) Any person who drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property
is guilty of inconsiderate driving.


CRW2602/102
QUESTION 7
(a) “Sexual violation” is widely defined in terms of section (1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences
and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 0f 2007 so as to include not only the actual act of X
whereby he or she makes direct or indirect contact with the body of another, but also any act
whereby he or she causes such contact.
(b) A person commits the crime of sexual grooming of a child over the internet if he or she invites the
child by e-mail to travel with him/her in order to commit a sexual act with the child.
(c) If X is charged with murder but lacked the necessary intention to murder because of intoxication,
the crime is not automatically reduced from murder to culpable homicide.

QUESTION 8
(a) A conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is only possible where Y (the victim)
in fact sustained grievous bodily harm.
(b) Assault can be described as an iniuria against the physical integrity of another.
(c) In order to secure a conviction for the crime of pointing a firearm, the state must prove that the
firearm was loaded, and that it was capable of firing a shot.

QUESTION 9
(a) The requirement of publication in the crime of criminal defamation means that the allegations
should have been made public in printed form.
(b) The interests protected by the crime of abduction are the interest of the minor and the parents’ or
guardian’s right to consent to the minor’s marriage.
(c) If X abducts Y (a minor) and demands a ransom for her (Y’s) release, X will be guilty of kidnapping
only.

(5) None of the statements are correct.

QUESTION 10
(a) Any person, who assists a thief by hiding property after he (the thief) has stolen such property, is
not regarded as an accessory after the fact but a co-perpetrator to the crime of theft.
(b) If X sets fire to his own insured car in order to claim its value from the insurer, he commits the
crime of arson.
(c) Merely pushing open a door which has been closed, although not locked, and then walking into the
house can never amount to “breaking” for the purposes of the crime of housebreaking with intent to
commit a crime.

(5) None of the statements is correct. SUB-TOTAL: [30]
PART B
THIS PART CONSISTS OF THREE (3) QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION IS SUBDIVIDED INTO A
NUMBER OF SUB-QUESTIONS. YOU MUST ANSWER ALL THREE (3) QUESTIONS.
SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWERS AND REFER TO DECIDED CASES WHERE NECESSARY. IN
DECIDING UPON THE LENGTH OF YOUR ANSWERS YOU SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE MARKS
ALLOCATED TO EACH QUESTION. NOTE THAT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS CONTAIN A CHOICE
BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVES.
QUESTION 1
(a) Name the three general speed limits and the roads to which they apply in terms of section 59(1) of
the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. (6)
(b) X is married to Y, who is pregnant. X is a very jealous and controlling man. X hacks into Y’s email
account. X discovers that Y has been flirting with other men that she has been meeting on an
online dating site. Enraged, he (X) creates a fake profile on the dating website and a fake e-mail
address and sends Y romantic messages. Y responds and requests to meet X. X agrees and
requests Y to meet him at a romantic scenic spot in the city. Y drives there and meets X who kills
her (Y) and sets her body alight. Provide a definition of the various offences set out below (if it is
recognised as an offence) and then consider whether X’s conduct complies with all the elements of
the offence. Also refer to relevant case law to substantiate your answer.
(i) Crimen iniuria (5)

(ii) Fraud (6)
(iii) Murder of the unborn foetus (4)

CRW2602/102
(c) NOTE THE CHOICE YOU HAVE IN THIS QUESTION
(i) Define the crime of contempt of court.
OR
(ii) Define the crime of theft by false pretences. (4)

[25]
QUESTION 2
(a) A group of nine workers belonging to the X union are unhappy about their employment conditions
at a university and want more money. They decide to go on an unprotected strike. They place
stones in the middle of the road and then start to sing and shout. They storm the law building and
inform the employees to vacate their offices or else they will use physical violence to remove them.
The employees are terrified and fearing for their lives they start running out of the building. The
workers then deface a statue and set some of the employees’ cars on fire. Fully discuss whether
the workers belonging to the X union can be found guilty of the following crimes. In your answer
you must set out the elements of the various offences.
(i) Public violence (5)

(ii) Malicious injury to property (3)
(iii) Assault (5)
(b) Discuss ONE of the following cases:
S v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A)
OR
S v Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ) (6)
(i) Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act 32 of 2007 provides
that any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with
another person without the latter’s consent, is guilty of the crime of rape. In section 1(2) of the
said Act it is provided that consent must be ‘voluntary and uncoerced agreement’. Discuss
the meaning of ‘voluntary and uncoerced agreement’.
OR
(ii) Explain the meaning of ‘possession’ in the crime of the use or possession of drugs. (6)
[25]

QUESTION 3
(a) X and Y are gym instructors that are employed at a gym. They are role models and mentors of a
gym programme that advocates a three-month ‘Transform-Your-Body’ routine that uses a banting
diet (low carbohydrates and high fat diet) and regular gym exercise. Y does not like the banting
diet as she loves to eat bread and does not like fatty food, nor does she like the idea of extensive
exercise. Y therefore uses diet pills and steroid drugs to ensure that her body stays in top form. X
is aware of Y’s secret and tells Y that if she does not have sexual intercourse with him he will
inform the gym management of her secret. Y complies and has sexual intercourse with X to keep
her secret safe. Has X committed the crime of rape? Discuss. (5)
(b) Briefly describe the two components for the act of appropriation in the crime of theft. (2)
(c) Briefly define the crime of corruption. (3)
(d) X doesn’t like a fellow law student Y and punches him so that he falls to the ground. X then sees
that Y’s cell phone has fallen out of his pocket and decides to grab it and run. Is X guilty of the
crime of robbery? Briefly discuss. (4)
(e) Write down the missing words or phrases in your examination book:
(i) In the crime of extortion the benefit or advantage can be ……………….or …………… (1)
(ii) In the crime of perjury at common law the false declaration must be made on oath or in a
form that is allowed by law to be substituted for an oath such as an………………….. (1)
(iii) The intention required for housebreaking comprises an intention of unlawfully
...................... as well as an intention of...................................... (2)
(iv) Section 54(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment
Act 32 of 2007 provides that the failure to report sexual offences against ……………..
and the …………………………... is an offence. (2)
[20]
SUB-TOTAL: [70]
TOTAL: [100]
©
Unisa 2016
10

CRW2602/102

Below follows the feedback on the previous exam paper provided above. We find that
most students provide very superficial answers in the examination. Therefore we advise
that you actually complete the given examination paper on your own as a form of self-
assessment. Test yourself whether you are able to identify the relevant sections of the
work. Plan and structure your answers in accordance with the duration of time provided.
Determine the length of your answer with reference to the marks allocated to each
question. Then compare your answers with those provided in the feedback. This exercise
will enable you to know exactly what is expected of you in the examination.
SG - Study Guide
Reader – Case Law Reader for CRW2602
QUESTION 1

(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.3.4. The crime of public violence must be performed by
a number of persons acting in concert.
QUESTION 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.3.4. Mere presence is insufficient as the state must
prove active association with the acts of public violence of each individual accused.
QUESTION 3
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 2.4.9.2 and 2.4.9.3.

(b) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 328. The crime of defeating the course of justice
can also be committed in a civil case.
(c) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 329.
11

QUESTION 4
(a) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 336. It is immaterial whether the oaths were
made during the course of a legal proceeding or not.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.2.8 (2).
QUESTION 5

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.4.2.3 (a). Drugs for personal use will be criminalised
under the crime the use or possession of drugs.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.5.1.
QUESTION 6

(b) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.2.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.3.1. Driving a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for
the safety of persons or property is deemed to be reckless driving and not merely
inconsiderate driving.
QUESTION 7
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 4.3.2.2 (a).

(c) This statement is correct. See Criminal Law 442.
You should therefore have chosen option (4) since all the statements are correct.
QUESTION 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.1.11 and Criminal Law 453. For the crime of assault
with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm to be committed, actual bodily harm need not
be sustained as it is only required that X had the intention to do serious bodily harm.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.2.3. The state need not prove that a shot was fired or
that the firearm was capable of being discharged.
You should therefore have chosen option (2) since only statement (b) is correct.
12

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 9
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.3. The publication need not only be made public in
printed form but can be orally as long as the allegations come to the attention of persons
other than Y.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.4.3. The interests protected are those of the parents or
guardians as a minor’s consent to the removal is not a defence. The interests that are
protected are the factual exercise of control over the minor and the parents’ or guardian’s
right to consent to the marriage.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 472. X may also be found guilty of the crimes
of abduction (the facts mention the abduction of Y by X) and extortion.
You should therefore have chosen option (5) since none of these statements is correct.
QUESTION 10
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 8.10.

(b) This statement is incorrect. See Criminal Law 542. The crime of arson is committed if a
person sets fire to immovable property such as a building but not for movable property such
as a car.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 12.3.1. Actual damage to a building need not be inflicted
and merely walking through an open door will be sufficient in order to amount to an act of
breaking.
SUB-TOTAL: [30]
13

PART B
The purpose of asking problem-type questions in this module is to test your understanding of the
various specific crimes. This requires knowledge and understanding of the definitions of these
crimes.
The second step in answering a problem-type question is to discuss the legal principles that are
relevant to providing the answer to the problem. Most of the legal principles discussed in this
module come from court decisions (case law). You must therefore make reference to a decided
case(s) whenever a legal principle is stated. You are reminded that even if you fail to remember the
name of a case, you can simply state: “It has been decided” or “According to a decision” when
stating the principle. Please note, however, that the discussion of an incorrect principle will not be
credited, irrespective of whether the case reference (name) is appropriate. In other words, referring
to the correct case name will not award you a mark if it is done to support an inappropriate legal
principle. Students who do this merely indicate to the lecturer that they do not understand what the
The third step in answering a problem-type question is to apply the relevant legal principles to
the facts of the problem. Students often combine the second and third steps when answering
problem-type questions. In other words, they would discuss the principle(s) while applying it to the
facts. There is nothing inappropriate about doing this. However, the chances of omitting a relevant
principle (if there is more than one) are greater when adopting this approach. To minimize this
possibility we would advise the separation of the second from the third step. Another advantage of
discussing the legal principle(s) before applying them to the facts is that you can more easily identify
the relevant facts at the stage of discussing the principle(s). This will enable you to address as many
relevant facts as possible and prepare you for a more in-depth analysis at the stage of application.
The final step in answering a problem-type question is to provide a conclusion to the problem.
Please ensure that you have addressed the question(s) that has (have) been asked. If, for example,
the question requires you to determine the criminal liability of X on a charge of murder, then your
conclusion should state either “X is criminally liable of murder”, or “X is not criminally liable on a
charge of murder”. If the question requires you to determine whether X caused Y’s death, then your
conclusion should state either “X caused Y’s death”, or “X did not cause Y’s death”, et cetera.
Please note also that in order for your conclusion to have any basis it must be a deduction of your
reasoning.
QUESTION 1
(a) SG 3.6.2.4
There are three general speed limits. The speed limits and the roads to which they apply are
the following:
- 60km: This speed limit applies to a public road within an urban area.
- 100km: This speed limit applies to a public road outside an urban area.
- 120km: This speed limit applies to a freeway.
14

CRW2602/102
(b)(i) SG 7.2; 7.2.7.2 and 7.2.7.4

Crimen inuria.
Yes, X is guilty of the crime of crimen iniuria. Crimen iniuria is the unlawful, intentional and
serious infringement of the dignity or privacy of another. This crime can be committed in the case
of an infringement of privacy such as by opening and reading of a confidential e-mail. Y need
not be aware of the infringement of privacy. An objective test is applied which means X’s
conduct would offend the feelings of a reasonable person.
(ii) SG 10.1
Fraud.
Yes, X is guilty of the crime of fraud. Fraud is the unlawful and intentional making of a
misrepresentation which causes actual prejudice or which is potentially prejudicial. X has made a
misrepresentation (a deception by means of a falsehood) by creating a fake profile and email
address which causes actual prejudice or harm to Y. X has the intention to defraud as he had
the intention to induce Y to embark, as a result of the misrepresentation, on a course of action
prejudicial to herself. Gardener 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA) (1).
(iii) SG 5.2.
Murder of the unborn fetus.
No, X is not guilty of murder in respect of the unborn foetus. Murder is the unlawful and
intentional causing of the death of another person. The victim must be a living human being/
must be born alive. The Constitution does not expressly confer any fundamental rights on an
unborn foetus. S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SA 126 (E).
(b) NOTE THE CHOICE YOU HAVE IN THIS QUESTION
You should note that when providing definitions the exact legal terminology is required.
(i) Option 1
SG 2.4
Contempt of court consists in the unlawful and intentional
violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or a judicial officer in his judicial
capacity, or
the publication of information or comment concerning a pending judicial proceeding, which has
the tendency to influence the outcome of the proceeding
or to interfere with the administration of justice in that proceeding
(ii) Option 2
SG 10.3.
A person commits theft by false pretences if she unlawfully and intentionally:
obtains movable, corporeal property belonging to another,
with the consent of the person from whom she obtains it,
such consent being given as a result of a misrepresentation by the person committing the
offence
and she appropriates it.
15

QUESTION 2
(a)(i) SG 1.3
Yes, the workers of X union can be found guilty of public violence. Public violence is the unlawful
and intentional performance of an act, or acts, by a number of persons which assumes serious
proportions and is intended to disturb the public peace and order by violent means, or to infringe
the rights of another. The public peace and order is disturbed by a number of persons who are
acting unlawfully and intentionally in concert (with common purpose). The act is accompanied by
violence (violent coercion) and the threats of violence. The action of the group assumes serious
proportions as the safety of persons not involved are threatened. Bonus mark: The placing of
stones in itself is not public violence (Mei case) or the mentioning of the Salie/ Cele cases.
(ii) SG 11.2
Malicious injury to property
Yes, they are guilty of the crime of malicious injury to property. The property must be corporeal
and either movable or immovable. They have unlawfully and intentionally damaged property
belonging to other persons by defacing the statue and setting the cars on fire.
(iii) SG 6.1.1
Assault
Yes, they are guilty of the crime of assault. Assault is committed by unlawfully and intentionally
applying force, directly or indirectly, to the person of another, or inspiring a belief in another
person that force is immediately to be applied to her. In this case there is the inspiring of fear or a
belief in the employees that the threat is one of immediate and unlawful violence and the
employees subjectively believe that the threats will be carried out and therefore leave the building
as they fear for their lives. The workers know that their conduct will inspire fear in the employees
by using coercion.
Option 1
Casebook 244 – 250; Reader 16– 20 - S v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A)
First the facts of the Sibiya case have to be set out briefly (see p244 – 245 of the Casebook; p16
– 17 of the Reader).
Legal question: Does furtum usus (the mere temporary use of another’s property without the
intention of permanently depriving the owner) amount to theft in South African law?
Finding: The Appellate Division held that Sibiya had not committed theft because he did not have
the intention to deprive Y permanently of the property.
Reasons for finding: Following English law, our courts have held that the perpetrator must have
the intention permanently to deprive the owner of his property. However, if X intends to deprive Y
only temporarily of his property, then he still respects and recognizes Y’s right to the property
throughout and does not have an intention to deprive Y permanently of the property – as required
for theft. An important qualification to the rule that furtum usus does not constitute theft is that
where the perpetrator uses the thing of another with the intention to use it only temporarily but
then abandons it, taking no measures to ensure its return to its owner, he commits theft.
16

CRW2602/102
Option 2
Casebook 252 – 256; Reader 24– 27 - S v Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ)
First the facts of the Ndebele case have to be set out briefly (see p252 – 253 of the Casebook;
p24 of the Reader).
Legal question: Is electricity capable of being stolen?
Finding: Yes it can be stolen.
Reasons for finding: In Ndebele it was held that the courts have moved away from the physical
handling of the property to a more abstract requirement of appropriation such as the manipulation
of credit. There need not be physical removal but rather the deprivation of a characteristic and
depriving the owner of a characteristic. Energy by electricity consists of electrons and the
characteristic attached to electrons is energy which is consumed and is capable of theft. This case
is contrary to the case of S v Mintoor which held that electricity is not capable of being stolen.
(i) Option 1
SG 4.2.2 c
Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act 32 of 2007 provides that
any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with another
person without the latter’s consent, is guilty of the crime of rape. In section 1(2) of the said Act it is
provided that consent must be voluntary and uncoerced agreement. Discuss the meaning of
“voluntary and uncoerced agreement”.
You should take note of the fact that there are circumstances in respect of which Y does not
voluntarily or without coercion agree to an act of sexual penetration which include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Where Y submits or is subjected to such a sexual act as a result of
(1) the use of force or intimidation by X against Y or Z (a third person ) or against the
property or a threat of harm or against property
(2) where there is an abuse of power or authority by X
(3) where the sexual act is committed under false pretences or by fraudulent means
(4) where Y is incapable in law of appreciating the nature of the sexual act - you could also
mention any of the below points instead (including where Y is, at the time of the commission
of such sexual act ―
(i) asleep;
(ii) unconscious;
(iii) in an altered state of consciousness, including under the influence of any medicine,
drug, alcohol or other substance, to the extent that Y's consciousness or judgment is
adversely affected;
(iv) a child under the age of 12 years; or
(v) a person who is mentally disabled)
17

- For consent to succeed as a defence it must have been given consciously and voluntarily,
either expressly or tacitly, by a person who has the mental ability to understand what he or
she is consenting to, and the consent must be based on a true knowledge of the material
facts relating to the act.
(ii) Option 2
SG 3.4.2.3 (b)
Possession consists of 2 elements:
 A physical or corporeal element – degree of control over the thing
 A mental element – relates to the intention with which somebody exercises control over a
thing
- X can exercise control as if she is the owner of the article (possessio civilis)
- X may exercise control over the article with the intention of keeping it for somebody else
(possessio naturalis)
The Act provides that the word “possess” includes keeping, storing or having in custody or
under control or supervision.
QUESTION 3
(a) SG 4.2.2; 4.2.2.2(c)

Yes, X has committed the crime of rape.
Rape is defined as any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual
penetration with a complainant without his or her consent is guilty of the offence of rape. Consent
is defined as voluntary or uncoerced agreement. In this case Y submits to the sexual intercourse
as a result of the intimidation or threat of harm to her reputation.
(b) SG 8.6.1.1.
There are two components for the act of appropriation in the crime of theft.
- A negative component (excluding Y from his property)
- A positive component (X exercises the rights of an owner of the property in place of Y).
(c) SG 3.2.4.
The crime of corruption may be defined as:
Anyone that:
(a) Accepts gratification from any other person, or
(b) Gives any gratification to any other person,
in order to act in a manner that amounts to the illegal exercise of any duties),
is guilty of the offence of corruption.
(d) SG 9.1 and 9.1.6.

X is not guilty of the crime of robbery. X is guilty of assault and theft. For the crime of robbery to
be committed there must be such a close causal link/ connection between the theft and the
violence that these can be seen as connecting components of one and the same course of action.
Robbery is the theft of property unlawfully and intentionally using: violence to take the property
from another or threats of violence to induce the other person to submit to the taking of the
property. Malinga or Marais case.
18

CRW2602/102
(e) The following words or phrases had to be filled in:

(i) SG 3.3.5 patrimonial or non-patrimonial
(ii) SG 2.1.4. affirmation to tell the truth
(iii) SG 12.6. breaking into and entering the house or structure
committing some other crime inside
(iv) SG 4.9. children and mentally disabled
SUB-TOTAL: [70]
TOTAL: [100]
19

THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF EIGHT (8) PAGES PLUS INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION
OF A MARK READING SHEET.
THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PAPER COUNT ONE HUNDRED (100) MARKS. THE PAPER
CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, MARKED A AND B. YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH PARTS A
AND B. PART A CONSISTS OF TEN (10) MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS. YOU MUST
WRITE THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ON THE MARK READING SHEET. EACH
QUESTION COUNTS THREE (3) MARKS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUESTIONS IN PART
A COUNT A TOTAL OF THIRTY MARKS (30). IN PART B, THE ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS MUST BE WRITTEN IN THE EXAMINATION SCRIPT ITSELF. THE
QUESTIONS IN PART B COUNT SEVENTY MARKS (70).
IMPORTANT NOTICE. THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART HAVE TO BE ANSWERED ON THE

MARK READING SHEET, WHICH WILL BE ISSUED WITH YOUR EXAMINATION ANSWER
BOOK. YOU HAVE TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF
THE MARK READING SHEET CAREFULLY. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY MEAN THAT YOUR
ANSWERS CANNOT BE MARKED BY THE COMPUTER.
Ten questions (marked 1 - 10) follow. Each question contains three (3) statements
(marked (a)-(c)). Some of the statements are correct and some are incorrect. You must
decide which of these statements is/are correct. The three (3) statements are followed by
five (5) allegations (marked (1)-(5)). Each of them alleges that a certain statement or
combination of statements is correct. You must decide which allegation accurately
reflects the conclusions to which you have come.

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 1
(a) An act which is calculated to cause the serious disruption of a banking service is included
in the definition of ‘terrorist activities’ as defined in section 1 by the Protection of
Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004.
(b) Dolus eventualis is an insufficient form of intention in the crime of terrorism.
(c) Compulsion is a ground of justification to the crime of terrorism.

QUESTION 2
(a) The crime of public violence may also be committed in a private place.
(b) No actual disturbance of the public peace and order, or no actual infringement of the rights
of another is required for the crime of public violence to be committed.
(c) The crime of public violence is committed by participants who must act in concert.

QUESTION 3
(a) Because potential prejudice is sufficient to constitute fraud, it is not possible to be

convicted of attempted fraud.
(b) In the crime of fraud, the misrepresentation may only be done by a positive act.
(c) Fair comment on the outcome of a case or on the administration of justice in general does
not constitute contempt of court.


QUESTION 4
(a) Common law abduction can also be committed in respect of a minor male person.
(b) In order to be convicted of common law abduction, the prosecution must prove that X in
fact married the minor or had sexual intercourse with the person.
(c) Murder is legally defined as the unlawful killing of another human being which includes the
killing of a foetus.

QUESTION 5
(a) X cleans his revolver but does not know that there is a bullet in one of the
chambers. Thinking that there are no bullets in the revolver, he points the gun at Y and
pulls the trigger. The gun goes off and Y is killed by the gunshot. X will be convicted of
murder because he was negligent.
(b) The speed limit on a public road outside an urban area is 120km/h.
(c) The crime of driving with excessive alcohol in the blood can also be committed if one is not
driving but is merely occupying the driver’s seat of a car whilst the engine is running,
and whilst having a concentration of alcohol in the blood of 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres
or more.

QUESTION 6
(a) Reckless driving includes inconsiderate driving which might give rise to a risk of harm to
others.
(b) A police officer who responds to an emergency and causes a motor vehicle collision while
crossing a red robot can never be convicted of negligent driving.
(c) The crime of inconsiderate driving can be committed negligently or where there are no
other road users present.


CRW2602/102
QUESTION 7
(a) In the case of S v Nkosi 2012 (1) SACR 87 (GNP) it was held that the mere assumption of
control over property which belongs to someone else is insufficient for the crime of
attempted theft.
(b) If X assists Y to commit suicide (mercy killing) he will not be convicted of the crime of
murder under South African law.
(c) The building or structure required in the crime of housebreaking with intent to commit a
crime may only be an immovable structure which is or might ordinarily be used for human
habitation.

QUESTION 8
(a) Crimen iniuria always involves at least three parties.
(b) The uttering of words constituting vulgar abuse may constitute the crime of crimen iniuria.
(c) Culpability in the form of negligence is sufficient for the crime of assault.

QUESTION 9
(a) For a conviction of assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, it is not
required that the victim had in actual fact suffered grievous bodily harm.
(b) X can only be convicted for the crime of assault if the state proves that X applied force to
Y’s body directly.
(c) It is a requirement for the crime of receiving stolen property that X must touch the property
in order to qualify as an act of receiving.


QUESTION 10
(a) The threat of violence in the crime of robbery must always be expressly uttered to satisfy a
conviction of robbery.
(b) If X assaults Y and after Y falls to the ground, X sees Y’s valuable watch and takes it for
himself, X is guilty of robbery.
(c) The crime of malicious injury to property cannot be committed in respect of immovable
property.

(5) None of the statements is correct. Sub-total: [30]
PART B
THIS PART CONSISTS OF THREE (3) QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION IS SUBDIVIDED

INTO A NUMBER OF SUB-QUESTIONS. YOU MUST ANSWER ALL THREE (3)
QUESTIONS. NOTE THAT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS CONTAIN A CHOICE BETWEEN
TWO ALTERNATIVES. SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWERS AND REFER TO DECIDED
CASES WHERE NECESSARY. IN DECIDING UPON THE LENGTH OF YOUR ANSWERS
YOU SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE MARKS ALLOCATED TO EACH QUESTION.
QUESTION 1
(a) NOTE THE CHOICE YOU HAVE IN THIS QUESTION
(i) Name the elements of the crime of robbery and discuss whether the grabbing of a
cellphone from a person’s hand amounts to robbery or merely to theft.
OR
(ii) Discuss the two components of intention required for the crime of terrorism. (8)
(b) X buys himself a brand new Porsche. While he drives away from the dealer’s shop he
smokes a joint of dagga. The police stop him and he (X) is arrested. He is charged with the
crime of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs with a narcotic effect. X
raises the defence that dagga is not a narcotic drug. Explain whether X may be found guilty
of this crime with specific reference to the requirement of the ‘act’. (7)
(c) Discuss ONE of the following cases:
S v Gardener and Another 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA)
OR
S v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A) (6)

8

CRW2602/102
(d) Merely name four (4) additional offences created in the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000,
other than the unlawful possession of a firearm or ammunition. (4)
[25]
QUESTION 2
(a) X works for Y who is a shop owner. Y is in possession of an electricity vending machine
that issues pre-paid electricity vouchers on behalf of the ABC company. X provides
vouchers for electricity to his friends free of charge. Y finds out and tells X that he will not
report him to the ABC company if he (X) provides him (Y) with 20% of the proceeds of the
vouchers sold. X agrees. ABC company finds out about the scheme when an audit is done
of all the vouchers issued. X is charged with the crime of theft. It is alleged that he has
unlawfully and intentionally stolen electricity. The state argues that electricity can be an
object of the crime of theft as the crime of theft is no longer limited to movable corporeal
property. X avers as his defence that electricity is not property that is capable of being
stolen.
ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS BELOW:
(i) Fully discuss the property requirement for the crime of theft. In your answer you must
also discuss the exceptions to the requirements. (7)
(ii) Discuss whether X can be found guilty of the crime of theft for stealing electricity with
reference to case law. (5)
(iii) Can Y be found guilty of the crime of extortion? Discuss. (5)
(i) Define the crime of contempt of court.
OR
(ii) Define the crime of corruption. (4)
(c) Merely state the legal interest(s) protected by each one of the following crimes without any
discussion thereof:
(i) Corruption. (1)

(ii) Pointing of a firearm. (1)
(iii) Kidnapping. (2)
[25]

QUESTION 3
(a) X kidnaps Y from his work at gunpoint. X commands Y to climb into the boot of her car and
she drives to a remote area. X orders Y to drink some drugs which he (Y) does out of fear.
X also threatens to kill Y if he (Y), does not have sexual intercourse with her (X). He (Y)
submits and has sexual intercourse with her. Discuss whether X is guilty of the following
crimes.
(i) The crime of rape in terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007. (6)
(ii) Crimen iniuria and/ or assault. (4)
(b) Write down the missing words or phrases in your examination book:
(i) The two defences that may be raised by X in the crime of consensual penetration of
children are that both X and Y are …………….. and that Y deceived X about his or
her…………. . (2)
(ii) Sexual assault is defined in s 5(1) as a person (X) who unlawfully and
intentionally………… ……….. (2 words) a complainant (Y) without the ……………of
Y. (2)
(iii) It is a sexual offence to engage persons …………years or older in sexual services for
financial or other reward. (1)
(iv) A person who engages the services of a child (with or without his or her consent) for
sexual favours or any type of reward is guilty of the crime of ………………
…………………….. (2 words) of a child. (1)
(v) A person who influences or encourages a child to engage in a sexual act or who
diminishes the child’s resistance to such act commits the crime of ………….
………….. (2 words) of children under the age of 18 years. (1)
(vi) The two parties in the crime of corruption are known as the ……………. and the
………………….. . (2)
(vii) The crime of malicious injury to property also includes damaging one’s own
……………(1/2) property with the intention of claiming the value of the property from
the ……………..(1/2) (1)
[20]
Sub-total: [70]
TOTAL: [100]
10

CRW2602/102
Below follows the feedback on the previous exam paper provided above. We find that
most students provide very superficial answers in the examination. Therefore we advise
that you actually complete the given examination paper on your own as a form of self-
assessment. Test yourself whether you are able to identify the relevant sections of the
work. Plan and structure your answers in accordance with the duration of time provided.
Determine the length of your answer with reference to the marks allocated to each
question. Then compare your answers with those provided in the feedback. This exercise
will enable you to know exactly what is expected of you in the examination.
SG - Study Guide

Question 1
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.2 (vi).

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 1.2.7. Dolus eventualis is a sufficient form of
intention.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (4) since only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
Question 2

You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since all the statements are correct.
Question 3
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 10.1.7. The Appellate division in Heyne 1956 (3)
SA 604 (A) has held that attempted fraud is in fact possible where a misrepresentation
has been made by X, but which has not yet come to Y’s attention as in the case where
a letter containing a misrepresentation has been lost in the post.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 10.1.3 (3). The misrepresentation in the crime of
fraud can also be committed by an omission where there is a legal duty on X to
disclose a fact.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (4) since only statement (c) is correct.
11

Question 4

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.4.8. For the crime of abduction to be completed,
it is not required that the marriage or sexual intercourse should have taken place, as
all that is required is the intention on the part of X to commit either one of these acts..
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1 and the Mshumpa-case in Casebook 264.
The legal definition speaks to the unlawful and intentional causing of the death of
another human being and a foetus is excluded from this definition.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (1) since only statement (a) is correct.
Question 5
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1 and SG 6.2.7. X would be convicted of the
crime of culpable homicide if he is negligent as the crime of murder requires the
element of intention.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.4. The speed limit on a public road outside
an urban area is 100km/h.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (3) since only statement (c) is correct.
Question 6

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.2.5 and SG 3.6.3.3 (Activity and feedback). A
police officer who responds to an emergency and causes a motor vehicle collision
while crossing a red traffic light, can be convicted of negligent driving if he does not
drive with ‘due regard’ for the safety of other road users. See also S v Groep 2002 (1)
SACR 538 (E).
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.5. This crime can be committed
negligently but other road-users had to be present on the road at the time in order for
this offence to have been committed.
Question 7
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 8.6.1.2; 8.6.1.3 and Casebook 251-252. The mere
assumption of control over property which belongs to someone else is insufficient for
completed theft, but it is sufficient to amount to the crime of attempted theft.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 5.2.1. X complies with the definition of murder
which is the unlawful and intentional causing of the death of another person.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 12.4 and Summary (5). The structure may be any
movable or immovable property that is or might ordinarily be used for human
habitation, or any immovable structure which is, or might be used for storage or
housing of property.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since none of these statements is correct.
12

CRW2602/102
Question 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.2.4. Crimen iniuria involves only two parties
whereas the crime of defamation involves three parties.
(b) This statement is correct. See SG 7.2.7.3.(5)
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.1.9. The crime of assault is an intentional crime
and can take the form of direct intention, indirect intention or dolus eventualis.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (2) since only statement (b) is correct.
Question 9

(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 6.1.6 and 6.1.7. Assault can also take the form of
indirect application of force or inspiring fear that force may immediately be applied
upon another. An example of indirect force is where X sets his vicious dog on Y.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.2.1 SUMMARY (10) and Criminal Law 514. X
need not necessarily touch the property when he receives it.
Question 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.1.5. The threat of violence in the crime of
robbery may be express or implied.
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.2 SUMMARY (3). The crimes of assault and
theft are committed. For robbery there must be a causal connection between the
violence (or threats of violence) and the acquisition of the property.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 11.2.3. The property must be corporeal and may
be movable or immovable.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (5) since none of these statements is correct.
PART B
The purpose of asking problem-type questions in this module is to test your understanding
of the various specific crimes. This requires knowledge and understanding of the
definitions of these crimes.
The second step in answering a problem-type question is to discuss the legal principles
that are relevant to providing the answer to the problem. Most of the legal principles
discussed in this module come from court decisions (case law). You must therefore make
reference to a decided case(s) whenever a legal principle is stated.
13

You are reminded that even if you fail to remember the name of a case, you can simply
state: “It has been decided” or “According to a decision” when stating the principle. Please
note, however, that the discussion of an incorrect principle will not be credited, irrespective
of whether the case reference (name) is appropriate. In other words, referring to the correct
case name will not award you a mark if it is done to support an inappropriate legal principle.
Students who do this merely indicate to the lecturer that they do not understand what the
The third step in answering a problem-type question is to apply the relevant legal
principles to the facts of the problem. Students often combine the second and third steps
when answering problem-type questions. In other words, they would discuss the principle(s)
while applying it to the facts. There is nothing inappropriate about doing this. However, the
chances of omitting a relevant principle (if there is more than one) are greater when
adopting this approach. To minimise this possibility we would advise the separation of the
second from the third step. Another advantage of discussing the legal principle(s) before
applying them to the facts is that you can more easily identify the relevant facts at the stage
of discussing the principle(s). This will enable you to address as many relevant facts as
possible and prepare you for a more in-depth analysis at the stage of application.
The final step in answering a problem-type question is to provide a conclusion to the

problem. Please ensure that you have addressed the question(s) that has (have) been
asked. If, for example, the question requires you to determine the criminal liability of X on a
charge of murder, then your conclusion should state either “X is criminally liable of murder”,
or “X is not criminally liable on a charge of murder”. If the question requires you to
determine whether X caused Y’s death, then your conclusion should state either “X caused
Y’s death”, or “X did not cause Y’s death”, et cetera. Please note also that in order for your
conclusion to have any basis it must be a deduction of your reasoning.
QUESTION 1
(a)(i) SG 9.1.2 and 9.1.7

- Theft of property
- Use of actual violence or threats of violence
- Causal connection between the violence and acquisition of the property
- Unlawfulness
- Intention
Discussion: Yes - the court has held that the grabbing of a cell phone amounts to robbery
in the Salman-case, as it is sufficient that any force is applied to the person of a victim,
however slight, that amount to a physical intervention necessary for dispossession.
OR
14

CRW2602/102
(ii) SG 1.2.7
It is required that the act is performed with an intention, or an act which by its nature and
context, can reasonably be regarded as being intended, directly or indirectly to
FIRST COMPONENT
 threaten the unity and territorial integrity of the Republic

 intimidate or cause feelings of insecurity within the public or a segment of the public,
including economic security, or to cause feelings of terror, fear or panic in a civilian
population or
 unduly compel, intimidate, force, coerce, induce or cause a person a government, the
public or a segment of the public or a domestic or an international organization or
intergovernmental organization to do or to abstain or refrain from doing any act, or to
adopt or abandon a particular standpoint, or to act in accordance with certain
principles.
and
SECOND COMPONENT
It is required that the act be committed, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the
purpose of the advancement of an individual or collective, political, religious,
ideological or philosophical motive, objective, cause or undertaking.
(b) SG 3.6.5.3
Section 65(1) in actual fact prohibits two different acts:
 Driving of a vehicle while under the influence.

 Occupying a driver’s seat with the engine of the vehicle running while under the
influence.
 Even if a person is in a stationary vehicle they can be found guilty.
 It must be proved that the driver was affected by the intoxicating liquor or drug to
such a degree that the skill and judgment normally required of a driver was
diminished or impaired as a result (Lloyd 1929 EDL 270).
 "Skill" refers to the driver's physical powers, and is diminished or impaired when
the driver's vision, judgment or muscular coordination is affected (Donian 1935 TPD
5).
 "Judgment" refers to the driver’s mental powers, which are deemed to be
impaired or diminished if the intoxicating liquor or drug causes him to be euphoric or
over-optimistic.
 The driver must have been under the influence at the time of driving the vehicle
(Lombard 1967 (4) SA 538 (A).
 Alcohol usually refers to ethyl alcohol and the drug referred to should have a
narcotic effect and need not be a narcotic drug per se (Whitehead 1970 (1) SA
25 (T). Any substance or remedy which has an effect resembling that of a narcotic
drug is included and not merely pharmaceutical narcotics.
 Yes, X can be convicted of the offence.
15

S v Gardener and Another 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA) - Casebook pp. 260-263.
Facts: Two chief executive officers of company A failed to disclose their interests in
company B to the board of company A. Company A had bought shares in
company B and as a result of this transaction X and Y secured substantial profits.
They were charged with fraud and duly convicted.
Legal question: On appeal the questions before the court were whether they had the
intention of defrauding company A and whether their failure to disclose their
interests resulted in actual or potential prejudice to the company.
Reasons for the judgment:
The court upheld the conviction of fraud and found that the conduct of X and Y
was potentially prejudicial to company A since, inter alia, it precluded company A
from considering the advantages and disadvantages of the sale and induced
company A to raise the finance and pay X and Y for their interest in company B.
Moreover, their conduct was deliberate since it was done to avoid
proper consideration of the transaction by the board in the self-interest of
X and Y (para 57).
In considering the intention to cause prejudice, the court deemed it
unnecessary to be more specific as to the nature of that prejudice.
The court stated (at para 58) that when company directors directly withhold
information material to the affairs of their company from the board of directors
there is, in the absence of an explanation for such conduct which may
reasonably be true, a case of fraudulent non-disclosure. That is because the
company can only make decisions through a board that is properly informed.
OR
S v Sibiya 1955 (4) SA 247 (A) – Casebook 244 – 250.

Facts: X removed Y’s car without his consent and took a joyride in it, intending to return
it to Y. However the car overturned and landed in a donga. When the police
arrived at the scene, X was still standing near the car (he did not abandon the
car). X was convicted of theft.
Legal question: Does furtum usus (the mere temporary use of another’s property without
the intention of permanently depriving the owner) amount to theft in South African
law?
Reasons for the judgment:
The Appellate Division held that Sibiya had not committed theft because he did
not have the intention to deprive Y permanently of the property.
Following English law, our courts have held that the perpetrator must have the
intention permanently to deprive the owner of his property.
However, if X intends to deprive Y only temporarily of his property, then he still
respects and recognizes Y’s right to the property throughout and does not have
an intention to deprive Y permanently of the property – as required for theft.
16

CRW2602/102
An important qualification to the rule that furtum usus does not constitute theft is
that where the perpetrator uses the thing of another with the intention to use it
only temporarily but then abandons it, taking no measures to ensure its return to
its owner, he commits theft.
(d) SG 3.5.4
 To be aware that somebody else possesses a firearm illegally and to fail to report
this to the police.
 To cause bodily injury to a person or damage to property by negligently using a
firearm.
 To handle a firearm while under the influence of a substance which has an
intoxicating or narcotic effect.
 To discharge a firearm in a built up area or public place.
 To lose a firearm owing to a failure to lock it away in a safe, strong room or safe
or owing to failure to keep the keys to the safe, strong room or device in safe
custody.
 The pointing of a firearm (SG 6.2).
QUESTION 2
(a)(i) SG 8.6.2
For property to be capable of being stolen, it must be
 movable
 corporeal,
 be capable of forming part of commerce - meaning it should not be a res
communes - things belonging to everybody, nor res derelictae - abandoned property,
nor res nullius -things belonging to nobody
 the property must belong to someone else
 except in the case of the arrogation of possession.
(ii) SG 8.6.2 (2) and Casebook 252-256 - Ndebele 2012 (1) SACR 245 (GSJ).
 Yes. X can be convicted for stealing electricity.
 In Ndebele it was held that the courts have moved away from the physical handling
of the property to a more abstract requirement of appropriation such as the
manipulation of credit.
 There need not be physical removal but rather the deprivation of a characteristic and
depriving the owner of a characteristic.
 Energy by electricity consists of electrons and the characteristic attached to electrons
is energy which is consumed and is capable of theft.
 In the Mintoor-case it was held that electricity cannot be stolen.
(iii) SG 3.3.
 Yes. X can be found guilty of the crime of extortion.
 Extortion is the unlawful and intentional acquisition of a benefit from some other
person by applying pressure to that person which induces her to part with the benefit.
 Y applied pressure upon X, in the form of intimidation/threat of exposure, that he will
not report him to the ABC company if X provides him with 20% of the proceeds from
the vouchers X sells.
17

 There must be a causal connection between the application of pressure and the
acquisition of the thing. It can be inferred that at the time when the scheme is
exposed through an audit of all the issued vouchers, Y had already acquired 20% of
the proceeds from the vouchers sold by X. Y acquired this benefit as a result of the
intimidation/threat that he had placed upon X (ie. that Y would report him to the ABC
company unless he complied with his request).
 See Ex parte Minister of Justisie: In re S v J en S v Von Mollendorff 1989 (4) SA
1028 (A).
 The benefit in this case is patrimonial and Y puts pressure on X in order to obtain this
benefit. If Y already acquired the benefit he can be convicted of completed extortion.
(i) SG 2.4.1.
(1) violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or a judicial officer
in his judicial capacity, or
(2) the publication of information or comment concerning a pending judicial
proceeding which has the tendency to influence the outcome of the proceeding
or to interfere with the administration of justice in that proceeding.
OR
(ii) SG 3.2.4.
Corruption is defined as:
Anyone that
(a) accepts any gratification from any other person, or

(b) gives any gratification to any other person
in order to act in a manner that amounts to the illegal exercise of any duties, is guilty
of the offence of corruption.
(c)(i) SG 3.2.1 Corruption – trust in the authorities and authoritative organs/ or protects
moral values / or preserves public welfare.
(ii) SG 6.2.3 Pointing of a firearm – evils surrounding firearms/ the arousal of fear in the
mind of Y of being struck by the bullet / physical integrity of a person.
(iii) SG 7.5 Kidnapping - Freedom of movement and a parent’s custody/ control over a
child.
18

CRW2602/102
QUESTION 3
(a)(i) SG 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2
Yes, X will be guilty of the crime of rape.
A female can be the perpetrator and the male the victim as the definition provides that
any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with a
complainant without their consent is guilty of the crime of rape.
Consent means voluntary and uncoerced agreement.
Consent is invalid in this case as Y submits to the intercourse due to force, intimidation or
threats or where the victim is in an altered state of consciousness such as being under
the influence of drugs.
(ii) SG 6.1.5; 6.1.6, 6.1.7 and 7.2.7.3(4)
X is guilty of both crimen iniuria and assault.
Assault is committed as there is an unlawful and intentional direct application of force

to person of Y. This occurred through the rape of Y.
There is also unlawful and intentional indirect application of force by forcing Y to

consume the drugs.
Marx 1962 (1) SA 848 (N) – alcohol was given to children to drink and they became sick
– the fact that it was internal rather than external was irrelevant.
A 1993 (1) SA 600 (A) – in this case a policeman forced Y to drink his own urine –it was
held the forced drinking of any substance constitutes assault.
There is also the unlawful and intentional inspiring of fear (of a belief) upon Y that force is
immediately to be applied to him. By wielding a gun in her hand and by threatening to kill
Y if Y did not have sexual intercourse with her, there was a threat of immediate and
unlawful violence upon the person of Y. Y subjectively believed that X intended to
carry out her threat and submitted to every command out of fear.
Certain acts of assault also qualify as crimen inuria. Crimen iniuria is also committed as
there is the unlawful and intentional serious infringement of the dignity of another
committed in the case of a rape or an assault (ie forced drinking of the drugs) and also
such infringement of the privacy of the victim in the case of the rape.
19

CRW2602/102
THIS PAPER CONSISTS OF EIGHT (8) PAGES PLUS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

COMPLETION OF A MARK READING SHEET.
THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PAPER COUNT HUNDRED (100) MARKS. THE PAPER
CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, MARKED A AND B. YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH PARTS
A AND B. PART A CONSISTS OF TEN (10) MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS. EACH
QUESTION COUNTS THREE (3) MARKS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUESTIONS IN
PART A COUNT A TOTAL OF THIRTY (30) MARKS. IN PART B, THE ANSWERS TO
THE QUESTIONS MUST BE WRITTEN IN THE EXAMINATION ANSWER BOOK
ITSELF. THE QUESTIONS IN PART B COUNT SEVENTY (70) MARKS.
IMPORTANT NOTICE. THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART HAVE TO BE ANSWERED ON

THE MARK READING SHEET, WHICH WILL BE ISSUED WITH YOUR EXAMINATION
ANSWER BOOK. YOU HAVE TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE USE OF THE MARK READING SHEET CAREFULLY. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY
MEAN THAT YOUR ANSWERS CANNOT BE MARKED BY THE COMPUTER.
Ten questions (marked 1 - 10) follow. Each question contains three statements
(marked (a)-(c)). Some of the statements are correct and some are incorrect. You
must decide which of these statements is/are correct. The three statements are
followed by five allegations (marked (1)-(5)). Each of them alleges that a certain
statement or combination of statements is correct. You must decide which
allegation accurately reflects the conclusions to which you have come.

Question 1
(a) A participant is anyone who does something, in whatever manner, whereby he

furthers the commission of the crime.
(b) The distinction between a principal offender and other perpetrators is not
important for the purposes of liability but it is important in the assessment of
punishment.
(c) Where A enters a house and shoots and kills Y while B merely keeps guard
outside the house, both can be regarded as co-perpetrators in the commission of
the murder.

Question 2
(a) An accomplice is defined as somebody who does not commit the crime with his
own hands.
(b) The crucial requirement of the doctrine of common purpose is that the different
accused should have had the same purpose.
(c) If one approves of or ratifies another's criminal deed which has already been
completed, one could be held criminally liable on the basis of active association.

Question 3
(a) If Z assaults Y after Y has already died from the injuries inflicted by X or his
associates, Z cannot be convicted of any offence.
(b) Liability as an accomplice is known as accessory liability.
(c) One may be an accessory after the fact on the ground of an omission.


CRW2602/102
Question 4
(a) If X is apprehended while trying to set alight his neighbour’s house, he can be found
guilty of attempted arson.
(b) If two or more persons unite in an organisation with the declared purpose of
committing a crime or crimes, they must be in direct communication with each other
for the purpose of the crime of conspiracy.
(c) A person may be convicted of incitement only if there is proof that he had persuaded
the incitee to commit the crime.

Question 5
(a) Public violence is a crime committed with common purpose.
(b) The false declaration made under oath in the crime of common-law perjury must be
subjectively false.
(c) The crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice may be committed even
though there is no pending case.


Question 6
(a) Mere criticism of the prosecution in a criminal case will be sufficient to establish
contempt of court ex facie curiae.
(b) If one loudly sings praise songs in a courtroom after being acquitted at the end of a
trial, one cannot be convicted of contempt of court in facie curiae, as there was no
intent to violate the dignity of the court.
(c) For the crime of scandalising the court to be committed, it must be likely that the
publication can bring the administration of justice through the courts into disrepute.

Question 7
(a) A person used as police trap does not commit the crime of corruption if he agrees to
receive gratification from another person in order to trap that person into committing
corruption.
(b) If someone corrupts a judicial officer, the conduct can be punished as both corruption
and contempt of court.
(c) Although section 91(1) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 provides that the
holder of a licence to possess a firearm may not possess more than 200 cartridges
for each firearm in respect of which he holds a licence, it provides that a dedicated
sports person may possess more cartridges than stipulated.

(5) All of the statements are correct.

CRW2602/102
Question 8
(a) If Y is misled by X that having sexual intercourse with him (X) will cure her (Y) of her
infertility, X can be guilty of rape as there is no valid consent.
(b) Common-law abduction protects the rights of parents to consent to the marriage of
their minor children, as well as to exercise control over where they stay.
(c) According to Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A), intoxication may lead to X's lacking the
intention to assault, in which case X must be found not guilty of the crime of assault.

Question 9
(a) If X attempts to assault Y but his blow misses Y, he (X) can be guilty of completed
assault provided he intentionally inspired a belief in Y that force was immediately to
be applied to him.
(b) Y’s right to dignity can be infringed even without Y's being aware of the infringement
(as where X watches Y undressing).
(c) The violation of Y's dignity is more serious if she is insulted by a stranger, than when
she is insulted by her husband or boyfriend during the course of a domestic
argument.


Question 10
(a) If X, intending to steal a chocolate in a self-service shop, conceals it in her handbag

but is apprehended with the article before leaving the shop, she may be found guilty
of attempted theft only as she is still in the shop.
(b) If X steals something from Y, and then uses violence to retain the property, X does
not commit robbery but the crimes of theft and assault.
(c) In the crime of robbery where X threatens Y with violence if he does not hand over
the property, it is not a requirement that there must be a causal link between the
threats of violence and the acquisition of property.

SUB-TOTAL: [30]
PART B
THIS PART CONSISTS OF THREE QUESTIONS. EACH QUESTION IS SUBDIVIDED

INTO A NUMBER OF SUB-QUESTIONS. YOU MUST ANSWER ALL THREE
QUESTIONS. SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWERS AND REFER TO DECIDED CASES
WHERE NECESSARY. IN DECIDING UPON THE LENGTH OF YOUR ANSWERS YOU
SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE MARKS ALLOCATED TO EACH QUESTION.
Question 1
A, B, C and D are members of a rebel group trying to overthrow the government. D

pretends as if he supports the group’s cause but is a police informant. In an effort to make
the government take notice of them, the group plan to take children from a rural school
hostage. They will only release the children if their demands are met. One night, A, B, C
and D break into the school and hold the children captive. They force the school principal
to open the school safe and take all the money in the safe. A suggests that they kill the
principal to show the government how serious they are. C and D do not want to partake in
the killing of the principal and decide to leave. A and B then shoot and kill the principal.
They load all the children onto trucks and set the school building on fire. At that moment,
the police – who were informed by D about the plan - arrive. A and B are arrested on the
spot. C and D are apprehended the next day.
(a) Discuss whether A, B, C and D may all be convicted of murder in respect of the
killing of the school principal. In your answer, you must discuss the basis of their
possible liability in detail and also refer to relevant case law. (10)
10

CRW2602/102
(b) Can A, B, C and D be convicted of the following offences?
(i) Robbery or only attempted robbery. In your answer you must set out the
elements of the crime of robbery. (5)
(ii) Housebreaking with intent to commit a crime. Also give the definition of the
crime. (3)
(iii) Common-law abduction. In your answer, also give the definition of the crime.
(3)
(iv) Arson. Explain how the crime of arson differs from malicious injury to
property. (4)
(c) Discuss ONE of the following decisions:
(i) Motaung 1990 (4) SA 485 (A)

(ii) Hlatwayo 1933 TPD 441 (5)
[30]
Question 2
X is a pimp who operates from a seedy hotel in an unsavoury neighbourhood. He keeps

the women who work for him locked up in their rooms by day, and follows their every move
at night while they are selling their services. He also gives them drugs to keep them under
his control. They receive no compensation for their services. X takes naked photos of the
women in compromising positions, and threatens to send the photos to their families if
they try to leave the premises or disobey him. To keep the women in line, X is assisted by
Z, a police officer, who informs him ahead of time about planned raids on the hotel. X and
Z have an agreement that Z will receive five percent (5%) of the money made from the
brothel’s services.
There is a demand for younger girls by X’s clientele. As such, X places an advertisement
in a newspaper for job opportunities for young girls as baby sitters. Y, a fourteen-year-old
girl, sees the advertisement and applies for the job. X arranges to meet Y in the hotel,
whereupon he overpowers her and locks her in a room. Y manages to climb through a
broken window and runs away.
(a) In terms of section 71 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters)
Amendment Act 32 of 2007, with which offence may X be charged? Give a short
description of the crime. (4)
(b) Can X be charged with the use, possession or dealing of drugs in terms of the Drugs
and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992? In your answer, you must provide the
elements of the offence. (4)
(c) Can X be charged with kidnapping or attempted kidnapping? Also give the definition
of the crime of kidnapping in your answer. (4)
(d) Can X be charged with the crime of extortion? In your answer, you must give the
elements of the offence. (4)
11

(e) Can X be charged with fraud? In your answer, you must give the elements of the
offence. (4)
(f) Discuss whether X may be charged with the general crime of corruption in terms of
section 3 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004. In
your answer you must set out the basic elements of the offence. (5)
[25]
Question 3
(a) The following statements refer to various crimes. Indicate whether these statements
are correct or incorrect. Give a reason for your answer:
(i) A putative crime is an impossible attempt concerning a mistake regarding the

presence of certain material facts.
(ii) Contempt in facie curiae is committed by publishing information or commentary
calculated to influence the outcome of a case that is still sub iudice.
(iii) The offence of pointing a firearm consists of pointing the loaded firearm or
article at somebody else.
(iv) A person's good name or reputation can be harmed only if the conduct or words
complained of come to the notice of someone other than the victim, in other
words, if publication takes place.
(v) A person who commits the crime of receiving stolen property renders himself,
at the same time, guilty of being an accessory after the fact to theft. (10)
(b) X’s drill is out of order. He takes his neighbour Y’s drill without his (Y’s) consent. X
drills holes in the walls of his house with Y’s drill. He plans to put it back in Y’s garage
the next day while Y is at work. In the meantime, he stores the drill on the porch at
the back of his (X’s) house. During the night, the drill is stolen from X’s premises. X is
charged with theft. At the trial his attorney argues that X cannot be convicted of theft
because he did not have the intention to appropriate. Explain whether this argument
is correct. (5)
[15]
SUB-TOTAL: [70]
TOTAL: [100]
© Unisa 2014
12

CRW2602/102
3 Feedback on October/November 2014 examination paper

Below is the feedback on the exam supplied above.
We have found that most students provide extremely superficial answers in the
examination. Therefore, we advise you to complete the given examination paper on your
own as a form of self-assessment. Test whether you are able to identify the relevant
sections of the work. Plan and structure your answers. Look, especially, at the length of
each answer and how much time you need to allocate to each answer. Then compare
your answers with those in this feedback. This exercise will indicate exactly what is
expected of you in the examination.

SG – Study Guide for CRW2602
Criminal Law – CR Snyman Criminal Law 6th ed 2014 (the prescribed book)
Case Book – CR Snyman Criminal Law Case Book 5th ed 2013
(Please note that questions 1-4 deal with topics that were covered in CRW2602 in
2014, but that no longer form part of this module. These topics now form part of the
module for CRW2601. Therefore, you are not referred to paragraph numbers in
these particular answers to the questions.)
Question 1
(a) This statement is correct.
(b) This statement is correct.
(c) This statement is correct.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (3), since all these statements are correct.
Question 2
(a) This statement is incorrect. An indirect perpetrator is a person who does not
commit a crime with his or her own hands.
(c) This statement is incorrect.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (4), since only statement (b) is correct.
13

Question 3
(a) This statement is incorrect. X may be convicted of at least attempted assault or even
attempted murder if he had the intention to kill Y. See Case Book 194.
(c) This statement is correct.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (3), since only statements (b) and (c) are
correct.
Question 4
(a) This statement is correct.
(b) This statement is incorrect.
(c) This statement is incorrect.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (4), since only statement (a) is correct.
Question 5
(b) This statement is incorrect. The statement must objectively be false. See SG 2.1.3.
(c) This statement is correct. See SG 2.3 and Criminal Law 341.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (1), since only statements (a) and (c) are
correct.
Question 6
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 2.4.8.
correct.
14

CRW2602/102
Question 7
(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.2.6.5.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (5), since all these statements are correct.
Question 8
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 4.2.2.2.
correct.
Question 9
(b) This statement is incorrect. See SG 7.2.7.1.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (3), since only statements (a) and (c) are
correct.
Question 10
(a) This statement is incorrect. See SG 8.6.1.3.
(c) This statement is incorrect. See SG 9.1.6.
You should, therefore, have chosen option (2), since only statement (b) is correct.
15

PART B
Question 1:
(a) (Note that this topic no longer forms part of CRW2602. It now forms part of the
module for CRW2601. Therefore, there are no paragraph references in these
answers).
Liability in terms of the general principles of liability and the doctrine of common
purpose is relevant to this question.
The liability of A and B for the murder of the school principal can be explained as
follows:
 A and B may be liable in terms of the general principles of liability as it can be
argued that their conduct was the cause of the principal’s death.
 Murder is the unlawful, intentional causing of the death of another person.
 They both had intention; if not direct intention to kill, at least in the form of dolus
eventualis.
 However, if it is not possible to establish whose shot actually killed the principal, the
second basis of liability is by applying the doctrine of common purpose, which
provides that
 if two or more people having a common purpose to commit a crime act together in
order to achieve that purpose, the acts of each of them in the execution of such a
purpose are imputed to the others.
 A and B were present at the scene of the crime and performed acts of active
association with the execution of the common purpose to kill the school principal.
 If students argued that the common purpose to kill was established by the prior
agreement to commit kidnapping, knowing or foreseeing the possibility that
somebody might get killed, a mark was also allocated.
 A and B also had intention, at least in the form of dolus eventualis. They had
foreseen the possibility that somebody might get killed during the robbery, and had
reconciled themselves to this possibility.
 The relevant authority is the cases of Safatsa, Mgedezi and Lungile.
 Conclusion: A and B may be found guilty of murder in respect of the school principal.
As far as the liability of C and D is concerned:

 C and D shared a common purpose with A and B to commit kidnapping (previous
agreement or active association), but the question is whether they had withdrawn
themselves from the common purpose, or disassociated themselves from the
common purpose.
 This should be determined in terms of guidelines in the case law:
 Did C and D have a clear and unambiguous intention to withdraw, or did they
leave because they were afraid?
 Did C and D perform a positive act of withdrawal?
 How far had the commission of the crime proceeded before C and D
disassociated themselves by leaving the scene; what was the manner and time of
their disengagement; and what did they do to try and prevent the crime from
being committed?
 Did the withdrawal take place before the course of events had reached “the
commencement of the execution”?
 Was the withdrawal voluntary?
 Conclusion: Students could have answered “yes”, they had withdrawn or “no”, they
had not. Marks were awarded depending on the argument of the student.
16

CRW2602/102
(b)(i) SG 9.1.2.
Yes, they may be convicted of robbery.
The elements of robbery are the following:
(1) the theft of the property
(2) by unlawfully and intentionally using either actual violence or threats of
violence
(3) a causal connection between the violence (or threats thereof) and the
acquisition of the property
The crime is completed as soon as the principal hands the money (property) over to them
and they acquire the money as a result of their violence or threats of violence. See the
case of Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re R v Gesa, R v De Jong in Case Book 257.
(ii) SG 12.1.
Yes, they may be convicted of housebreaking.
Housebreaking with intent to commit a crime consists in unlawfully and intentionally
 breaking into and entering a building or structure with
 the intention of committing some crime in it.
(iii) SG 7.4.
They did not commit common-law abduction, as they wanted to remove the minors from
their guardians for political reasons and not to have intercourse with them.
Common-law abduction consists of unlawfully and intentionally
 removing an unmarried minor from the control of his or her parents or guardian,
without their consent
 with the intention that one, or somebody else, may marry or have sexual intercourse
with the minor.
(iv) See Study Unit 11 under “Summary”, points 5-7.

Yes, they are guilty of arson as they set fire to the school building (an immovable property
belonging to another).
Arson consists in unlawfully and intentionally setting fire to
 immovable property belonging to another or
 one’s own immovable insured property, in order to claim the value of the property
from the insurer.
Malicious injury to property consists in unlawfully and intentionally damaging
 property belonging to another person or
 one’s own property with the intention of claiming the value of the property from the
insurer.
Malicious injury to property differs from arson in that malicious injury to property is
damage to any property (not only immovable property) belonging to another person,
or damaging one’s own property with the intention of claiming the value of the
property from the insurer.
17

(c)(i) Motaung 1990 (4) SA 485 (A) (Note that this case and topic no longer form part
of CRW2602. It now forms part of the CRW2601 module)
See Case Book 194.
Students had to give a brief account of the facts. On appeal against a conviction for
murder in terms of the doctrine of common purpose, it was argued that the appellants
could not be convicted of murder since they acceded to the common purpose to kill the
deceased at a stage when the deceased had already been fatally wounded by others, and
that the wounds inflicted by the appellants did not hasten her death. The court found that
the appellants were not part of a previous conspiracy to murder the victim and that there
was a reasonable possibility that they joined in the attack only at a stage after the victim
had been fatally wounded.
Legal question: Can a so-called joiner-in be convicted or murder in terms of the doctrine
of common purpose?
Decision: A joiner-in can be convicted of attempted murder only and not of murder.
Reasons for decision: To hold a joiner-in liable for murder on the basis of an association
with the crime only after all the acts contributing to the victim’s death have already been
committed would involve holding him/her responsible ex post facto for the acts of the
others. The criminal law is opposed to ex post facto, or retrospective, liability and it would
be unacceptable to recognise it in the situation of a joiner-in.
(ii) Hlatwayo 1933 TPD 441 (Note that this case and topic no longer form part of
CRW2602.)
See Case Book 225.
Students had to give a brief account of the facts. X, a domestic servant, put caustic soda
into her employers’ porridge, intending to poison them. She noticed that the caustic soda
discoloured the porridge, so she threw the mixture away.
Legal question: Is voluntary withdrawal a defence on a charge of attempted murder if the
withdrawal occurred after the act of execution?
Decision: X was convicted of attempted murder.
Reasons for decision: The court held that her acts had already reached the stage of
consummation (execution), and that her change of heart did not exclude her liability for
attempt.
Voluntary withdrawal was not a valid defence here.
Question 2:
(a) SG 4.10.
The crime is trafficking in persons for sexual purposes/human trafficking.
Any person who traffics in any person for sexual purposes, without that person's
consent, is guilty of this offence.
The mere encouraging, incitement, instigation and other preparatory actions amount
to the offence of involvement in trafficking in persons for sexual purposes.
(b) SG 3.4.2.
Yes, X can be charged with the use or possession of or dealing in drugs in terms of the
Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992.
The elements of this offence consist of the unlawful and intentional
(1) possession or use of or dealing in
(2) any dependence-producing substance or any dangerous dependence-producing
substance or in any undesirable dependence-producing substance.
X gave the women drugs in order to control them; therefore, he had drugs in his
possession for their use as described in the Act.
18

CRW2602/102
(c) SG 7.5.
X can be charged with kidnapping in respect of the women that he locked up.
Kidnapping is the unlawful and intentional depriving of a person of his or her freedom of
movement, and if such a person is a child, the custodians of their control over the child.
The crime of kidnapping can be committed even though there is no physical removal, for
instance where the women are concealed or imprisoned where they happen to be. Also,
X's motive in depriving Y or the women of their freedom of movement need not necessarily
be to demand a ransom for their release. He may kidnap them for his own use.
(d) SG 3.3.
Yes, X can be convicted of extortion, as he takes photos of the naked women in
compromising positions by exercising pressure through threats to send the photos to their
families if they try to leave.
Extortion is the unlawful and intentional acquisition of a benefit from some other person
by applying pressure to that person, which induces him or her to part with the benefit.
X must acquire the benefit by bringing pressure to bear on Y, and Y must give way under
the pressure (causal link).
In terms of section 1 of the General Law Amendment Act 139 of 1992, any advantage can
be extorted, not necessarily a patrimonial benefit.
(e) SG 10.1.
Yes, X can be convicted of fraud.
Fraud is the unlawful and intentional making of a misrepresentation that causes actual
prejudice or is potentially prejudicial.
There must be a deception by means of a falsehood.
X represented to Y that he had job opportunities for young girls as baby-sitters, whereas
he wanted to kidnap Y for use in his brothel or to traffic her. This is a misrepresentation,
which could have caused actual prejudice. Fortunately, however, Y was able to escape
from X.
(f) SG 3.2.4.
Yes, X may be convicted of the general crime of corruption in terms of section 3 of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004, as the giver of a
gratification.
The basic elements of the offence are the following:
the unlawful and intentional giving by X to Z (the requirement of an act) of gratification
in order to induce Z to act in a certain manner (the element of inducement)
that amounts to the illegal exercise of Z’s duties.
19

Question 3
(a)(i) (Note that this question no longer forms part of CRW2602.)
This statement is incorrect.
A putative crime is a crime that does not actually exist (because there is no provision
stating that that particular type of conduct constitutes a crime), but which X thinks does
exist. In a putative crime, X is not mistaken about the relevant material facts, but about the
contents of the relevant legal provisions or law.
(ii) SG 2.4.9.2.
This statement is correct.
The crime is committed by publishing information while the matter is still being considered
by the court and because this information did not form part of the evidence in court. In
order to avoid a so-called trial by newspaper, the judge, assessors or magistrate should
not be influenced by information or commentary emanating from sources outside the court.
(iii) SG 6.2.3.
This statement is incorrect.
The firearm does not have to be loaded; also, the firearm must be pointed at somebody
else without a good reason to do so.
(iv) SG 7.2.4.
A violation of reputation always involves three parties, namely the person who makes the
defamatory statement; the complainant (Y), that is, the person about whom the defamatory
statement is made; and the so-called third party (one or more other people) to whose
knowledge the defamatory statement must come.
(v) See “Summary”, study unit 9, point 8.
Since persons who are accessories after the fact to theft are usually regarded as thieves
(i.e. perpetrators of theft), the crime of receiving overlaps with the crime of theft. Theft is a
continuing crime.
(b) SG 8.6.4.3.
To have had an intention to appropriate Y’s drill, X must have had an intention to
exercise the rights of an owner in respect of Y’s property (positive component of
appropriation)
and
20

STUDY UNIT 1 Crimes against the state
Crimes divided into broad categories according to the object which is protected by the legal norm
reflected in the definition of the crime.
Specific crimes four broad categories - crimes against the state and the administration of justice, crimes
against the community, crimes against the person and crimes against property
1.1 CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE

▪ NB common law crimes - high treason and sedition (troublemaking)
▪ NB statutory - terrorism in terms of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and
Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 – into operation 2005
▪ Terrorism & public violence - two offences occurring fairly regularly in practice
1.2 TERRORISM
Definition
• The Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 -
broad definition of “terrorist activities”
• Main “terrorist activities” prohibited in section 1:
(a) Any act committed in/outside the Republic which
(i) involves the use of violence by any means/method
(ii) involves the release into the environment of/distributing/exposing public to any
dangerous/harmful substance/organism; any toxic chemical/microbial/other biological agent/toxin;
(iii) endangers the life/violates the physical integrity of any person/causes serious bodily
injury/the death of any person/a number of persons;
(iv) causes serious risk to the health/safety of the public/any segment of the public;
(v) causes the destruction/substantial damage to any property, natural resource/the
environmental heritage whether private/public
(vi) is designed/calculated to cause serious interference with/serious disruption of an essential
service, facility/system, including an electronic system; telecommunication system; banking/financial
service/financial system; an essential infrastructure facility/any essential emergency services, such as
police, medical/civil defence services;
(vii) causes any major economic loss/extensive destabilisation of an economic system of a country;
or
(viii) creates a serious public emergency situation/a general insurrection in the Republic.
• Provided that the harm contemplated in (i) to (vii) above suffered in/outside the Republic & “activity”
referred to in par (ii)–(viii) can be committed by any means or method
• Above acts performed with defined culpability
• Culpability accompanying any abovementioned acts is:
(a) An act which is intended/by its nature & context, can reasonably be regarded as being intended,
directly or indirectly, to
(i) threaten unity and territorial integrity of Republic;
(ii) intimidate/cause feelings of insecurity within public/segment of public with regard to security,
incl. economic security/to cause feelings of terror, fear/panic in a civilian population; or
(iii) unduly compel, intimidate, force, coerce, induce /cause a person, a government,
public/segment of public/domestic/international organization/intergovernmental organisation to
do/to abstain/refrain from doing any act/to adopt/abandon a particular standpoint/to act in
accordance with certain principles.
• Irrelevant whether public/person, government, body/organization/institution in (ii) & (iii) –
inside/outside the Republic
• Further required:

(b) Act to be committed, directly/indirectly, in whole/in part, for the purpose of the advancement of an
individual/collective political, religious, ideological / philosophical motive, objective,
cause/undertaking.
Note: Not memorise above definition - read carefully & able to identify set of facts in
assignment/examination amounting to act of terrorism
1.2.3 ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE
(1) An act
(2) Unlawfulness
(3) A specific intention
1.2.4 OBJECT/INTEREST PROTECED

• Interests protected - safety & security of Republic, its institutions & people.
1.2.5 THE ACT

Conduct prohibited comprises:
use of violence;
release of toxic/harmful substances;
conduct that endangers life/physical integrity of any person;
causing serious risk to health & safety of public;
causing damage to property;
an act calculated to cause serious interference with services;
causing destabilisation of economy & creation of public emergency/insurgency(riot)
1.2.6 UNLAWFULNESS
▪ Act performed under compulsion - justify performance.
▪ Provided in Act - act part of protest, dissent (rebellion)/industrial action - not intend harm contemplated
in par (a)(i)–(iv) of definition - excluded from prohibition.
▪ In accordance with right to freedom of speech & right to strike (ss 10 and 23(2)(c) of Constitution).
1.2.7 INTENTION
▪ Specific intention required for the crime
▪ The intention has two components.
▪ Required that the act performed with intention or
▪ Act by nature & context reasonably regarded as being intended - directly/indirectly to –
FIRST COMPONENT
• threaten unity and territorial integrity of Republic;
• intimidate/cause feelings of insecurity within public/segment of public with regard to its security
including economic security/cause feelings of terror, fear/panic in a civilian population; or
• unduly compel, intimidate, force, coerce, induce/cause a person, a government, the public/segment of
public/domestic/international organization/intergovernmental organisation to do/to abstain/refrain
from doing any act/adopt/abandon particular standpoint/act in accordance with certain principles;
and
SECOND COMPONENT
Act be committed – directly/indirectly, in whole/in part, for the purpose of the advancement of an
individual/collective political, religious, ideological/philosophical motive, objective, cause/
undertaking.
Dolus eventualis - sufficient form of intention
“can reasonably be regarded as being intended” - import objective test - determine intention submitted
these words refer to recognised practice of courts drawing inference of subjective intention from
perpetrator’s outward conduct at time of commission of act & circumstances surrounding it - cases
where no direct evidence of intention.
Other offences created in the Act:

• Harbouring & concealment of person committing acts of terrorism (s 11)

• Failure to report presence of persons suspected of intending to commit/having committed an offence (s
12)
• Offences relating to “hoaxes”(jokes/pranks) (s 13)
1.3 PUBLIC VIOLENCE

1.3.1 DEFINITION
Public violence is the unlawful and intentional performance of an act, or acts, by a number of persons
which assumes serious proportions and is intended to disturb the public peace and order by violent
means, or to infringe the rights of another.
1.3.2 ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

(1) an act
(2) performed by a number of persons
(3) which assumes serious proportions
(4) which is unlawful, and
(5) intentional - more specifically includes an intention (i) to disturb public peace & order by violent means,
or (ii) infringe the rights of another
1.3.3 THE OBJECT/INTEREST PROTECTED

The interest protected in case of public violence - public peace and order (Salie 1938).
Measure of overlapping may occur between this interest & interests protected by other crimes
against the state
separation not always possible:
crime commited by number of people also impair/challenges auth of state – treason commited
if
acts accompanied by hostile intent as in high treason – high treason commited
Section 17 of Constition: everyone “ has the right, peacefully & unarmed, to assemble,
demonstrate, picket & presentpetitions” – demonstration not peacefully as in S17 – guilty of
public violence
Public violence overlap with assault, malicious injury to property, arson & robbery – atleast 1 of
these commited in commission of public violence – due to dangerious dimensions X charged not
with 1 of these crimes but public violence
1.3.4 JOINT ACTION

Not committed by individual acting alone - public peace & order disturbed by number of
persons acting in concert.
Impossible to specify number of persons required - depend on circumstances of the case, taking
into account factors such as seriousness of threat to peace and order.
Terblanche 1938 - 5 persons considered sufficient
Other cases - was not serious as a result of limited scope & duration - 6, 8 and 10 persons
considered insufficient for the commission of the crime (Mcunu, Salie supra, Nxumalo
respectively).
Participants in disturbance of peace must act in concert - with a common purpose (Wilkens;
Ndaba; Kashion; S v Whitehead).
Established X knowingly participated - prosecution need not prove precisely what acts were
committed by which of the participants – application of doctorine of common purpose applies
(Wilkens supra; Lekoatla; Mashotonga).
S v Le Roux - Supreme Court of Appeal - in absence of proof of prior agreement/plan to commit
transgressions - state must prove active association with the acts of public violence of each
individual accused - proof of presence at scene of the crime not sufficient.
Committed in public place & on private property (Cele; Segopotsi).
Participants need not be armed.

Act accompanied by violence/threat of violence (Wilkens supra; Cele supra).

Committed even if no actual disturbance of public peace & order/no actual infringement of
rights of another.
Sufficient if action aimed at disturbance of peace/infringement of the rights of another
(Mvelase; Segopotsi supra).
No premeditation/ preconceived plan required
Common purpose evolve spontaneously/tacitly (wordlessly)
1.3.5 EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT (Behaviour amounting to public violence)

• faction fights (Ngubane); Xybele)
• joint resistance to police action by a group of persons – if police acting lawfully (Samaai; Segopotsi
supra)
• rioting (Dingiswayo)
• violent coercion of other workers by a group of strikers (Cele supra)
• disrupting & taking over meeting by a gang (Claassens)
1.3.6 SERIOUS PROPORTIONS

Only committed if (in addition to the other requirements) the action of the group assumes
serious proportions. Reasons for the existence - safety of persons not involved in disturbance is
threatened - only be case if disturbance serious (Tshayitsheni) - requirement vague - essential to
distinguish public violence from rowdy behaviour & family feuds (no threat to public peace &
order)
Whether/not classified as serious depend on various factors/combination of them:
(1) the number of persons involved
(2) time
(3) place
(4) duration of disturbance
(5) cause of disturbance
(6) status of participants
(7) whether/not armed
(8) persons/property injured/damaged
(9) way disturbance is settled (if settled)
Decided in Mei 1982 - mere placing of stones in a road at a spot where a group of people
assemble - not amount to violence - therefore not public violence - fact that individual threw a
stone at a police vehicle - not sufficient to convict of public violence.
1.3.7 UNLAWFULNESS
Both actions of group of persons/crowd & actions of individual accused must be unlawful
Participation of individual may be justified on ground of compulsion (Samuel) - while behaviour
of group may be justified by private defence (Mathlala).
1.3.8 INTENT
Intent is form of culpability required.
Individual accused must been aware of nature & purpose of actions of the group - participation
in activities of the group must have been intentional (Aaron).
Common purpose of disturbing public peace & order must exist between members of group

STUDY UNIT 2
Crimes against the administration of justice
2.1 PERJURY AT COMMON LAW
2.1.1 DEFINITION
Perjury at common law consists in the unlawful, intentional making of a false declaration under oath (or
in a form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath) in the course of a legal proceeding.

(1) making of a declaration
(2) which is false
(3) under oath/in a form equivalent to an oath
(4) in the course of a legal proceeding
(5) in an unlawful and
(6) intentional manner
2.1.3 FALSE DECLARATION

Requirement:
(1) Must be objectively false.
English law - only subjective falsity is required - means crime committed even when someone speaks
the truth believing that he is telling a lie.
Our courts - never yet decided that the crime can be committed in this manner.
Section 101(1) of Criminal Procedure Act assumes an objectively false declaration is required.
(2) declaration may be oral/in writing (affidavit).
(3) falsehood made expressly/impliedly
impliedly - prosecution relies on an innuendo - Vallabh was decided that the words of a witness, “I have
already stated what I heard” - implied the witness heard nothing more.
Prosecution relies on an innuendo - implication that it relies on must be a necessary implication & must
be based on evidence led at the trial itself & not on extrajudicial declarations (Matakane).
2.1.4 UNDER OATH/IN FORM SUBSTITUTED FOR OATH

Must be under oath/in one of the forms allowed to be substituted for an oath - affirmation to
tell the truth/ warning by presiding official to witness to tell the truth.
Three ways in which, before commencing his evidence, a witness can undertake to speak the
truth:
(1) most common taking an oath (swearing) - will speak the truth (s162 of the Criminal Procedure Act).
(2) may declare that he solemnly confirms his evidence will be the truth (s163 of the Criminal Procedure
Act) - intended witness objects to taking the oath (religious grounds)/indicates he does not regard the
oath as binding on his conscience.
(3) Young children merely warned (“friendly little sermon” by magistrate/judge) to speak the truth (s164 of
the Criminal Procedure Act).
Witness who intentionally makes a false statement commits perjury even if his statement not under
oath -merely made after an affirmation (s163) - to speak the truth/after being warned (s164) to speak
the truth.
only a declaration under oath/its equivalent can form the basis of perjury - crime not committed in
course of argument to the court by a legal representative
Person who administers the oath/equivalent (eg magistrate) must have the authority to do so (McKay;
Hossain)

2.1.5 IN COURSE OF LEGAL PROCEEDING

crime only committed if false declaration is made in the course of a legal proceeding -
Extrajudicial, false sworn statements - also punishable - not as common law perjury (punishable
in terms of s 9 of Act 16 of 1963).
(extrajudicial statement - statement made outside the court concerning a matter has nothing to
do with the dispute decided in court.)
legal proceeding can be a criminal/civil case.
False sworn statements made before administrative tribunal - not crime - such a declaration at
a meeting of creditors in terms of the Insolvency Act cannot amount to perjury (Carse).
Beukman - decided perjury can be committed by making a declaration outside the court/before
a case has begun, provided that:
• declaration permissible as evidence at the subsequent trial
• maker of declaration foresees possibility that it may be used subsequently in a trial
According to this test - perjury can be committed by making a false affidavit for purposes of a
civil motion proceeding (mostly in writing) (Du Toit) - but not by making declaration in which a
false criminal charge is lodged/making extrajudicial sworn statements to police in the course of
their investigation into a crime (Beukman supra).
Beukman case - decided - extrajudicial statements made to police official not normally used in
subsequent trial as evidence & consequently not declarations made in the course of legal
proceeding.
fact that false declaration is made in the course of a case - judgment later set aside on appeal -
no defence.
position same warrant for the arrest of the accused was invalid (Vallabh).
2.1.6 UNLAWFULNESS
shortly after making false statement (in cross-examination) - witness acknowledges statement
was false & then tells the truth - no excuse (Baxter).
fact that false declaration was made by X in vain attempt to raise a defence - no excuse -
happens daily in our courts - practical reasons - not every accused whose evidence is rejected as
false is charged with perjury (Malianga).
2.1.7 INTENT
X must know/at least foresee possibility that his declaration is false – negligence/carelessness not
sufficient (Mokwena 1984).
2.2 STATUTORY PERJURY

Crime set out in section 319(3) of Act 56 of 1955.
• the contents of this section:
To overcome this & other difficulties (proving statement was made in course of legal
proceedings) a new statutory offence was created – often referred to as “statutory perjury”
Originally contained in section 131(3) of Act 31 of 1917 (old Criminal Procedure Act) – re-
enacted in section 319(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 56 of 1955
1977 act was replaced new Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 – section 319(3) not revoked &
replaced in new Act – therefore still applies
Section 319(3): “If a person has made any statement on oath whether orally/in writing & he
therefore on another oath makes another statement as aforesaid, which is in conflict with such
first-mentioned statement, he shall be guilty of an offence & may, on a charge alleging that he
made the two conflicting statements, and upon proof of those two statements and without
proof as to which of the said statements is false, be convicted of such offence & punished with
the penalties prescribed by law for the crime of perjury, unless it is proved that when he made
each statement he believed it to be true”

• reasons why the legislature created this crime

Often difficult to prove that a person had commited common-law perjury.
Result - many who ought to been punished for making false declarations under oath escaped
convictions of perjury
Fact that someone made 2 conflicting statements under 2 diff oaths did not mean that he had
committed perjury
Could only be convicted if state proved one of statements was false & that he knew it was false
(that he intended to lie) – difficult to prove
X might have changed his mind/could alledge as a defence
When investigating commission of a crime police take affidavit from those who can throw light
on the alleged commission of the crime
Embarrissing to prosecutor if person who made such affidavit subsequently gives evidence in
court & in course of evidence makes statement that are in conflict with the contents of his
previous affidavit to police
• what the State has to prove when prosecuting a person for contravention of this subsection
State need only proof
(a) X on 2 diff occasions made 2 statements under oath &
(b) that the statements conflict with each other
Regarding (a) :
Immaterial whether 1/both are in writing/oral
Does not matter whether either was made in course of legal proceedings
Section also contravened if 1/both of statements made after affirmation/declaration to speak
the truth
Section 2 of Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 provides – where word “oath” occurs in statute –
includes an affirmation/ declaration to speak the truth
2 statements contained in 2 diff oaths – conflicting statements under same oath – not
constitute the crime
Example: After adjournment witness resumes evidence he started to give before adjournment
& warned by judicial officer still under oath – not under another/different oath as contemplated
by the section
To prove witness made an extra-judicial statement under oath – state must prove the oath was
administered & the statement made in accordance with the provision of Justices of the Peace
and Commissioners of Oath Act 16 of 1963 and the regulations regarding the form of oath &
way in which it was administered, which are promulgated from time to time in terms of section
10(b) of ths Act
Person administering the oath must have necessary auth to do so
Regarding (b):
State need not prove which statement is false
Whether/not statements do conflict – most part q of fact
Ramdas – Appellate Division held – 2 statements must not be capable of reconciliation & they must be
mutually distructive
If 2nd statement consists in only a denial that first was made – not 2 conflicting statements
• difference between common-law perjury and this crime

(a) common-law perjury only 1 statement
- statutory perjury there are 2 statements
(b) common-law perjury can be committed in course of legal proceedings only
– statutory perjury neither of the statements need to be made in course of judicial proceedings
(normally atleast 1 of them are)

2.3 DEFEATING OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

NB crime often committed in South Africa - must study discussion on own.
ELEMENTS
(1) any act which
(2) defeats/obstructs the course of justice
• the different names given to this crime

Developed from Roman lex Cornelia de falsis – today cover wider field than original lex
Designation not always consistant in practice and described as:
“defeating” the course of justice
“obstructing” the course of justice
“defeating AND obstructing” the course of justice
“defeating OR obstructing” the course of justice
Depends on nature of conduct of X is allegded to have committed
Afrikaans expression – “dwarsboming van die gereg” sometimes used as description same
meaning as “defeating the course of justice”
Expression “stremming van die geregspleging” same meaning as “obstructing the course of
justice”
Reference to ends of justice in description of crime to be avoided – unduly restricts the scope of
the crime – crime can be committed even though justice does triumph in the end
• the difference between “defeating” and “obstructing” (the course of justice)

“defeating” and “obstructing” – latter means something less than former
X found guilty on charge of defeating the ends of justice only if proved that justice has in fact
been defeated
Case when innocent person convicted/a guilty person discharged/civil case order been made
which whould not have been made if wrongful conduct had not taken place
Difficult to prove course of justice been defeated – customary to charge conduct falling within
ambit of this crime as defeating/obstructing the course of justice (attempting to do so)
Charges of “defeating or obstructing the course of justice” /”attempting to defeat or obstruct
the course of justice” – not necessary that ultimate verdict should be one of defeating
only/obstructing only/attempting only – one of a single offence – not one involving two distinct
alternative offences
Course of justice obstructed many ways – trial delayed/postponed OR police/prosecution aut
made to waste time & energy investigating wrong charge/wrong person
• the various and interesting ways in which this crime can be committed
unlawfully inducing (attempt to induce) witness to give false evidence in court
to refuse to give evidence
give false information to police
abscond (as to not give evidence in court)
soliciting a complainant by unlawful means to withdraw a charge
soliciting prosecutor by unlawful means not to prosecute
improperly influencing party to civil case
improperly seeking to influence judiciary by exhorting them not to give credence to certain type
of evidence contrary to their duties & unlawfully releasing a prisoner
also committed – prospective witness demands money as quid pro quo for absconding (not
absconding)/giving false/true evidence
person tampers with documents/exhibits in a case to prevent true evidence placed before court
misleads police to prevent detection of crime that might otherwise be revealed

fabrication of false evidence

Committed by positive act/omission
False denial of liability by suspect when questioned by police – not attempting to
defeat/obstruct the course of justice
Naidoo – flashing lights to warn motorist of presence of speed trap – interferes with due
administration of justice – commits & attempt to defeat course of justice HOWEVER
In Perera – facts materially same – person committing this act – guilty only if has reason to
believe vehicle approaching him is exceeding the speed limit/driver of vehicle has intention to
exceed speed limit
Latter should be followed – in effect nothing more that warning to others to obey the law
Laying false criminal charge agains another – constitute the crime
Lying to police may amount to obstruction of administrative justice – not committed by mere
refusal to answ questions put by police/refuse to co-operate with police obtaining evidence
against oneself/another – most cases no legal duty on individual to assist police
• the rule that the crime may be committed even though there is no pending case
Not requirement for the crime that conduct allegedly constituting it should have been
committed in relation to a specific pending case.
Not even necessary that court case be envisaged by the police/private litigant at time X’s
conduct
Sufficient that X subjectively foresees possibility that his conduct may in ordinary course of
events lead to the case being prosecuted/at least being investigated by police
Must be possibility of real court case – civil/criminal ensuing – crime is not committed if X
merely plays fool with police by telling them crime has been committed
Whereas X knows that no crime has been committed
Driver of vehicle involved in collision goes to police shortly after accident & falsely informs then
car has been stolen to allay suspicion of himself – commits crime of attempting to
defeat/obstruct the course of justice
must be possibility of real court case ensuing – example - X makes a false complaint at a police
station accusing Y of having committed an offence - possibility that Y may be charged with the
alleged offence and X has therefore committed the crime.
• The meaning of the concept “course or administration of justice”.

Bazzard – held that course/administration of justice which must be obstructed in order to
constitute the crime refers to a process which is destined to eventuate in a court case between
parties/between the state & its subjects
The mere wasting of time & energy of certain officials i.e. police/personnel of Director of Public
Prosecutions’ office – not constitute obstructing the course of justice
In Bazzard – X phoned police & told – kidnapped a girl & was planning to kill unless ransom paid
to him. As result – police launched search & traced X – admitted he had not kidnapped anyone
– had not falsely accused anybody of having commited a crime & had not put in motion any
legal process – tried only to play the fool with police by reporting a non-existing/fictitious crime
– court found not committed the crime – X in this case committed of fraud
Bazzard case must be distinguished from factual situation – X involved in crash with his car
caused by own negligence (collided into stationary car – no passengers) – in attempt to escape
consequences of deed – goed to police & falsely claims car stolen (such false allegations implies
another person caused accident) – such situation actual crash with damage caused – inevitable
come to notice of police & real court case between two parties/between state & possible
accuse destined to ensue – conduct does amount to commission of the crime (Bazzard – no real
court case involving charge of kidnapping destined to ensue – no actual kidnapping in fact taken
place)
Interest protected is due administration of justice by superior/inferior courts in civil/criminal
judicial proceedings
Crime cannot be committed in respect of administrative proceedings

requirement refers to a process which is destined to end in a court case between

parties/between the state and its subjects.
Make sure that you know the facts and the judgment in Bazzard 1992 (1) SACR 303 (NC),
The court held that X’s conduct in making a false report to the police to the effect that he had
kidnapped another person was not punishable as obstruction of justice because it amounted to
mere wasting of the time of police officers and therefore did not interfere with the “course or
administration of justice”. The facts in Bazzard must be distinguished from a factual situation
such as the following: X, who was intoxicated while driving a motor car, collided with a child
who was playing in the street. He drove away without having reported the incident to the
police. Instead, he went to the police station and reported that his car had been stolen. The
police investigated the matter and found out the truth. X can be convicted of the crime of
obstruction of justice because the hit-and-run incident could have led to an actual court case (X
could be charged with an offence for failing to report the accident).
• the intention requirement

X must subjectively foreseen possibility conduct might defeat/obstruct administrative justice
Aware of fact that might thwart/interfere with judicial proceedings were to take place in
future/hamper/forestall investigation of an offence
X’s conduct consists in interfering with witnesses – must be aware of fact – person approaching
& influencing is in fact prospective witness
Conduct consist of fabricating evidence, laying false charge/telling falsehoods to witnesses with
view to influence them – must know (foresee possibility) that allegations he is propounding are
in fact false
• person can be charged with attempt to commit this crime - charges of attempt are in fact more common
than charges of having committed the completed crime
2.4 CONTEMPT OF COURT

2.4.1 DEFINITION

(a) violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body or a judicial officer in his judicial capacity,
or
(b) the publication of information or comment concerning a pending judicial proceeding, which has the
tendency to influence the outcome of the proceeding or to interfere with the administration of justice in that
proceeding
Contempt of court
One of unusual characteristics of this crime - can be subdivided into several “subcrimes”, each
with requirements of its own.
Distinction drawn between contempt in facie curiae (committed in court) & contempt ex facie
curiae (committed outside court).
One of many ways which contempt of court committed is by scandalising the court.
Remarks amounting to fair comment on administration of justice/outcome of a case - not
unlawful & not constitute contempt of court.
Contempt of court in facie curiae - X behaves in such a way in court as to violate the
dignity/authority of the judge/magistrate - example singing loudly in court – judge/magistrate
summarily convict and punish X.
Commentary on pending cases constitutes contempt of court - if calculated to influence
outcome of case.
General rule - culpability in form of intention required for conviction of contempt of court -
following exception to this rule: newspaper editor charged with contempt of court in that his
newspaper published commentary/information relating to case which is pending - not
necessary to prove intention on his part; culpability in the form of negligence


(1) (a)violation of the dignity etcetera of judicial body / judicial officer, or
(b)publication of information/commentary concerning a pending judicial proceeding, etcetera
2.4.3 UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS

Manifests the following unusual characteristics:
(1) Acts by which crime is committed divided into various groups - some have very distinctive requirements
• eg requirement that case must be sub iudice (ie, the legal process has not yet been
completed) in the case of the publication of information - potentially prejudicial to the just
trial of a case). crime therefore be subdivided to a certain extent into a no. of “subcrimes” -
each has certain distinctive requirements
(2) As rule some cases of contempt of court - not treated as criminal cases but civil cases in the civil courts.
Cases where non-compliance with court order in civil cases & litigant in whose favour court has made
order seeks to implement it by requesting the court to punish defaulting party for contempt of court if
order not complied with
Been settled – so called cases of “civil-contemp” also constitutes as crime of contempt of court
Therefore has been held that these cases can also come before the courts as criminal cases at the same
time if Director of Public Prosecutions chooses to bring case before a criminal court.
(3) Some cases of contempt of court heard according to an unusually drastic procedure which
judge/magistrtate may convict & punish somebody for contempt of court committed inside the court in
the presence of the judge/magistrate (contempt in facie curiae)
2.4.4 REASONS FOR EXISTENCE OF THE CRIME

Difference between attack on dignity of judicial officer person capacity & attack on judicial
officer on his dignity/reputation in official capacity
Latter conduct public injury & not just private injury can amount to comtempt of court
Contempt of court - punished not to protect dignity of individual judicial officer but to protect
administration of justice.
Violation of dignity and repute of judicial officer undermines respect of the public for the court
& the administration of justice – consequently - whole legal order suffer (Tromp; Van Niekerk).
Court must come to proper dicision without improper/extraneous influences
Case of contempt committed by publication of information/comments on pending case reason
for crime is - court should come to decision only on grounds of permissible evidence before it
&ought not be influenced by disclosure of facts/comments from outside such as in press.
2.4.5 ACTS
A distinction between contempt in facie curiae and contempt ex facie curiae.
Contempt of Court
In facie curiae Ex facie curiae
Referring to Pending Not referring to Pending

case case
Commentory on pending case Scandalising the court
Interference with witnesses/court Failure to comply with order of court

Failing to appear in court Obstructing court officials

Simulating court processes
In facie curiae literally “in the face of the court” - contempt in this form - contempt in presence of
judicial
officer during a session of court.
Ex facie curiae occurs through actions/remarks out of court - take variety forms - candalising the court
by publication of allegations - objectively speaking - likely to bring judges/magistrates/administration of
justice through the courts generally into contempt/unjustly to cast suspicion on administration of justice
(S v Mamabolo)
• person falsely pretends to be officer of court - advocate, attorney/deputy sheriff (Incorporated Law
Society v Wessels)
• someone intentionally obstructs officer of court - a messenger of court in execution of his duties (Phelan
1877 Kotze 5)
• someone bribes/attempts to bribe,a judicial officer, legal representative/witness (Attorney-General v
Crockett)
• witness been summoned & deliberately fails to appear at trial (Keyser)
Constitutionality of punishing contemp in facie curiae:

Lavhengwa – define need in both Supreme & Magistrate Courts for power to punish contemptuous
conduct summarily – prevent flow of court proceedings to be undermined
Where magistrate is both witness, prosecutor & judge – court held that magistrates power to act
summarily against illegal offender in facie curiae does violate X’s right to equal protection & benefit of the
law but that this violation is reasonable & justifiable in an open & democratic society in terms of limitation
clause of Constitution
Court also held summary procedure – not violation of X’s right to be informed of the charge with sufficient
detail to answ it – in practice X usually knows what his alledged misconduct is & because of limitation
clause may be applicable in this respect
Summary procedure not infringe X’s right – presumed innocent & remain silent – no onus placed on X &
limitation clause apply to any possible infringement
Summary procedure not necessarily violates X’s right to service of legal practitioner – depends on
circumstances of each case whether practical & affordable for state to afford X service of such practitioner
Lavhengwa case followed in later cases
Publication of information regarding pending case

Ex facie curiae
Divided into 2 groups: acts which refer to pending cases & those who do not refer to pending cases
NB way contempt of court ex facie curiae referring to pending cases is committed by publication of
information /comment about pending cases:
• committed if person publishes by writing/spoken word, information/comment about case
still pending (sub iudice) – test applied previously was wide – test whether words published
tended to prejudice outcome of case. Immatterial if statement complained of had reached
ears of tribunal & if tribunal had in fact believed/been influenced by it
• Criticised & Midi Television Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions – Supreme Court of Appeal
– wide test to determine prejudice to the judiciary was unconstitutional – especially
incompatible with constitutional right to free speech
Court according introduced new, narrower test to determine prejudice – according to court
words of commentary amount to contempt only of demonstrable relationship between
publication of words & prejudice for administration of justice – must be real risk of substantial
prejudice if publication takes place - narrower test welcomed more fair that previous wide
test

• Existence of form of contempt of court not incompatible with provision of section16(1) of

Constitution – right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press & other media,
right to receive/impart information
Although rule infringe on right created in S16(1) – infringement reasonable & justifiable in
open & democratic society as provided in limitation clause S36(1) of Constitution
“Fair trial” presuppose trial in which court decides on issues before it on basis of evidence
placed before it & not on basis of statements/opinions in media
Before case has finally disposed of by courts the media ought not have right to publish
information on the case which would have real influence on outcome but not produced as
evidence to court hearing the case
“Trial by newspaper” is & remain real danger to fair & impartial disposal of an issue in judicial
process
Present type of conduct not punishable – newspaper free to “convict” accused where court
may find him not guilty
Perception raised that court’s findings wrong whereas in reality correct
• If assumes judge/magistrate capable of leaving out of consideration info published in press
& in fact does so – still consideration that “justice must not only be done, but must manifestly
be seen to be done”
Parties to case & outsiders – be satisfied court’s conclusions based on info laid before court
in admissible way only & not upon info/comments concerning merits of issue published in
media
Once media allowed to publish info & comment on pending case – will always remain
suspicion in mind of public & party to case that court in coming to conclusion influenced by
outside factors
Interference with witnesses/presiding officers

X commits contemp of court if improperly influences/ attempts to influence a judge, magistrate,
assessor, party to case,complainant/ accused, witness, interpreter/ legal representative in a case
in decision he has to make in case, the evidence has to give/ generally way has to conduct himself
during trial
Act may take form of intimidating person concerned, bribing/ attempt to bribe, privately
communicating / attempting to communicate with a judge/ magistrate with intention of
influencing him to act in certain way/come to certain conclusion
Peacefully demonstrating outside courtrm in support of certain conclusion in court case being
concluded inside court – nowadays in terms of constitution 1994 not contempt of court –
legitimate expression of freedom of speech
Failure to appear in Court

Common law – commits contempt of court if summoned to attend trial as witness/accused
intentionally fails to appear
More customary to punish such conduct as contraventions of specific statutory provisions
Obstructing court officials

Person who intentionally interfere with/hinder court officials – sheriffs/messengers of court in
execution of duties – commit contempt of court – such act violate dignity & authority of the court
Customary to punish conduct as contravention of specific statutory provisins
Simulating court processes

Contempt of court to send letter to debtor, for purpose of obtaining payment of debt, document
which is not a legal document emanating from a court of law but which is calculated to mislead
the debtor into thinking it is
Similarly contempt person to hold himself to be officer of court – attorney, advocate/sheriff – not
in fact such officer

2.4.6 UNLAWFULNESS
(1) Statements by members of certain bodies - Legislative Assembly, when present in the Assembly -
privileged & cannot amount to contempt
(2) NB rule that fair comment on outcome of case/administration of justice - not constitute contempt of
court. Public debate on the administration of justice - not only permissible but also desirable in
Community such as ours - to ensure that the law & administration of justice enjoy the respect of the
population.
The famous words of Lord Atkin in Armbard v A-G of Trinidad quoted with approval by our own courts
(Van Niekerk): “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and
respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”
Example - nothing wrong with newspaper complaining that certain sentences too light/heavy, provided
that comments are made bona fide, in reasonable terms & in the interests of the proper administration
of justice.
2.4.7 INTENT
General - intention - essential element of the crime (Van Niekerk supra),
Except cases - editor of newspaper charged with this crime on ground of publication in his
newspaper of information concerning pending case - tends to influence outcome of case -
Culpability in form of negligence - sufficient to establish contempt of court in such
circumstances
Remarks in newspaper article - be read in context to establish presence of intent (Metcalf).
To request judicial officer, bona fide & in courteous language to withdraw from case - on
account of personal knowledge of the event (Luyt) – does not constitute contempt. X’s
apparently offensive action attributable to forgetfulness, ignorance, absent-
mindedness/negligence, intent is lacking (De Bruyn; Nene).
2.4.8 ADMINISTARION OF JUSTICE BY COURTS - AOJ

The language complained of - directed at judicial officer in his judicial capacity/administration
of justice by the courts.
Criticism of performance of administrative function - actions of the police/criticism of alleged
unreasonableness in Acts of parliament - not contempt of court (Sacks; Dhlamini).
In Nyikala - X said to a magistrate: “Because I am a native, I am always considered guilty.”-
closer investigation his words referred to the methods of the police - found not guilty of
contempt.
Encouraging public to sign a petition for reprieve of person already been sentenced - not
contempt (Van Staden). In Tromp, Court declared mere criticism of prosecution in criminal case
- not contempt of court either.
Contempt of court only committed only if conduct/words infringe upon AOJ in or by the courts
Not committed if conduct/words aimed at executive branch of government/its servants unless
criticism at same time imports disrespect of the courts
Not contempt to criticize person/body for performance of purely administrative function – X’s
scornful words found to be in fact aimed at the police
2.4.9 SOME FORMS OF THE CRIME

1. CONTEMPT in facie curiae - “in the open court”
2. COMMENTARY ON PENDING CASES
3. SCANDALISING THE COURT
4. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
2.4.9.1 CONTEMPT in facie curiae - “in the open court”

• shouting at witnesses during cross-examination (Benson)
• legal representative’s conducting a case under influence of alcohol (Duffey v Munnik)
• continual changing of one’s seat & talking loudly in court (Lekwati)

• grabbing & tearing court document to pieces (Mongwe)

Other hand - in Nyalanbisa - Court held merely falling asleep in court not necessarily amount to
contempt in facie curiae - amounts to “a trivial breach of court etiquette”.
Must be intent to violate dignity of the court (Zungo).
Khupelo – example - X loudly sang religious song while she was leaving courtroom after conclusion
of her trial - conviction for contempt of court - set aside on review - appeared she behaved in such a
way merely out of joy - been acquitted not to insult the magistrate/court.
Cases of contempt in facie curiae - court has power to convict wrongdoer summarily & sentence
him.
This power is undoubtedly necessary to place court in position to maintain its dignity - our courts
frequently stressed that this drastic procedure must be applied with great circumspection
(Ashworth; Ngcemu).
Judicial officer in these cases is complainant, witness & judge at same time - accused normally
undefended & trial usually takes place in emotionally charged atmosphere.
Contempt of lesser nature best be ignored (Mngomezulu) - request to wrongdoer to offer apologies
to the court followed by such an apology - often maintain the dignity of the court without person
being sentenced for contempt (Tobias).
Lavhenga - Court held punishing accused for contempt of court in facie curiae not unconstitutional -
the rules relating to form of the crime infringe upon certain rights of accused (right to a fair trial &
right to legal representation) such infringement according to the Court is justified.
2.4.9.2 COMMENTARY ON PENDING CASES

a) Discussion of this form of the crime
Committed by publishing information/commentary calculated to influence outcome of a case
still sub iudice (the matter is still under consideration by the court).
Press fully entitled to publish evidence delivered in course of trial (or portions thereof) - may
not, while case still in progress publish information relating to the merits of case which did not
form part of evidence in court.
Journalist may not publish information/opinions concerning the case he heard outside the court
during adjournment of court for tea.
Neither may he give own opinion regarding the guilt nor otherwise of accused/draw own
inferences from evidence before case concluded.
Underlying reason for prohibiting the publication of such information - avoid so-called “trial by
newspaper”.
The judge, assessors/magistrate not be influenced by information/commentary emanating from
sources outside court.
Case is sub iudice from moment it commences (issue of summons/an arrest) until reached final
conclusion in judicial process & includes last possible appeal.
Test for ascertaining whether publication calculated to influence outcome of a case is extremely
wide.
Does not matter whether/not publication has ever reached ears of the court /if indeed it has –
whether/not the court believes facts contained in publication/allowed itself to be influenced by
them.
Does not have to be probable that the words may influence the court (In re Norrie v Consanie,
Van Niekerk
b Liability of a newspaper editor

AOJ may not be prejudiced/interfered with/else the crime of contempt of court (COC) is
committed.
Publication unlawful if real risk that prejudice will occur if publication takes place & substantial
prejudice caused.
Mere speculation is insufficient - Midi Television (Pty) Ltd t/a E-Tv v Director of Public
Prosecutions (Western Cape) - held “the exercise of press freedom has potential to cause
prejudice to AOJ in various ways”

Prejudice caused through conducting of trials through media, prejudging issues/application of

pressure on judicial officers/witnesses.
To be determined whether risk of prejudice is such that will interfere with AOJ
Court would have to evaluate & be satisfied that by limiting publication of information the
advantage would outweigh the disadvantage
“Extent of the limitation” imposed on right and the “purpose, importance and effect of the
intrusion” need to be weighed.
Some time - been uncertainty in our law whether intention required for a conviction where an
editor of newspaper been charged with COC on ground of having published information in his
newspaper concerning pending case - tends to influence the outcome of the case.
Harber - Appellate Division removed uncertainty by holding - not necessary to prove intention in
these cases – since - culpability may consist of either intention/negligence.
Editor negligent if reasonable person in his position could foresee the information which he
publishes might deal with a pending case/might scandalise the court.
Rule that negligence may be sufficient form of culpability based on consideration - press
influences public opinion to such an extent, it correspondingly shoulders a heavier responsibility
than ordinary individual to control correctness of what it publishes.
Rule that proof of intention dispensed with & proof of negligence is sufficient - applies only if
editor/proprietor of a newspaper/magazine/company which owns it - charged with the crime.
Rule not apply where individual reporter charged in private capacity.
Culpable homicide & this form of COC - the only two exceptions to the rule that form of
culpability required for all common law crimes = intention - In the case of two exceptions -
negligence is required
2.4.9.3 SCANDALISING THE COURT

Note: form of contempt can be committed without there being any pending case.
• Crime committed by publication – writing/orally - of allegations which objectively speaking are likely to
bring judges, magistrates/AOJ through the courts generally into contempt/unjustly cast suspicion on the
AOJ
• Whether AOJ was in actual fact brought into disrepute - irrelevant.
• All required – words/conduct have the tendency/likelihood to harm
Examples of this form of the crime are:
• imputing of corrupt/dishonest motives/conduct to a judge in execution of his judicial duties
• improper arousing of suspicion regarding integrity of such AOJ
In S v Moila - accused (X) made publications in press releases & letters to all & sundry over period of
more than a year, levelling accusations of bias, racism, incompetence, intimidation, collusion, lack of
integrity and impartiality against judges. He also called for recusal of entire Transvaal Provincial Division
of that time. Accused raised the defence that the publications were made in exercise of his right to
freedom of expression. Was charged with COC ex facie curiae in form of scandalising the court &
convicted of this offence. Court held that comments made were not fair & reasonable, not made bona
fide, not true & not in the public interest. Accused acted with malice & deliberately abused his right to
freedom of expression to savage character & integrity of the judges concerned, in their capacities as
judges. Court further held that publications were really likely to damage the administration of justice,
were unlawful & that X had acted with dolus eventualis - subjectively appreciated that he might cause
harm to the AOJ but continued to do so reckless as to whether/not such harm eventuated.
Scandaling the Court – WITHOUT pending cases
Committed by publication in writing/verbally of allegations objectively speaking likely to bring
judges, magistrates/administration of justice through courts generally into contempt/unjustly
cast suspicion on administration of justice (AOJ)
Whether AOJ in actual fact brought into disrepute irrelevant – all required – words/conduct have
tendency/ likelihood to harm
Does not matter if attack directed at particular judicial officer/AOJ through the courts generally
into contempt/unjustly to cast suspicion on AOJ

Whether AOJ in actual fact brought into disrepute irrelevant

All required that the words/conduct should have tendency/likelihood to harm
Does not matter whether attack directed at particular judicial officer/AOJ through courts
generally
To constitute contempt attack on individual judge need not be made in public
Also committed if judge slandered in judicial capacity in private communication to him (letter) –
even no 3rd party aware of communication
Anything spoken/written imputing corruption/dishonest motives/conduct to judge in discharge
of official duty/reflecting in improper/scandalous manner on AOJ falls within ambit of this form
of contempt
Been held - type of contempt also committed by exhorting judiciary to embark on a course of
action is in clear conflict with his duties - asking judiciary to refuse to give credit to certain class
of evidence irrespective of its intrinsic merits
Courts emphasise – every citizen & news medium (newspaper) – at liberty to discuss proceedings
in court/ general AOJ by courts freely & openly
Such discussions/debates – safeguards public’s respect for & confidence in courts
Criticism/ debate – must be conducted in fair & moderate manner & right to free discussion not
be abused – unbridled vituperative utterances vilifying judiciary/ridiculing tem
Honest & temperate expression of dissenting opinion regarding perennial topic of inequality of
sentences – not constitute contempt of court
Punishing scandalizing the court is constitutional – judgement in Mamabolo

In Mamabolo Constitutional Court held – punishment of scandalizing the court as form of
contempt is constitutional
Judgement in Mamabolo – judiciary has to have trust of public – cannot function properly
Therefore special safeguard to protect judiciary against vilification
What are protected – not private interest of members of court such as indiv feelings, self-esteem,
reputation/status – but public interest, public confidence in AOJ
Freedom to debate merits of judgements/affairs of judiciary in general – not mean attacks
(however scurrilous) can with impunity made on the judiciary
Clear line drawn between acceptable criticism of judiciary as institution & of its indiv members –
statements that are downright harmful to public interest by undermining legitimacy of judicial
process
Ultimate object of punishing form of contempt – courts must be able to attend to proper AOJ
while having confidence of public
In SA – right to freedom of expression – according to court – not unqualified right & 1 ranking
above others
Relying on S1 of Constitution – Court stated – right to freedom of expression cannot be said
automatically to trump right to human dignity
To decide if X in particular case committed the crime – question whether words/conduct
(objectively) likely to result in AOJ being brought into disrepute
Court added rider to finding – scandalizing court is constitutional – court should not be quick to
infer X’s words/conduct amounted to commission of the crime
Scope of conviction very narrow
Must be “clear case of impeachment of judicial integrity”; conduct must “really likely to damage
AOJ”
Criticism of judgement in Mamabolo

Main criticism – standing of & respect for judiciary should be based upon inherent merits of
performance of judiciary itself
Ordinary reasonable people not even deign to take seriously criticism that might be levelled at
judiciary

American Court – Bridges v California – “enforced silence however limited, solely in name of
preserving dignity of the Bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion & contempt
more than ot would enhance respect”
Definition of this crime vague & accordingly difficult to reconcile with ius certum provision of
principle of legality – “scurrilous abuse” & “scandalous” – emotionally charged
Contentious rule endorsed by court – for conviction not necessary to establish that AOJ was
actually brought into disrepute – all that is required – words/conduct objectively have tendency
to bring AOJ into disrepute
Disconcertingly wide & vague test open to misuse
Subjective opinion of people - certain words have tendency vary widely
2.4.9.4 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

Party to civil case against whom court has issued an order & deliberately fails to obey the court
order commits Contempt of Court
As a rule party not criminally prosecuted for contempt - left to his successful opponent - if
chooses to apply to the court to sentence party who fails to carry out the court order for
contempt.
Application usually only a method of enforcing the court order - if request successful - sentence
- as a rule suspended on condition that the court order is carried out (Knott v Tuck; Tromp v
Tromp)
Known as “civil contempt”
In practice procedure regularly followed by person who has been divorced & wants to force
other party to the divorce to comply with the order of court relating to payment of
maintenance.
In Beyers -Appellate Division decided in such cases - nothing preventing the attorney general
himself from charging & prosecuting the party who fails to carry out a court order - Court
decided - in “civil contempt”- still crime that is committed even though the case is heard by a
civil court - a sentence is always imposed & no sentence can be imposed if no crime is
committed.
If attorney general had not had power to interfere - meant that most far-reaching contempt of
court would remain unpunished if successful litigant decided for some reason/other not to
request enforcement of order.
Party to civil case against whom court has given an order & intentionally refuses to compy –
commits contempt – hardly ever charged as criminal offence by the state – left to party whose
favour order has been given to apply to court (if wishes) to convict defaulting party
Application merely way of enforcing court order – application successful - sentence
(imprisonment) – almost always suspended on condition that defaulting party comply with order
in manner prescribed by court
Usually refered to as “civil contempt” – usually dealt with by civil law only – nothing preventing
Director of Public Prosecutions from indicting for criminal contempt of court in such case if he
thinks circumstances merit public prosecution
GLOSSARY
in facie curiae in the court, or in the face of the court
ex facie curiae outside the court
sub iudice still under consideration by the court
SUMMARY
(1) In common law perjury - must be a false declaration - declaration must be objectively false -
declaration oral/in writing.
(2) In common law perjury, the declaration must be under oath, after an affirmation to tell the
truth, or (in the case of children) after a warning to tell the truth

(3) In common law perjury, the declaration must be made in the course of a legal proceeding
(4) Defeating or obstructing the course of justice
(5) Difference between defeating & obstructing the course of justice - last-mentioned is something
less than the first-mentioned.
(6) Acts constitute ways in which course of justice may be defeated/obstructed: persuading a
witness not to give evidence in a trial; misleading the police in order to prevent them from
catching a criminal; and laying a false criminal charge against someone.
(7) Requirement for crime that case must be pending - there must be the possibility of a real court
case ensuing, for example, where X makes a false complaint to the police to the effect that Y
has committed rape, there is the possibility that Y may be charged with rape and X has
therefore committed the crime of attempt to obstruct the course of justice.
(8) Bazzard 1992 court held that the mere wasting of the time of police officials does not amount
to the crime.
(9) Charges of attempt to defeat/obstruct the course of justice - more common than charges of
actual defeat or obstruction.

STUDY UNIT 3 CRIME AGAINST PUBLIC WELFARE
CORRUPTION
(Criminal Law 401–417)
3.2.1 General
Corruption erodes moral values, trust in the authorities & authoritative organs.
Leads to malfunctioning of public & private sectors of the community & provides breeding
ground for organised crime.
Corruption - previously common law offence known as “bribery”
From 1992 - corruption punished in terms of the provisions of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992
In 2004 Act replaced by the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004.
3.2.2 General and specific crimes of corruption

The current 2004 Act creates:
“general, broad & all-encompassing offence of corruption”
various crimes in which “specific corrupt activities” are criminalised
In writing this Act - legislature followed a style according to which large parts of the formulation
of the general offence have been repeated in the formulation of specific offences.
To make easier to apply relevant section to specific class of persons/specific issue - legislature
added certain provisions - great deal of repetition in Act
3.2.3 The general crime of corruption: definition in the Act – NOT TO MEMORIZE
S3 of the Act contains the formulation of the general offence of corruption.
The section provides as follows:
“Any person who directly or indirectly –
(a) Accepts/agrees/offers to accept any gratif cation from any other person, whether for the benefit of
himself/herself/for the benefit of another person; or
(b) Gives/agrees/offers to give to any other person any gratification, whether for the benefit of that other
person/for the benefit of another person,
in order to act, personally/by influencing another person so to act, in a manner
(i) that amounts to the –
(aa) illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, incomplete/biased; or
(bb) misuse/selling of information/material acquired in the course of the exercise, carrying out/
performance of any powers, duties/functions arising out of a constitutional, statutory, contractual/any
other legal obligation;
(ii) that amounts to –
(aa) the abuse of a position of authority;
(bb) the breach of trust; or
(cc) the violation of a legal duty/a set of rules;
(iii) designed to achieve an unjustified result; or
(iv) that amounts to any other unauthorized/improper inducement to do/not to do anything, is
guilty of the offence of corruption.”
3.2.4 Shortened definition of the general crime of corruption MUST KNOW THIS VERSION!!
Definition:
Anyone that
(a) accepts any gratification from any other person, or (recipient)
(b) gives any gratification to any other person, (giver)
in order to act in a manner that amounts to the illegal exercise of any duties, is guilty of the offence of
corruption.

3.2.5 Corruption by giver and corruption by recipient

2 main categories are corruption committed by the giver and corruption committed by the
recipient.
Corruption committed if 1 party gives gratification to another party & the other party accepts it
as inducement to act in a certain way.
Both parties – the giver and the recipient – commit corruption.
“corruption by a giver” = conduct of the giver & “corruption committed by a recipient” =
conduct of the party who accepted it.
“give” includes: the agreement by X to give gratification to Y/the offering by X to give
gratification to Y
“accept” includes: the agreement by Y to accept gratification/the offering by Y to accept it.
S3 general crime is defined
Principle - corruption committed by giver - mirror image of corruption committed by the
recipient
3.2.6 General crime of corruption: the crime committed by the recipient

3.2.6.1 Elements of the crime
(1) the acceptance by Y (the element of an act)
(2) of gratification
(3) in order to act in a certain way (the inducement)
(4) unlawfulness
(5) intention
3.2.6.2 The acceptance (element of an act)

“accept” - legislature employs two ways to broaden the meaning of “accept”:
Act provides in s 3(a) for certain conduct by Y which precedes the acceptance, namely
– to agree to accept a gratification or
– to offer to receive satisfies the element of an act.
Follows from provision - in this crime no distinction made between the stem crime (main crime) &
conspiracy/incitement to commit the main crime
• S 2(3)(a) – words/expressions “accept”, “agree to accept” & “offer to accept” as used in Act - following
broader meanings:
(1) to demand, ask for, seek, request, solicit, receive/obtain gratification
(2) to agree to perform the acts named under (1)
(3) to offer to perform the acts named under (1)
The following considerations afford Y no defence:

(1) Y not accept gratification “directly” but only “indirectly” (s 3) - not have to accept gratification
personally; fact made use of a middleman to accept gratification affords no defence.
(2) Y did not in actual fact later perform the act which X had induced him to perform (s 25(c)) - accepted
gratification but entire evil scheme been exposed & Y had been arrested by police before he could fulfil
his part of agreement with X, Y nevertheless guilty of the crime.
Crime has been completed even if Y has not yet done what he undertook to do, expressly/implicitly.
(3) Corrupt activity between X & Y was unsuccessful - consideration affords neither X/Y a defence.
(4) Purpose of liability - irrelevant that state/private enterprise concerned with transaction - not suffer
prejudice as a result of X’s/Y’s conduct.
(5) Y accepted gratification - did not have the power/right to do what X wished him to do affords neither
X/Y a defence (s 25(a)).
If X gives gratification to Y in the belief that Y will give him a driver’s licence - not entitled to do -Z rather
than Y empowered to make such decision - afford neither X/Y a defence.

3.2.6.3 The gratification

Definitions in section 1 - long definition for word “gratification” – NOT have to quote this long section.
BUT KNOW THE FOLLOWING!!! highlighted words/expressions - according to legislature also mean
“gratification”:
(1) money
(2) a gift
(3) a loan
(4) property
(5) the avoidance of a loss
(6) the avoidance of a penalty (fine)
(7) employment, a contract of employment/services
(8) any forbearance to demand any money
(9) any “favour/advantage of any description”
(10) any right/privilege
Evident “gratification” has broad meaning in terms of the Act - clear “gratification” not limited to
tangible/patrimonial benefits - wide enough to include information & even sexual favours (eg traffic
officer, Y, who has caught a woman, X, for traffic offence, agrees/offers not to prosecute X for offence if
he and X can engage in sexual intercourse with each other (W)
3.2.6.4 The element of inducement (“in order to act ... in a manner”)
a General
Y must accept gratification to act in certain manner - must accept gratification as an inducement to act
in a certain manner - must have a certain aim/motive in mind with the acceptance.
b The aims KNOW FOR EXAMS

(1) To act in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, incomplete/biased ... exercise
of any powers, duties/functions arising out of a legal obligation
(2) To act in a manner which amounts to the misuse/selling of information acquired in the course of the
exercise of any duties arising out of a legal obligation
(3) To act in a manner which amounts to the abuse of a position of authority, the violation of a legal
duty/a breach of trust
(4) To act in a manner designed to achieve an unjustified result (formulated so broadly – includes almost all
the aims)
(5) To act in a manner that amounts to any other improper inducement to do/not to do anything
c General principles of the aims

(1) Each instance expression “to act” appears - legislature provides explicitly that an “act” also includes an
omission (s 2(4)).
(2) Irrelevant whether Y plans to achieve aim personally/whether plans to achieve aim by influencing
another person to act in such a manner (see s 3 between (b) and (i)) - Y may make use of a middleman
to achieve aim.
(3) Aims apply in the alternative - sufficient for state to prove Y had only one of aims in mind when he
accepted gratification.
(4) Irrelevant Y accepted gratification for his own benefit/for the benefit of someone else (s 3(a) and (b)).
Fact Y receives money from X in a corrupt way with aim of using the money to provide for his sick child
affords him no defence.
(5) Fact Y did not in actual fact have the power to act in the manner in which he was induced to act affords
Y no defence (s 25(a)).
If Y receives money from X as inducement to give X particular licence, but appears that a person in a
higher position in the relevant state department/enterprise is actually empowered to decide who should
be issued with licences -Y still guilty of the crime.

3.2.6.5 Unlawfulness
Element of unlawfulness - not expressly provided for in definition of crime
Unlawfulness/requirement that act should be “unjustified” = requirement/element of all crimes.
General meaning - “unlawful” is “against the good morals/the legal convictions of society”- implies Y’s
conduct not covered by ground of justification
Examples of conduct which, ostensibly, fall within ambit of definitional elements of corruption - but
nevertheless not unlawful:
(1) Act which otherwise amount to corruption would not be unlawful if Y acted under compulsion.
(2) A person used as a police trap - not act unlawfully if agrees to receive gratification from another person
to trap person into committing corruption (Ernst; Ganie)
(3) Suggested - certain officials/employees – porters/waiters - not acting unlawfully when receive small
amounts of money from public as “tips” for services they performed satisfactorily - conduct is socially
adequate - not against good morals/legal convictions of the community.
(4) Same applies - receiving of gifts of reasonable proportion by employees -
marriage/retirement/completion of a “round number” (eg 20 years) of work.
(“golden handshake” may involve substantial amount of money depending on circumstances be
different case.)
3.2.6.6 Intention
Cannot be said that legislature intended to create strict liability
Form of culpability required for this crime - clear intention & not negligence required
Words/expressions used - requirement of intention: “accept”, “agree”, “offer”, “inducement”, “in
order to ...” and “designed”.
General principles - intention always includes certain knowledge -knowledge of nature of the act,
presence of definitional elements &unlawfulness.
Has knowledge of fact not only if convinced of existence - also foresees possibility of existence of the
fact - but is reckless towards it (not deterred by possibility of existence of the fact & goes ahead with
forbidden conduct regardless)
Intention present in form of dolus eventualis.
Act contains provision - expressly applies principle (dolus eventualis) to this crime:
S2(1) - for purposes of Act - person has knowledge of fact not just if has actual knowledge of a fact but
also if court satisfied the person believes there is reasonable possibility of existence of that fact &
person has failed to obtain information to confirm existence of that fact - provision is application of
general rule - intention in respect of a circumstance (opposed to consequence) also exist in form of
dolus eventualis; that “wilfulblindness” amounts to knowledge of a fact & accordingly intention.
These principles previously accepted in our case law. (Meyers, Bougarde)
Fact Y accepted gratification without intending to perform the act which he was induced to
perform, affords Y no defence (s 25(b)) – Y somebody who can decide to whom a tender should be
awarded, receives money from X as inducement to award the tender to X, the fact that Y received the
money without having intention to actually use his influence in X’s favour & accepted the money only to
enrich himself affords him no defence.
3.2.7 General crime of corruption: corruption by the giver

3.2.7.1 General
Corruption by recipient deals with acceptance by Y of gratification given by X
Corruption committed by giver deals with giving by X of gratification to Y
Corruption committed by giver only a mirror image of corruption committed by recipient
“accept” (describes Y’s conduct in corruption as recipient) & “give” (describes X’s conduct in corruption
by the giver) should be used.
Because corruption committed by giver is a mirror image of corruption committed by recipient - all
principles applicable to corruption committed by the recipient are, mutatis mutandis (by replacing word
“accept” with word “give” in each instance) applicable also to corruption committed by giver

3.2.7.2 Elements of the crime

(1) the giving by X to Y (the requirement of an act)
(2) of gratification
(3) in order to induce Y to act in a certain manner (the element of inducement)
(4) unlawfulness
(5) intention
3.2.7.3 The giving of gratification

The act consists of X giving gratification to Y.
“gives” - legislature uses two ways to broaden meaning of “give”:
(1) Act provides in s 3(b) - certain conduct by X preceding giving of gratification - merely agree to give
gratification/to offer to give it - satisfies requirement of an act.
(2) Act provides in s 3(b)- words “give/agree/offer to give gratification” - have following broader meanings:
• to promise, lend, grant, confer/procure gratification
• to offer to lend, grant, confer/procure gratification
Not requirement for offence committed by giver that X have succeeded with plan of action -
considerations such as the following afford X no defence:
• Y may given impression he would accept offer - actual fact had no intention of doing what X had asked
him to do (s 25(b))
• Y did not do what X requested him to do (s 25(c))
• Y did not have the power to do what he was requested to do (s 25(a))
• Y rejected X’s offer
• Y agreed, but subsequently changed his mind
• Y found it impossible to do what he had undertaken to do
3.2.7.4 The gratification

(11) money
(12) a gift
(13) a loan
(14) property
(15) the avoidance of a loss
(16) the avoidance of a penalty (fine)
(17) employment, a contract of employment/services
(18) any forbearance to demand any money
(19) any “favour/advantage of any description”
(20) any right/privilege
3.2.7.5 In order to act in a certain manner (the element of inducement)

SAME AS corruption committed by the recipient.
Wording of section dealing with element of corruption committed by giver - not very lucid -
nevertheless clear legislature intended to say: “anyone who ... gives any gratification ... in order to
induce the recipient to act ... in a manner that ...” (words in italics express meaning of provision clearly
do not appear in the text of the section, but are implied)
Shaik - accused convicted of corruption in terms of predecessor of section 3 of Act 12 of 2004 (s1 of
Corruption Act 94 of 1992)
No substantial difference between wording of previous section & that of current section 3 of Act 12 of
2004.
Elements of previous offence (s 1(1)(a)(i))- relevant were:
(i) the giving (offer to give & agree to give)
(ii) of a benefit not legally due
(iii) to a person who is vested with carrying out of any duty, by virtue of holding of an office, etc

(iv) with the aim of influencing that person to do an act/or omit to do some act in the performance of that
duty
(v) unlawfulness
(vi) intention
X charged on two counts of contravening the Act - October 1995 to September 2002 he made numerous
payments to Y with object of inducing the latter to use his (Y’s) name/political influence in favour of X’s
businesses/as reward for having done so. Was also alleged - X was party to an agreement in terms of
which French arms company would pay R500 000 a year to Y in return for Y’s involvement in shielding
the French company from a probe into aspects of an arms deal & later promotion of the company’s
business interests in SA.
No dispute about actual payments made by X to Y. Only issue that arose was whether/not payments
were made by X with the intention of influencing Y to use the weight of his political office (was MEC for
Economic Affairs in KZN & deputy president of ANC) to protect/further X’s business interests. Court
found on facts there were several instances in which Y intervened to protect, assist/further interests of
X’s business enterprises & concluded these showed a (1) readiness on X’s part to turn to Y for help in his
business affairs (2) Y’s willingness to give it. Court concluded payments were made by X with intention
of influencing Y to act in X’s interests. Were made at time when X’s businesses could not afford to issue
such payments owing to financial position. Since Y could not repay the money - could only satisfy sense
of obligation placed upon him by payments by using his name & political office. X blatantly advertised
association with Y to his business partners, confident of political support he would gain from the latter.
Payments could not be regarded as loans - arrangements surrounding them too flexible & made no
business sense from the point of view of a lender. Court found the arrangement was prima facie
contrary to good morals/legal convictions of society & there was no justification (ie requirement of
unlawfulness was satisfied). X foreseen possibility that Y would feel obligated, through these payments,
to help him in his businesses & continued to make these payments, aware that Y would respond this
way - therefore was found to have had intention in form of dolus eventualis.
X convicted on both counts of corruption (& 1 of fraud) & appealed to Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) -
dismissed appeals on all counts & confirmed conviction.
SAME AS corruption committed by the recipient
3.2.7.7 Intention
SAME AS corruption committed by the recipient
3.2.8 Corruption relating to specific persons

S4 (onwards) “corrupt activities relating to specific persons” are criminalized
Brief overview of some of these specific offences.
(1) Corruption relating to public officials. S4 creates offence limited to corruption of public officials
“Public officials” defined exhaustively in s1 -typical eg - state official such as police officer.
S v Selebi former National Commissioner of Police & former Head of Interpol - convicted for corruption
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004.
Provisions of section 4(1)(a) - same as general offence of corruption (in s 3(1)(a)) except for use of words
at beginning of the section - “Any public officer …” instead of “Any person …”
Issue in appeal – 2 matters: Selebi had received payment from a person (Agliotti) & whether he had
provided Agliotti with any quid pro quo (a favour given in return for another) as result of such payment
as required in terms of section 4 of the Act. Court explained - question whether Selebi received
payments and/or other benefits “requires a consideration of whether he received such gratification with
a corrupt intention”. Indictment alleged that at the relevant time a corrupt relationship existed
between Selebi & Agliotti & that Selebi had received sums of money & clothing from Agliotti.
Alleged Selebi received payment in order to act in a manner as set out in s4(1)(a)(i)–(iv) of the Act &
that Selebi did act by way of quid pro quo.

Details in indictment - Selebi had, inter alia, shared secret information with Agliotti with regard to
investigations conducted against him (Agliotti) in the United Kingdom & in SA & protected him from
criminal investigation.
In judgment Mthiyane DP pointed out - facts pertain to general crime of corruption committed by a
recipient & essential elements of this offence as set out in s4(1)(a) of the PCCA Act are:
(1) the acceptance of
(2) gratification
(3) in order to act in a certain way (the inducement)
(4) unlawfully and
(5) intentionally
The element of “inducement” depends on whether the receipt of the gratification is directed at
procuring the recipient to act in one/more of the ways set out in s4(1)(a)(i)–(iv) - include the abuse of a
position of authority (s 4(1)(ii)(aa). The elements of unlawfulness & intention not expressly set out in
the specific provision - court held it should be construed as requiring these elements.
Court considered the question whether the State succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt
payments were received from Agliotti & any quid pro quo given by Selebi with requisite mens rea.
Mthinyane DP reiterated - intention not specifically referred to but the words “in order to act ...” in s
4(1)(a)(i) of PCCA Act “import some ‘intention’ element”.
He also pointed out s24 of the Act makes it easier for the State to prove the element of intention.
The section provides - once prosecution able to show despite having taken reasonable steps - could not
link acceptance of gratification to lawful authority/excuse on the part of the person charged & in
absence of evidence to the contrary which raises reasonable doubt - sufficient evidence that person
accepted gratification “in order to act” in a manner envisaged.
Supreme Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to invoke the presumption.
Concluded - once been proved Selebi received payments from Agliotti “the inference was irresistible
that it was for an illegal purpose & with knowledge of that illegal purpose”
Court concluded - trial court was justified in convicting appellant of corruption as charged - had
succeeded in establishing that payments been accepted by Selebi with requisite corrupt intention.
Judgment of Mthiyane DP did not address issue whether a quid pro quo is in fact required for the crime
of corruption to have been committed in terms of s4(1)(a) of the Act.
Separate judgment Snyders JA (Leach JA concurring) focused specifically on this issue.
She pointed out that factual findings & conviction of the trial court consisted of acceptance of a
gratification on the one hand & giving of quid pro quo by appellant on the other hand on basis of
inferred agreement between Selebi & Agliotti.
In her view - does not mean that s4 of the Act requires an agreement between the corruptor & the
corruptee/that it requires a quid pro quo from the corruptee.
Snyders JA emphasised at para 97: “It must be plainly understood that the conviction, in this case on the
evidence that established an agreement & giving of a quid pro quo, is not the lowwater mark of the
section.” - Pointed out - s25 supports her wide interpretation of s4. S25 of PCCA provides that whenever
an accused is charged with offence (including a contravention of s4) - not valid defence for accused to
contend that he did not have the power/did not intend/failed to perform the act in relation to which the
gratification was given, accepted/offered (s 25(a)–(c)) - We submit that judgment of Snyders JA on this
point is correct.
(2) Corruption in relation to agents. S6 creates an offence limited to corruption of agents.
Corruption committed by businesspeople in private sector - criminalised in this section.
(3) Corruption in relation to members of the legislative authority. See S7.
(4) Corruption in relation to judicial officers. S8 creates crime limited to corruption of judicial officers
Expression “judicial officer” defined in s1 & includes judges & magistrates.
Conduct which judicial officer induced to perform - further defined in s8(2).
Typical example - someone gives a judge money/offers him money in order to persuade him to give a
judgment in favour of a certain party – conduct on part of judge that amounts to him not giving a
judgment according to objective evaluation the merits of the facts before the court.
If someone corrupts a judicial officer - conduct also be punished as contempt of court.

(5) Corruption relating to members of the prosecuting authority. S9 creates offence limited to corruption
of the members of the prosecuting authority.
Act Y induced to perform is further defined - example of a case resorting under this heading is when X
gives Y, the prosecutor in criminal case money to persuade Y to destroy/hide the docket in which the
particulars of the prosecution’s case are contained - be reported missing & prosecution will
consequently not be successful.
Type of conduct criminalised under this heading can overlap with common law offence of
defeating/obstructing the course of justice.
(6) Receiving or offering of unauthorised gratification by a party to an employment relationship. S10
creates offence - limited to corruption committed in an employment relationship.
If employer accepts gratification as inducement to promote one of employees - can be charged with
contravention of this section.
(7) Corruption relating to procuring of tenders. S13 creates offence limited to corruption committed in
order to procure a tender - example is where X gives an amount of money to Y, whose task it is to decide
to whom a tender should be awarded, in order to persuade Y to accept X’s tender.
(8) Corruption relating to sporting events. S15 creates offence limited to corruption committed in context
of sporting events.
Someone accepts/gives money to undermine integrity of any sporting event contravenes this section.
Word “sporting event” further defined in s1 - example is when X who bets money on outcome of
sporting events, gives money to Y, who is a sportsman/sportswoman/referee, in order to persuade Y to
manipulate the game in a way that the match has a certain outcome.
3.2.9 Failure to report corrupt acts

S34 creates important crime - consists of failure by a person in a position of authority who
knows/ought reasonably to have known that certain crimes named in the Act have been committed to
report an offence created in the Act to a police officer.
Subsection (4) - long list of persons regarded as people who hold a position of authority - includes any
partner in a partnership & any person responsible for overall management & control of the business of
an employer.
Form of culpability required – intention/negligence (result of use of the words “who knows/ought
reasonably to have known”).
The word “knows” - expanded meaning given to word “knowledge” in s2 - apart from actual knowledge
also includes the case where person believed a fact existed but failed to obtain information to confirm
existence of that fact (“wilful blindness”).
3.3 EXTORTION
(Criminal Law 417–419)
3.3.1 Definition
Extortion is the unlawful and intentional acquisition of a benefit from some other person by applying
pressure to that person which induces her to part with the benefit.
3.3.2 Elements of the crime

(1) the acquisition of
(2) a benefit
(3) by applying pressure
(4) a causal link (between pressure & acquisition of a benefit)
(5) unlawfulness
(6) intention
3.3.3 The perpetrator

Roman & Roman-Dutch law - crime known as concussion & according to some of our old authorities -
only be committed by public official.

G - Appellate Division held - the crime could be committed by any person & not only an official; X need
not even represent herself as an official (Richardson)
3.3.4 Exertion of pressure

X acquire benefit by bringing pressure to bear on Y - Y must give way under stress of pressure.
Pressure take form of threats, the inspiring of fear/intimidation.
Threat of physical injury to Y himself, extortion & robbery overlap (Ex Parte Minister of Justice: In re R v
Gesa, R v De Jongh)
Y also threatened with defamation (Ngqandu);
Dismissal from employment (Farndon); or
Arrest & prosecution (Lepheana).
Even threat couched in negative terms sufficient - example where X threatens not to return something
he borrowed (Mntonintshi; Ngqandu supra).
Threat also take form of harm to third person - Lepheana supra - threat was prosecution of Y’s wife.
Threat be explicit/implicit.
3.3.5 The benefit

Before 1989 - conflicting decisions on question whether/not benefit in extortion be limited to
patrimonial benefit - “Patrimonial” in this connection - “which can be converted into/expressed in terms
of money/economic value”.
Ex parte Minister van Justisie: S v J en S v Von Molendorff - Appellate Division thoroughly analysed
question & after extensive investigation of common law authorities held - benefit in this crime must be
limited to a patrimonial one.
The state not satisfied with - shortly afterwards legislature enacted following provision in s1 of the
General Law Amendment Act 139 of 1992:
“At criminal proceedings at which an accused is charged with extortion it shall with respect to the object
of the extortion be suffi cient to prove that any advantage was extorted, whether or not such advantage
was of a patrimonial nature.”
Thus according to present state of our law any advantage/benefit – patrimonial/non-patrimonial – can
be extorted.
Example - not of a patrimonial nature but can lead to conviction of extortion - “benefit” which figured in
J - Y threatened by X - unless she had sexual intercourse with him he would show photographs of her in
the nude to her parents - Court found X guilty of attempted extortion - was of opinion that the benefit in
extortion need not be of patrimonial/financial nature -“benefi t” X sought to obtain was sexual
satisfaction
Crime not been completed until the benefit has been handed to X (Mtirara).
3.3.6 Causation
As in case of robbery a causal connection between violence and acquisition of the thing must exist so
too in the case of extortion - must be causal connection between application of pressure and acquisition
of the thing (Mahomed)
Benefit handed over not because of pressure exerted by X but because a trap has been set for X & Y
wishes her to be apprehended - crime merely attempted extortion (Lazarus)
3.3.7 Unlawfulness
Pressure/intimidation been exerted unlawfully
Does not imply that if Y threatened with something which X is entitled/empowered to do that the threat
can never be sufficient for extortion
Correct approach advocated by courts - note the way in which X exercised pressure & what he intended
thereby
Although in order for police official to inform accused he intends prosecuting him is both irregular &
unlawful for the police official to state that he will prosecute the accused unless he pays him a sum of
money (Lutge supra, Lepheana supra).

3.3.8 Intention
Intent is required - X must intend his words as a threat/intend they should give rise to fear - must have
intention of acquiring the benefit while realising he is not entitled to it - motive is irrelevant
3.4 DRUG OFFENCES

3.4.1 General
NB offences relating to drugs - found in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (hereinafter
called “the Act”)
(1) use/possession of drugs
(2) dealing in drugs
Act divides drugs into 3 categories
(1) dependence-producing substances
(2) dangerous dependence-producing substances
(3) undesirable dependence-producing substances
drugs/substances falling under each category listed in great detail in schedule 2 of the Act
punishment prescribed for possession of, use of/dealing in substances under (2) & (3) - more severe
than punishment prescribed for possession of, use of/for dealing in the substances under (1).
Substances listed under (2) are coca leaf, morphine and opium.
substances listed under (3) are cannabis (dagga), heroin and mandrax.
Dealing in drugs - more serious offence than possessing/using drugs
NB to note “possession” & “use” not treated in the Act as 2 separate offences but as 1 single offence.
3.4.2 The use or possession of drugs

3.4.2.1 Definition
It is an offence for any person unlawfully and intentionally to use or have in their possession any
dependence-producing substance or any dangerous dependenceproducing substance or any undesirable
dependence-producing substance (s 4 of the Act).
3.4.2.2 Elements of the offence

(1) the act, that is possession/use of
(2) a drug as described in the Act
(3) unlawfulness
(4) intention
3.4.2.3 The act – possession or use

a Use
word “use”- self-explanatory - the smoking, inhalation, injection/ingestion of drugs
not clear why legislature prescribed not only possession but also the use of drugs - any instance of use
of a drug also involves its possession and amounts to an offence under the Act - this reason that in
practice seldom happens X is accused only of using a drug.
b Possession
(i) General meaning of “possession”
In law, possession consists of two elements, namely
• a physical/corporeal element (corpus/detentio)
• a mental element - X’s intention (the animus)
The physical element: appropriate degree of physical control over the thing
Precise degree of control required depends upon nature of the article & way in which control is
ordinarily exercised over such a type of article
Control may be actual/constructive.
Constructive control - control through somebody else – representative/servant (Singiswa)
The mental element (animus) of possession - the intention with which somebody exercises control over
an article.
More than one possibility:

• X exercise control over article as if he is the owner of the article - type of possession = possession in
ordinary juridical meaning of the term - also known as possessio civilis - narrow meaning of possession
• X exercise control over the article with intention of keeping it for somebody else - type of possession
known as possessio naturalis - broader type of possession.
(ii) Meaning of “possession” in the Act
In various Acts legislature created crimes penalising possession of certain types of articles - drugs,
unlicensed firearms, stolen goods, dangerous weapons/housebreaking implements.
Meaning of word “possession” - vary between different Acts depending upon intention of the
legislature. S1 of the Act - word “possess” as used in Act includes
• keeping
• storing or
• having in custody/under control/ supervision
Although not expressly stated in the section - provision wide enough to cover situations in which person
has custody over article not in order to use self, but on behalf of somebody else - looks after it for
somebody else - meaning of this NB provision: use of word “includes” in s1 means the meaning ascribed
to “possession” in this section (keeping, storing) - not the only meaning the word can have in the Act.
Other meaning possessio naturalis
Follows - if state charges X with having possessed a drug - two ways state may prove the element of
possession.
• First - proving X exercised control over the drug as an owner - for himself - opposed to exercising control
over the drug on behalf of somebody else - (possession as an owner) is possessio civilis.
• Second - proving possession - proving although X did not exercise control over it as an owner (to use for
self) - nevertheless kept it for/on behalf of somebody else - possessio naturalis – extended/broad
meaning
3.4.2.4 The drug

Offence committed if what is possessed/used is a dependence-producing substance, dangerous
dependence-producing substance/undesirable dependence-producing substance.
Unlawfulness excluded by necessity.
Apart from grounds of justification flowing from general principles s4 of the Act explicitly mentions
number of grounds of justification for purposes of this offence
• X was patient who acquired/bought the drug from medical practitioner, dentist,
veterinarian/pharmacist, or
• X was medical practitioner, dentist, veterinarian, pharmacist/wholesale dealer in pharmaceutical
products – bought/collected the drugs in accordance with the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101
of 1965.
3.4.2.6 Intention
Culpability in form of intention required
Person unaware dagga in their possession cannot be found guilty of the offence.
3.4.3 Dealing in drugs

3.4.3.1 Definition
It is an offence unlawfully and intentionally to deal in any dependence-producing substance or any
dangerous dependence-producing substance or in any undesirable dependence-producing substance (s
5(b) and 13(f) of the Act).

(1) the act (that is, to deal in)
(2) the drug as described in the Act
(3) unlawfulness

(4) intention
3.4.3.3 The act – dealing in

Creating offence of dealing in drugs - legislature not concerned with punishing those who use drugs as
punishing those who make drugs available to users.
To suppress supply of drugs to user’s legislature has prohibited - sale of drugs, all aspects of production,
manufacture, distribution & provision of drugs.
S1 of the Act - to “deal in” drugs defined as including performance of any act in connection with the
• transshipment
• importation
• cultivation
• collection
• manufacture
• supply
• prescription
• administration
• sale
• transmission/exportation of drugs.
Solomon - Appellate Division held - not legislature’s intention that person who purchases drugs for his
own use performs an act in respect of the “sale”/“supply” of drugs within extended meaning of the
definition of “dealing”. Court explained – legislature by creating different offences of “dealing” &
“possession/use” - intended to draw distinction between
• activities relating to the furnishing of drugs
• activities relating to the acquisition of drugs
Court found legislature intended to punish activities in furnishing drugs as “dealing in” drugs & not
intend activities in acquiring drugs to be regarded as “dealing in” drugs - only being in possession of the
drugs. Court held - if X commits an act which consists merely in him obtaining the drug for own personal
use - only be convicted of possession/use of the drug and not of dealing in the drug.
Means – (X) person who acts as agent for (Z) somebody else & purchases drugs for Z’s own use -
performs an act with the acquisition of drugs & not an act relating to supply/furnishing of drugs - If X
found in possession - only be convicted of offence of “possession/use” (as opposed to “dealing in
drugs”) (Solomon supra; Jackson)
Person who purchases drugs for the purpose of selling them - held to be dealing in the drugs - will
possess drugs “for purposes of sale”.
Previously - third way in “dealing” could be proved - relying on number of presumptions created in the
Act - Act provided that anyone found in possession of prohibited/dangerous drugs/dagga exceeding 115
grams - presumed to have dealt in the drug/dagga - onus on accused to prove he had not dealt in the
drug.
These & other provisions which created presumptions - declared unconstitutional on ground they
inconsistent with accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (Bhulwana;
Gwadiso; Julies; Ntsele & Mjezu)
Fact that statutory presumptions have fallen away - not mean basic legal principles & common-sense
approach to proving guilt have also been abandoned - courts have held where a person found in
possession of large quantities of dagga & been unable to furnish a reasonably acceptable explanation for
such possession - might nevertheless be sufficient circumstantial evidence to make inference that he has
been dealing in the drugs (Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso supra; & Sixaxeni)
Mathe - police found X alone in vehicle which contained +- 131 kg dagga - failed to give explanation for
possession of the dagga & raised a “spurious” defence in the trial court - conviction of possession
replaced on appeal by conviction of dealing in dagga.

3.4.3.4 The drug

As in possession - offence committed if a dependence-producing substance/dangerous/undesirable
dependence-producing substance as defined in the Act.
Unlawfulness excluded by necessity in form of coercion.
Apart from grounds of justification flowing from general principles - s5 of the Act mentions number of
grounds of justification relating to this offence
• X acquired/bought particular substance for medicinal purposes from a medical practitioner,
veterinarian/dentist/pharmacist in terms of a written prescription
• X is a medical practitioner, dentist/pharmacist who prescribes, administers, acquires, imports/sells the
substance in accordance with legislation
3.4.3.6 Intention
Culpability in form of intention required
X must know the substance is a substance described in the Act - his conduct amounts to dealing & it is
unlawful.
3.5 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

3.5.1 General
The Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 regulates control of firearms & ammunition & creates a number of
offences relating to unlawful possession of firearms & ammunition.
Act draws distinction between “firearm” & “prohibited firearm”.
Firearm = lethal weapon
Arms & devices under heading “prohibited firearm” - more ominous & destructive - amounting weapons
of war - cannon & rocket launcher
Firearm can be licensed - prohibited firearm cannot (few exceptions) be licensed.
Heavier sentence (max 25 yrs’ imprisonment) prescribed for offence of possessing prohibited firearm -
possession of firearm not prohibited firearm (max 15 yrs’ imprisonment.)
3.5.2 Unlawful possession of a firearm

Any person who possesses a fi rearm without a licence, permit or authorisation issued in terms of the
Act for that fi rearm, commits an offence (s 3 of the Act).
The elements of this offence are as follows:

(1) the possession of
(2) a firearm
(3) unlawfulness
(4) culpability
3.5.2.1 Possession
“possess” not defined in the Act - In previous Act word “possession” defined as including custody
under previous Act - “possession” referred to physical control over the arm with intention of possessing
it
• either as if the possessor were the owner (possessio civilis) or
• to keep/guard it on behalf of/for the benefit of, somebody else (possessio naturalis)
submitted that considering purpose of the Act set out in the preamble - meaning the term had in
previous Act still applies to the term used in present Act
means possession by person who keeps/guards firearm temporarily for/on behalf of somebody else
(possessio naturalis) is punishable.

3.5.2.2 Firearm
S1 - very long, technical definition of word “firearm” - not necessary to know this definition - sufficient
to know the gist of the definition - “any device manufactured/designed to propel a bullet/projectile
through a barrel/cylinder by means of burning propellant” - keep in mind definition includes the
barrel/frame of the device.
possession must be unlawful - not covered by ground of justification such as necessity
s3 - crime not committed by somebody who holds a licence, permit/authorisation issued in terms of the
Act for the firearm
Official institutions - South African National Defence Force, South African Police Service & Department of
Correctional Services - exempt from prohibition of possession of firearms.
3.5.2.4 Culpability
legislature does not specify whether intention/negligence required for liability
X had intention - would be guilty
Majikazana court pointed out - if state avers the accused intentionally possessed firearm
without licence - state must also prove the accused had knowledge of unlawfulness - if there is
a reasonable possibility the accused believed she was holding weapon innocently - should
receive benefit of the doubt. Case dealt with provisions of the previous Act (Arms and
Ammunition Act 75 of 1969) - ruling also valid with regard to new Act.
Kwanda X a driver of a vehicle conveying him & two others to rob a bank. man carrying AK47
rifle & ammunition seated next to him. were arrested before robbery could be carried out.
question before the court - whether X could be convicted of unlawful possession of firearm in
terms of provisions of the Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969. was insufficient evidence
before the court to indicate X aware of firearm in companion’s possession. court ruled - even if
accepted X had conspired with companions to commit robbery - and he was aware that some
of his co-accused possessed firearms for the purpose of committing the robbery - knowledge
on his part not sufficient to support inference he had the intention of jointly possessing the
firearm. court explained - such inference only drawn if the state has established facts from
which it can properly be inferred by a court that the group had the intention of exercising
possession of the guns through the actual detentor(s) and the actual detentors had the
intention of holding the guns on behalf of the group.
ruling also valid in respect of interpretation of the provisions of the new Act
question arises whether person can be convicted if form of culpability proved against him is not
intention but negligence.
Under previous Act which dealt with this matter - proof of negligence sufficient for conviction -
submitted same should apply under present Act.
well known unlawful possession of firearms one of greatest evils besetting SA society & the
legislature’s intention clearly to spread net against unlawful possession of firearms as widely as
possible.
3.5.3 Unlawful possession of ammunition

S90 provides - no person may possess any ammunition unless she
(1) holds a licence in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition
(2) holds a permit to possess ammunition
(3) holds a dealer’s licence, manufacturer’s licence, gunsmith’s licence, import, export/in-transit permit/
transporter’s permit issued in terms of this Act, or
(4) is otherwise authorised to do so.
S91(1) provides - holder of licence to possess firearm - not possess more than 200 cartridges for
each firearm of which she holds a licence.
terms of subsection (2) - limitation does not apply to:
1. dedicated hunter/dedicated sports-person who holds a licence, or

2. holder of a licence to possess firearm in respect of ammunition bought & discharged at accredited
shooting range
above provisions not apply to official institutions such as South African National Defence Force,
South African Police Service & Department of Correctional Services.
3.5.4 Certain other offences created in the Act

Other offences relating to firearms & ammunition (briefly defined) created in the Act:
(1) be aware somebody else possesses a firearm illegally & to fail to report this to the police
(2) cause bodily injury to a person/damage to property by negligently using a firearm
(3) handle a firearm while under influence of a substance which has intoxicating/narcotic effect
(4) discharge a firearm in a built-up area/public place
(5) lose a firearm due to failure to lock it away in a safe, strongroom/safe-keeping device/due to failure to
take reasonable steps to prevent its loss/due to failure to keep the keys to the safe, strongroom/device
in safe custody
3.6 ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES

(Burchell Principles of Criminal Law (2013) 786–796; Hoctor Coopers
Motor Law (2008 revised 2012) B9-8–B11-77)
Exceeding the
speed limit
(s 59)
Driving under
the influence of Road Reckless or
drugs/alcohol traffic negligent driving
or excessive offences (s 63)
alcohol (s 65)
Inconsiderate
driving
(s 64)
3.6.1 Introduction
Various offences relating to regulation of road traffic created in terms of the Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.
Road traffic offences fall under crimes against public welfare - most NB source of road-traffic legislation -
National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 (“the NRTA”)
Act - offence for any person to exceed the speed limit, engage in reckless, negligent/inconsiderate
driving/drive while under the influence of alcohol/drugs/while having excess of alcohol in one’s
blood/on ones’ breath.
NOTE:
number of definitions in the Act - should know to understand the application of these offences – NOT
REQUIRED to memorise all definitions - able to recognise factual situation which involves any of these
definitions - also required to know the cases in which definitions applied & interpreted.

3.6.2 Driving in excess of speed limit

3.6.2.1 Definition
S59 of the NRTA provides that:
The general speed limit in respect of –
every public road/section thereof, other than a freeway, situated within an urban area;
every public road/section thereof, other than a freeway, situated outside an urban area;
and every freeway, shall be as prescribed.
An appropriate road traffic sign may be displayed on any public road in accordance with
s57, indicating a speed limit other than the general speed limit which applies in respect
of that road in terms of subsection (1): Provided that such other speed limit shall not be
higher than the speed limit prescribed in terms of subsection (1)(c).
The Minister may, after a decision has been taken in the Shareholders Committee, in
respect of any particular class of vehicle prescribe a speed limit which is lower/higher
than the general speed limit prescribed in terms of subsection (1)(b)/(c): Provided that
the speed limit so prescribed shall not replace a lower speed limit indicated in terms of
subsection (2) by an appropriate road traffic sign.
No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road at a speed in excess of –
the general speed limit which in terms of subsection (1) applies in respect of that road;
the speed limit indicated in terms of subsection (2) by an appropriate road traffic sign in
respect of that road; or
the speed limit prescribed by the Minister under subsection (3) in respect of the class of
vehicle concerned.
3.6.2.2 Elements of the offence MUST KNOW

(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) In excess of speed limit
(5) Unlawfulness
(6) Culpability
3.6.2.3 Act
“Driver” means any person who drives/attempts to drive any vehicle/who rides/attempts to ride any
pedal cycle/who leads any draught, pack/saddle animal/herd/flock of animals, and “drive”/any like word
has a corresponding meaning. Drive is not defined, so where it is associated with a vehicle it bears its
ordinary meaning.
a Driving
driving must constitute voluntary act - means offence would not be committed if a person acts
involuntarily from an act of automatism/from epileptic fit.
Intoxication may cause involuntary conduct although actio libera in causa - not apply to drunken driving.
Rooyen - word “drive” examined - X who was under influence of alcohol pushed his vehicle by exercising
control over the steering wheel & handbrake from outside the vehicle. Court held that accused had
driven the vehicle as he had control of the movements of the vehicle. Whether vehicle moves forward
by force of gravity/as result of being pushed by a person - irrelevant.
Ekstraal - was held that if someone sits behind the steering wheel of a vehicle/controls the movements
of the steering wheel of a vehicle being towed by another vehicle - situation also qualifies as driving.
Contrasting case of Makhubela - accused drove without valid driver’s licence - held that word “drive”
considered in context of licensed drivers. “To drive” means to have control of a vehicle which is
propelled by its own mechanical power. Charge - attempting to drive impossible as evident from the
definition - “driver” includes persons who attempt to drive a vehicle.

b Vehicle
“Vehicle” means a device designed/adapted mainly to travel on wheels/crawler tracks & includes such a
device which is connected with a draw-bar to a breakdown vehicle & is used as part of the towing
equipment of a breakdown vehicle to support any axle/all the axles of a motor vehicle which is being
salvaged other than such a device which moves solely on rails.
Definition broad & may also cover a pedal cycle (Gertse; Van Wyk) - further clear that device that travels
on rails will be excluded from definition & a train is therefore not a vehicle in terms of this Act.
NOTE: NOT KNOW DEFINITIONS ABOVE BY HEART - BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY A SITUATION WHICH
INVOLVES A “VEHICLE” AS DEFINED IN THE ACT/“DRIVING” AS INDICATED IN THE ACT.
c Public road – MUST KNOW!!

“Public road” means any road, street/thoroughfare/any other place (whether thoroughfare/not) which
is commonly used by the public/any section thereof/to which the public/any section thereof has a right
of access, and includes –
(a) the verge of any such road, street/thoroughfare;
(b) any bridge, ferry/drift traversed by any such road, street/thoroughfare; and
(c) any other work/object forming part of/connected with/belonging to such road, street/ thoroughfare
2 Requirements for road, street/throughfare to qualify as public road:

(1) must be commonly used by public/section of public; OR
(2) public/section of public must have right of access to it (Kriel; Dillon)
Example – Coetzee - held parking lot that was reserved for roadhouse customers - not qualify as a public
road
Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock 2007 - courts held word “driving” not include terrain driven over
such as “unmade roads, slippery/steep terrain” & the implication therefore that such a path does not
qualify as a public road.
3.6.2.4 Speed limit

Three general speed limits set out in s59(1) of the NRTA which apply & which may be exceeded in terms
of s89(1) & s89(3) of the NRTA - these speed limits apply on following roads:
(1) A public road within an urban area (60 km/h)
(2) A public road outside an urban area (100 km/h)
(3) A freeway (120 km per hour)
Act - not stipulate what type of evidence necessary to prove that speed limit been exceeded.
general principle - onus rests on the state to prove the vehicle exceeded the speed limit & that the
timing device used to measure speed was accurate (Meaker; Margolis; Makoera)
interest protected by prosecution of this crime - physical safety of general public.
S v Joseph - accused exceeded speed limit of 60 km p/hr by driving at speed of 102 km p/hr - received
suspended sentence but had to attend Nicro Adult Life Skills programme.
Despite restrictions imposed by speed limit - needs to take cognisance of fact that there are certain
drivers who are permitted to exceed general speed limit in terms of s60 of the Act
exceptions are drivers of ambulance, fire-fighting vehicle/response vehicle, a rescue vehicle, an
emergency medical response vehicle carrying out duties/traffic officer/SAPS member/any other
authorised persons who drive a vehicle in execution of their duties subject to proviso that they should
drive such vehicle with due regard to safety of other road users & that certain vehicles are equipped
with a lamp/sound device that must be operated when general speed limit is exceeded.

S v Groep - appellant a police officer convicted of negligent driving of a police vehicle - was responding
to an emergency & drove through a traffic-light-controlled intersection while traffic lights were against
her - was held - she had not driven with “due regard” for safety of other road users.
Fourie - regional magistrate raised defence of official capacity as ground of justification when charged
with exceeding the speed limit - averred he was acting in interests of administration of justice - he would
have been late for court proceedings - court held respondent’s actions were unlawful & that he should
have considered alternative measures to ensure speed limit not be exceeded
Necessity may be raised as defence (Myute)
3.6.2.6 Culpability
Burchell (at 795–796) - of view - this crime be one of strict liability - also points out arguably the defence
of reasonable mistake with regard to a contravention of speed limit could still perhaps be raised.
3.6.3 Reckless/negligent driving

3.6.3.1 Definition MUST KNOW!!
S63 of the NRTA reads as follows:
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road recklessly/negligently.
(2) Without restricting the ordinary meaning of the word “recklessly” any person who drives a vehicle in
wilful/wanton disregard for the safety of persons/property shall be deemed to drive that vehicle
recklessly.
(3) In considering whether subsection (1) has been contravened, the court shall have regard to all the
circumstances of the case, including, but without derogating from the generality of subsection (1)/(2),
the nature, condition and use of the public road upon which the contravention is alleged to have been
committed, the amount of traffic which at the relevant time was/which could reasonably have been
expected to be upon that road, and the speed at and manner in which the vehicle was driven.
3.6.3.2 Reckless driving

(Burchell 792)
S63(1) provides that it is an offence for any person to drive a vehicle recklessly upon a public road.
a The elements of the offence

elements of reckless driving divided into:
(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) Recklessly
(5) Unlawfulness
(6) Culpability
b The act
Act consists in driving a vehicle recklessly on a public road.
person deemed to have driven recklessly if person drives “in wilful & wanton disregard for the safety of
persons/property”
Reckless driving includes inconsiderate driving - might give rise to risk of harm to others
If person drives inconsiderately - driving considered to be reckless as there is a disregard for safety of
other road users (Van Zy; Sweigers).
Recklessness & negligence distinct concepts & treated separately in sentencing phase
Intention in form of dolus eventualis also present in acts of recklessness where there is an
appreciation/acceptance of risk (Van Zyl).
determining whether a person has driven recklessly/negligently, the manner in & speed at which vehicle
was driven will be considered, together with amount of traffic on the road.

Van Zyl - held that accused guilty of gross negligence as the facts of the case reveal his eyes had been
focused elsewhere for such a long period of time that his car wandered over to wrong side of the road,
causing a collision with oncoming vehicle. Court held that apart from dolus eventualis, the word
“reckless” includes gross negligence. Appellant convicted of reckless driving by a magistrate’s court. On
appeal - held that gross negligence been proved & that accused’s conduct was reckless.
c Unlawfulness
element of unlawfulness excluded by grounds of justification such as necessity & official capacity -
depending on objective circumstances
d Culpability
element of culpability consist in intention (dolus eventualis) & gross negligence.
3.6.3.3 Negligent driving

(Burchell 790ff)
S63(1) of the NRTA also provides that it is an offence for any person to drive negligently upon a public
road.
a The elements of the offence

elements of negligent driving divided into:
(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) Negligently
(5) Unlawfulness
(6) Culpability
b The act
act consists in driving vehicle negligently on a public road
interest protected by crime of negligent driving is safety of public using the roads
Negligence present where reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that the
driving could create a risk of harm to other persons and should have guarded against such risk & failed
to do so (Kruger v Coetzee)
Such risk should not be remote - person drives negligently if he does not drive with the degree of care
and skill a reasonable man would exercise in the same circumstances (Wells; Mathlane; Naik)
Burchell says (790–791) - reasonable person would not drive like racing driver/with excessive caution &
timidity
our law not recognise degrees of negligence - slightest deviation from reasonable-person standard -
regarded as negligent driving.
Erwin - while accused was overtaking another vehicle - bee flew into car & stung him on the cheek -
instinctively pulled his head away & bumped his glasses against the window & one of the lenses broke -
released the steering wheel to protect his eyes from splinters & vehicle collided with car he was
overtaking. court set high standard for test of reasonable man & held that he made an error of judgment
during an emergency but that a reasonable driver would not have made this error & that a reasonable
driver must be able to cope with unexpected situations - was accordingly convicted of negligent driving.
Automatism raised as defence to conduct requirement where motorist claims to have had a mental
blackout/epileptic attack.

R v Victor
X charged with reckless/negligent driving as he had a collision with another vehicle & a pedestrian as a
result of an epileptic fit. He had had prior seizures & had insufficient reason to assume he would not
have another seizure on that day. It was foreseeable that a seizure could have happened & he knew
what the consequences could be. Found guilty of negligent driving. Also known as antecedent liability -
where X performs a voluntary act knowing that he may suffer from an epileptic fit but hopes it will not
occur & proceeds to drive the car while conscious. In such instances a person will be held liable.
c Unlawfulness
requirement of unlawfulness must be complied with - means no ground of justification be present such
as necessity/official capacity
defences that may be raised - mechanical failure, skidding/sudden emergency.
d Culpability
Aside from possibility of being found guilty of reckless/negligent driving - number of other common-law
crimes can also be committed like murder, attempted murder/culpable homicide.
Humphreys - accused 55 years old was driver of mini-bus which collided with a train - 10 of 14 children
being transported were killed & he was charged & convicted of 10 counts of murder & 4 counts of
attempted murder – on appeal - ten convictions of murder set aside - Supreme Court of Appeal held -
accused not have intention in form of dolus eventualis - was found guilty of culpable homicide on basis
that he was negligent - attempted murder charges set aside.
S v Qeqe - accused was trying to evade the police in a stolen vehicle & drove onto sidewalk killing 3
pedestrians who were children - accused charged with theft, reckless & negligent driving & murder -
pleaded guilty to first 2 charges, also found guilty of 3 counts of murder - was held that he had intention
in the form of dolus eventualis.
3.6.4 Inconsiderate driving

3.6.4.1 Definition
S64 of the NRTA provides that:
No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road without reasonable consideration for any other person
using the road.

(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) Without reasonable consideration
(5) Culpability
3.6.4.3 Act
consists in driving a vehicle on a public road without reasonable consideration of other road
users
offence only be committed if other road-users present on road at the time (Van Rooyen)
Killian - was held “without reasonable consideration” - without consideration that “a
reasonable man would have shown in the situation & circumstances prevailing at the time.”
offence applicable where driving is calculated to embarrass/inconvenience other road users
(Killian)
does not include situations of negligent driving & other road users must be present for this
offence to be committed.
The requirement of unlawfulness must also be complied with, which means that no ground of justifi
cation should be present.

3.6.4.5 Culpability
can be committed with intention/negligence.
3.6.5 Driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor/drugs with a narcotic effect
3.6.5.1 Definition
S65(1) of the NRTA provides that:
No person shall on a public road –
A) drive a vehicle; or
B) occupy the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle the engine of which is running, while under the influence
of intoxicating liquor/a drug having a narcotic effect.

(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) Under the influence of intoxicating alcohol/drugs with a narcotic effect
(5) Culpability
3.6.5.3 Act
act consists in driving a vehicle on a public road while under influence of intoxicating alcohol/drugs with
narcotic effect
two offences created by this section - aimed at protection of public:
(1) driving of vehicle while under the influence and
(2) occupying driver’s seat while engine of motor vehicle running while under the influence.
Person sitting behind steering wheel of stationary vehicle which has its engine running - cannot be said
to be “driving” the vehicle in terms of the offence in (1) - may found guilty of contravention of the
offence in (2)
must be proved that driver affected by intoxicating liquor/drug to such a degree that skill & judgment
normally required of a driver was diminished/impaired as a result (Lloyd).
“Skill” refers to driver’s physical powers & is diminished/impaired when driver’s vision,
judgment/muscular coordination is affected (Donian)
“Judgment” refers to the driver’s mental powers - deemed to be impaired/diminished if intoxicating
liquor/drug causes him to be euphoric /over-optimistic
driver must have been under the influence at the time of driving the vehicle (Lombard)
Alcohol refers to ethyl alcohol & drug referred to should have a narcotic effect & need not be a
narcotic drug per se (Whitehead)
Any substance/remedy which has effect resembling that of narcotic drug included & not merely
pharmaceutical narcotics.
requirement of unlawfulness complied with - no ground of justification should be present.
3.6.5.5 Culpability
offence can be committed with intention/negligently (Fouche)
Culpability be present where accused foresees/ought to have foreseen that he would drive a vehicle
while under the influence
Voluntary intoxication therefore not a defence - this section provides for antecedent liability - accused
did not know that he was under influence of alcohol - example - where drug/alcohol administered
without accused’s knowledge (“spikes his drink”) - would lack culpability
Another defence could be raised - accused ignorant of combined effects of intoxicating liquor & narcotic
drugs.

3.6.6 Driving with excessive alcohol in the blood

3.6.6.1 Definition
S65(2) of the NRTA provides that:
No person shall on a public road –
A) drive a vehicle; or
B) occupy the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle the engine of which is running, while the concentration of
alcohol in any specimen of blood taken from any part of his/her body is not less than 0,05 gram per 100
millilitres/in the case of a professional driver referred to in s32, not less than 0,02 gram per 100
millilitres.

(1) Driving
(2) Vehicle
(3) Public road
(4) Blood alcohol
(5) Culpability
3.6.6.3 Blood alcohol

act consists of driving vehicle on public road while having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol
present in the blood
Two offences created by this section (1) driving of a vehicle (2) occupying driver’s seat while engine of
motor vehicle is running where alcohol in any specimen of blood taken is not less than 0,05 gram per
100 millilitres/in case of professional driver the amount is not less than 0,02 gram per 100 millilitres.
Where blood alcohol level concerned - in terms of s65(9) - may not refuse to provide specimen of one’s
breath/blood
state must prove using expert evidence - district surgeon, registered medical practitioner, medical
officer of a prison/registered nurse - concentration of alcohol exceeded 0.049 grams at the time
accused was driving the vehicle by means of chemical analysis & that the blood sample is blood of
accused (Ross)
blood alcohol specimen must not be contaminated (Ngcobo)
limits strictly applied & even minor transgressions are punishable (Director of Public Prosecutions v Klue)
presumption - if blood sample taken within two hours after alleged offence & if not less than 0.05
grams per 100 millilitres - alcohol content exceeded prescribed limit at the time of the offence.
requirement of unlawfulness must be complied with - means no ground of justification be present.
3.6.6.5 Culpability
offence committed with intention/negligently
Kelder -held if accused while driving is under influence of alcohol to such degree that he is not criminally
responsible he will still have necessary mens rea - while sober he should have foreseen that he might
need to drive in his drunken state
Automatism caused by voluntary intoxication - not constitute valid defence on charge of drunken driving
should accused comply with requirement of negligence.
3.6.7 Additional offences relating to driving

3.6.7.1 Driving/occupying a driver’s seat while under the influence of alcohol if the breath specimen
exceeds the limit
S65(5) provides for offence where (1) person drives a vehicle or (2) occupies the driver’s seat if
the level exhaled by breath is not less than 0.24 milligrams per 1 000 millitres
onus rests on state to prove analyst’s findings are reliable (Price v Mutual and Federal Insurance
Co Ltd; Bester; Nkhalele)
committed with intention/negligently.

3.6.7.2 Duty to report an accident

Section 61(1) of the NRTA partly provides that:
(1) The driver of a vehicle at the time when such vehicle is involved in/contributes to any
accident in which any person is killed/injured/suffers damage in respect of any property,
including a vehicle/animal shall –
immediately stop the vehicle & report the accident on the prescribed form & in the
prescribed manner, the officer concerned shall deal with the report in the prescribed
manner & the chief executive officer must ensure that the accident is recorded in the
register of accidents in the prescribed manner & within the prescribed period;
ascertain the nature & extent of any injury sustained by any person;
if a person is injured, render such assistance to the injured person as he/she may be
capable of rendering;
ascertain the nature & extent of any damage sustained;
if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his/
her name & address, the name & address of the owner of the vehicle driven by him/her
&, in the case of a motor vehicle, the licence number thereof.
clear - s61(1) of NRTA requires driver of vehicle involved in/contributes to an accident where another
person is injured/killed/suffers damage - stop his vehicle immediately to provide assistance & assess
damage (Mutobvu) - also required to report accident to police within reasonable time.
GLOSSARY
animus the mental element of possession, ie, the intention with which somebody
exercises control over an article
corpus the physical element of possession, ie, physical control over something
detentio the physical element of possession, ie, physical control over something
possessio civilis possession as if one is an owner, ie, possession for oneself
possessio naturalis
possession not for oneself, but on behalf of somebody else

STUDY UNIT 4 Sexual crimes
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 -
introduced due to prevalence of sexual offences in Republic of SA
felt SA common law & statutory law - not deal adequately & effectively in non discriminatory
manner with many aspects relating to commission of sexual offences
children not adequately protected against sexual exploitation & common law crime of rape was
gender-specific.
Act amends aspects of laws relating to sexual offences & deals with legal aspects relating to
sexual offences in single statute by, inter alia,
• repealing common law offence of rape replacing it with new, expanded statutory offence of rape
applicable to all forms of sexual penetration without consent, irrespective of gender, “sexual
penetration” widely defined include acts of a sexual nature previously not criminalised
• repealing common law offence indecent assault replacing with new statutory offence of sexual assault,
applicable to all forms of sexual violation without consent
• creating new statutory offences relating to compelled acts of penetration/violation
• creating new statutory offences for adults - criminalising compelling/causing witnessing of certain
sexual conduct & certain parts of human anatomy, exposure/display of child pornography & engaging of
sexual services of an adult
• repealing common law offences incest, bestiality & violation of a corpse - such violation is of sexual
nature - enacting corresponding new statutory offences
• creating new, comprehensive sexual offences against children & persons mentally disabled, incl.
offences relating to sexual exploitation/grooming, exposure to/display of pornography & creation of
child pornography
Act eliminates differentiation between age of consent for different consensual sexual acts &
provides special provisions relating to prosecution of consensual sexual acts between children
older than 12 yrs, but younger than 16 yrs.
Act creates duty to report sexual offences committed with/against children/persons - mentally
disabled. Failure to report knowledge of commission of sexual offences = an offence.
4.2 RAPE
4.2.1 General
Sexual Offences Act 2007 repeals common law offence rape
common law offence rape - unlawful, intentional sexual intercourse by male with female without
consent
offence committed by male & unlawful & intentional sexual penetration of female genital organ (vagina)
by male genital organ (penis) without female’s consent was required for conviction of the offence
Other forms of sexual penetration without consent - not rape
Chapter 2 - Sexual Offences Act 2007 expanded definition of rape - creating two new statutory offences
of rape
object of provisions to punish all forms of sexual penetration without consent, irrespective of gender
means male also commit offence in respect of another male & female commit offence in respect of
male/female.
Act distinguishes between 2 specific offences of rape - rape & compelled rape
crime of rape “act of sexual penetration” required by X before he convicted of offence
crime of compelled rape X need not perform “act of sexual penetration” - to be convicted as perpetrator
of offence sufficient if X compelled another person unlawfully & intentionally to commit “an act of
sexual penetration” - provided the person compelled & complainant did not consent
no age prescription for the crime of rape - crime committed by person of any age in respect of person of
any age.

4.2.2 Rape
4.2.2.1 Definition
S3 of Act provides that:
Any person (X) who unlawfully & intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with a complainant
(Y) without his/her consent is guilty of the offence of rape.
a) sexual penetration of another person;

b) without the consent of the latter person;
c) unlawfulness; and
d) intention.
4.2.2.2 The act

a The prohibited act consists in the act of sexual penetration by any person with another person without
his/her consent.
“Sexual penetration” defined:
Including any act which causes penetration to any extent whatsoever by
(i) the genital organs of one person into/beyond genital organs, anus/mouth of another person
(ii) any other part of the body of one person into/beyond genital organs/anus of another person; or
(iii)any object (incl. any part of body of animal) into/beyond genital organs/anus of another person; or
(iv) genital organs of an animal into/beyond the mouth of another person.
“Genital organs” defined including whole/part of male/female genital organs as well as surgically
constructed/reconstructed genital organs.
Examples - prohibited conduct in terms of (i)–(iv) above:
(i) X inserts his penis into anus/mouth of a woman/X (female) places her genital organ into mouth
of Y (male/female)
(ii) X (male/female) puts his/her finger into anus of Y (male/female)
(iii) X puts tail of animal into vagina of Y/X puts sex toy into anus of Y
(iv) X inserts the genital organ of a dog into the mouth of Y. (act also amounts to new statutory
crime bestiality)
b The use of words “including any act which causes penetration” in first line of definition means - crime
of rape created in Act no longer (as in common law formally defined crime - crime consisting merely
commission of certain type of act) - now materially defined crime - crime consisting causing of a certain
situation - sexual penetration.
Use of word “causes” - an act of “sexual penetration” performed also where X causes another
person/object to perform the act of penetration. (“causes” should be read with word “includes” in
beginning of definition) - word “causes” - clear sexual penetration includes all situations in which X
performs penetration of Y himself/herself - with his/her own body/causes another person/some object
to perform penetration.
c The act must be performed without the consent of Y (complainant)

Absence of consent - definitional element of the offence.
Consent - voluntary/uncoerced agreement - s 1(2)
S1(3) - provision dealing with interpretation of words “voluntary/uncoerced”
Circumstances in which Y does not voluntarily/without coercion agree to an act of sexual penetration
include - not limited to:
Y submits/subjected to sexual act as a result of
(1) use of force/intimidation by X against Y/Z (3rd person)/W (another person)/against property of Y,
Z/W/threat of harm by X against Y, Z/W/against property of Y, Z/W - s1(3)(a);
(2) an abuse of power/authority by X to the extent that Y inhibited from indicating his/her
unwillingness/resistance to sexual act/unwillingness to participate sexual act - s1(3)(b)
(3) sexual act committed under false pretences/by fraudulent means including - Y led to believe by X

(i) Y is committing a sexual act with a particular person who is in fact a different person; or
(ii) sexual act is something other than that act - s 1(3)(c) or
(4) Y incapable in law of appreciating nature of sexual act including - Y @ time of commission of sexual
act
(i) asleep;
(ii) unconscious;
(iii) altered state of consciousness - influence of medicine, drug, alcohol/other substance to extent that Y’s
consciousness/judgment is adversely affected;
(iv) child under age of 12 yrs; or
(v) person who is mentally disabled s1(3)(d)
Provisions relating to consent in s1(2) & (3) summarised as follows:

For consent to succeed as defence - given consciously & voluntarily – expressly/tacitly by person who
has the mental ability to understand what he/she is consenting to & consent must based on true
knowledge of the material facts relating to the act.
Various factors law not deeming consent valid despite fact that at first glance one may perhaps think
there had indeed been consent - set out in s1(3)
(1) Submission as a result of force, intimidation or threats (s 1(3)(a))
1st factor - leads law not to recognise ostensible (alleged) consent by Y as valid consent for purposes of
rape in existence of force, intimidation/threats of harm emanating (coming) from X in respect of Y - if Y
ostensibly “consents” to sexual penetration but “consent” in fact result of force, intimidation/threats of
harm emanating from X in respect of Y - law not regard consent as valid consent
Provisions of s1(3)(a) stipulates - even force, intimidation/threats of harm not against Y but against third
party may render ostensible consent invalid
Matters not whether 3rd - close family member of Y such as his/her child/spouse/close friend
subsection so widely worded - even include threats against somebody whom Y has never met
subsection make clear – force/threat of harm not against some person, but against property belonging
to a person may result in ostensible consent being invalid
matters not whether property belongs to Y personally, family member/friend of his/hers/some other
person whom Y has never met
“harm” in s1(3)(a) not qualified & accordingly not restricted to physical harm/harm to physical objects -
wide enough to cover monetary loss of whatever nature/even harm to reputation/dignity.
X tells Y an earlier act of infidelity against her husband will be revealed to her husband if she does not
submit to an act of sexual penetration with him (X), and Y, not wanting her husband to know about
infidelity submits- submission not construed (seen) as valid consent - case of intimidation of Y by X.
(2) Abuse by X of power of authority (s 1(3)(b))
S1(3)(b) speaks of cases “where there is an abuse of power/authority by (X) to extent that (Y) is inhibited
(repredded) from indicating his/her unwillingness/resistance to sexual act ...”
provision refers to cases where Y not threatened by physical violence but X expressly/tacitly uses
position of power he/she exercises over Y to influence Y to consent
been held - X a policeman - threatens to lay charge against Y for having committed a crime if does not
consent to intercourse & as result of threat Y then does “consent” - consent invalid (Volschenck;Botha)
S - held that X a policeman committed rape - had intercourse with Y in circumstances which he had not
threatened Y with form of harm - but Y believed that X had the power to harm her & X had been aware
of this fear - therefore clear - if X somebody like a policeman in a position of power over Y, Y’s “consent”
not regarded as valid if evidence reveals that she apprehended some form of harm other than physical
assault
(3) Consent obtained by fraud (s 1(3)(c))
S1(3)(c) “consent” obtained by fraud
In common law crime rape - X was always a male & Y always a female - fraud which vitiated consent -
fraud in respect of identity of man (error personae) as woman led to believe man was her husband/fraud

in respect of nature of act she “agreed” (error in negotio) as she was persuaded that act not act of sexual
penetration but medical operation
principles still apply under new Act but X & Y may now be either male/female
Misrepresentation of circumstance other than mentioned above - X’s wealth, age/Y is a prostitute - X’s
ability to pay for Y’s “services” - not vitiate consent
X falsely represents to Y he/she is multimillionaire & Y believes X’s story & on strength of such
misrepresentation he/she agrees to sexual penetration by X, his/her consent is valid & rape not
committed
consent deemed valid where person misled not about the nature of the act of sexual intercourse but
about the results which will follow on such intercourse. (K - X represented to Y - intercourse with him
would cure her infertility )
position if X is HIV-infected but Y is not & would never give consent to intercourse with man who is - yet
X acquires Y’s consent by misrepresenting that he is not HIVinfected - submitted that - in light of severe
consequences of such misrepresentation Y’s consent not regarded as valid - even if relates to results of
act - cannot consent to one’s own death – it is contra bonos mores.
(4) Inability by Y to appreciate the nature of the sexual act (s 1(3)(d))
S1(3)(d) - Y “incapable in law of appreciating the nature of the sexual act”
no valid consent if X performs act of sexual penetration in respect of Y if Y is asleep unless Y previously
whilst awake given consent (C ) - same applies to situation where Y unconscious
Paragraph (iii) subsection (3)(d) provides - consent not valid if Y “in an altered state of consciousness,
incl. under influence of medicine, drug, alcohol/substance to extent that Y’s consciousness/judgement is
adversely affected”
Paragraph (iv) subsection (3)(d) contains provision NB in practice: If at time of commission of sexual
penetration Y is a child under age of 12 yrs - ostensible “consent” by him/her in law invalid - child
irrebuttably presumed incapable of consenting to act of sexual penetration
Paragraph (v) subsection (3)(d) provides - consent not valid if Y “a person who is mentally disabled” –
d Marital relationship no defence
S56(1) provides - accused person charged with rape -“it is not a valid defence for that accused person to
contend that a marital/other relationship exists/existed between him/her & complainant” – therefore
possible for husband to rape own wife
Absence of consent by Y not ground of justification but definitional element of the crime
If it were ground of justification - definitional elements of crime would have consisted in sexual
penetration between two persons - not recognisable as a crime
does not mean unlawfulness not element of the crime
Unlawfulness excluded if X acted under compulsion
Z forces X to rape Y/threatens X with harm if he/she does not rape Y & X in actual fact rapes Y, X may
rely on ground of justification of necessity.
4.2.2.4 Intention
Intention specifically mentioned in definition of the crime in s3 as requirement for conviction
X must know Y not consented to sexual penetration
Dolus eventualis suffices - sufficient to prove X foresaw possibility Y’s free & conscious consent might be
lacking but nevertheless continued with act of sexual penetration
proof of absence of consent - reliance placed on fact that girl is under 12 yrs at time of commission of
act - X must be aware girl is not yet 12 yrs/at least foresee possibility
Similarly - in order to establish absence of consent - reliance placed upon woman’s intoxication/mental
defect/was sleeping/defrauded - must established X aware of such factor vitiating consent.

4.2.3 Compelled rape

4.2.3.1 Definition
S4 of the Act provides that
Any person (X) who unlawfully & intentionally compels a third person (Z) without his/her (Z’s) consent
to commit an act of sexual penetration with a complainant (Y) without Y’s consent; is guilty of the
offence of compelled rape.
Elements of this crime:

(a) compelling a person;
(b) to commit act of sexual penetration with another person;
(c) without the consent of such third person;
(d) without the consent of the complainant;
(e) unlawfulness; and
(f) intention.
4.2.3.2 The act

act consists in compelling of a 3rd person without his/her consent to commit act of sexual penetration
with Y (complainant) without Y’s consent
X may be convicted as perpetrator of the crime even if he himself/she herself did not perform any actual
act of sexual penetration with complainant - X unlawfully & intentionally compels Z to put his penis in
Y’s anus without Y (complainant) & Z’s consent - X commits crime of compelled rape
new offence of compelled rape changed common law - rape was regarded as crime which could only be
committed by X personally(own body)
common law - X compelled Z to rape Y, X only liable as accomplice to the crime of rape - even possible X
be acquitted as accomplice if Z (perpetrator) could not be held liable for lack of criminal capacity/mens
rea.
enacting crime of “compelled rape” - unacceptable position has been addressed
doubtful whether necessary to create this crime - provisions coincide with wide formulation of the crime
rape in s3 - particular words “any act which causes penetration” in the definition of “sexual
penetration” in s1(1) wide enough to include conduct by X whereby he/she compels third party to
perform sexual penetration.
Presumably s3 inserted by legislature to make sure compelled sexual penetration indeed criminalized
not a defence on charge of compelled rape – marital/other relationship between parties - s56(1)
unlawfulness of act conceivably (possibly) excluded if X is himself/herself compelled to compel Z to
perform the act upon Y.
4.2.3.4 Intention
X must have intention that Z performs act of sexual penetration with Y knowing/foreseeing consent of Z
& Y absent - dolus eventualis sufficient form of intention for the crime
X genuinely believed Y (complainant) consented - lacks intention
4.3 SEXUAL ASSAULT, COMPELLED SEXUAL ASSAULT AND COMPELLED SELF-SEXUAL ASSAULT
4.3.1 General
Apart from two specific offences of rape - Act repeals common law crime indecent assault & replaces
with new statutory offences of sexual assault, compelled sexual assault & compelled self-sexual
assault
various offences relate to non consensual sexual violation of another person by perpetrator
himself/herself/another person who is compelled by perpetrator to perform the prohibited act
compelled person may also be complainant himself/herself.
4.3.2 Sexual assault
4.3.2.1 Definition

S5(1) of Act provides that

A person (X) who unlawfully & intentionally sexually violates a complainant (Y) without the consent of Y;
is guilty of the offence of sexual assault.
S5(2) furthermore provides that

A person (X) who unlawfully & intentionally inspires the belief in a complainant (Y) that Y will be
sexually violated; is guilty of the offence of sexual assault.
Elements of the crime:

(a) an act of “sexual violation” of another person;
(b) without the consent of the latter person;
(c) unlawfulness; and
(d) intention; OR
(a) the inspiring of a belief in another person that he/she will be sexually violated;
(b) unlawfully; and
(c) intentionally.
4.3.2.2 The act

(a) Definition of “sexual violation” - NOT required to memorise definition - must be able to identify act
which complies with definition
purpose of crime - criminalise sexual acts which fall short of actual penetration of Y
If actual penetration (as word defined in Act) - crime of rape committed.
“Sexual violation” - broadly defined in s1:
including any act which causes –
(a)direct/indirect contact between the
(i) genital organs/anus of one person/in case of female –breasts & any part of body of another
person/animal/any object including any object resembling/representing genital organs/anus of a
person/animal;
(ii) mouth of one person and
(aa) genital organs/anus of another person/in case of female her breasts;
(bb) mouth of another person;
(cc) any other part of the body of another person other than genital organs/anus of that person/in case of
female her breasts which could
(aaa) be used in an act of sexual penetration;
(bbb) cause sexual arousal/stimulation; or
(ccc) be sexually aroused/stimulated thereby; or
(dd) any object resembling genital organs/anus of person & in case of female her breasts/animal; or
(iii) mouth of complainant & genital organs/anus of animal;
(d) masturbation of one person by another person; or
(e) insertion of any object resembling/representing genital organs of person/animal into/beyond the mouth
of another person,
BUT does not include act of sexual penetration & “sexually violates” has a corresponding meaning.
word in definition “includes” = important - implication of word - punishable acts included in this crime -
not limited to those expressly mentioned in definition but is possible that other acts not expressly
mentioned in definition - also amount to commission of the crime
in light of extensive enumeration (list) of acts in definition - unlikely a court will decide other acts not
mentioned in definition - amount to commission of the crime.
(b) Discussion of definition of “sexual violation”
(i) “... any act which causes ...”
As in statutory crime rape - present crime defined widely to include not only actual act of X hereby he
or/she makes contact with body of another but also any act whereby he/she causes such contact.
(ii) causing of contact instead of causing of penetration

expression “sexual penetration” - describes act in crime of rape is defined as “any act which causes
penetration ...” & expression “sexual violation” describes act in crime of sexual assault is defined in
terms of “any act which causes ... contact between ...”
Sexual assault does not deal with penetration but with “contact” between two persons.
(iii) Direct/indirect contact
definition - “any act which causes ... direct/indirect contact between ...”
“Contact” - the physical touching of two parts of the different bodies/body & an object
“Indirect contact” - contact through agency of another person/use of instrument i.e. stick
Examples of conduct may amount to offence of “sexual violation” - not learn examples for exam - may
be required to identify acts which comply with provisions of the section.
(c) Inspiring a belief that sexual violation will take place

second way which crime of sexual assault committed - X inspiring a belief in Y that Y will be sexually
violated - s 5(2)
“sexual assault” - may deduce that legislature intended crime to be species of common law crime
assault Assault can be committed in two ways:
(i) by act which infringes Y’s bodily integrity – takes form of actual application of force to Y; and
(ii) by inspiring of belief in Y that Y’s bodily integrity is immediately to be infringed.
Legislature wanted similar principle to apply to crime of sexual assault - submitted that same principles
applying to form of assault known as inspiring of a belief that Y’s bodily security is about to be infringed
also apply to this way in which sexual assault may be committed
X either male/female - same applies to Y
act of sexual violation - place without consent of complainant
S56(1) provides - when accused person charged with sexual assault - “it is not a valid defence for that
accused person to contend that a marital/other relationship exist/existed between him/her & the
complainant”
possible for husband to commit sexual assault in respect of own wife
X may rely on compulsion as ground of justification excluding unlawfulness
4.3.2.4 Intention
Intention specifically mentioned in definition of crime in s3 as requirement for conviction
X must know Y had not consented to sexual violation
Same principles as those in corresponding element in crime of rape also apply to element of intention in
this crime.
4.3.3 Compelled sexual assault

4.3.3.1 Definition

A person (X) who unlawfully and intentionally compels a third person (Z) to commit an act of sexual
violation with a complainant (Y) without Z’s or Y’s consent is guilty of the offence of compelled sexual
assault.

(a) compelling a 3rd person;
(b) to commit act of sexual violation with another person (complainant);
(c) without the consent of such 3rd person; and
(d) without the consent of the complainant;
(e) unlawfulness; and
(f) intention.

4.3.3.2 The act

typical example of commission of crime - X tells Z he will kill him if he does not commit some act of
sexual violation in respect of Y - impossible for Z to escape his dilemma & Z ends up yielding to pressure
& performs the deed
S56(1) provides - accused person charged with this crime -“it is not a valid defence for that accused
person to contend that a marital/other relationship exists/existed between him/her & the complainant”.
See corresponding element in crime of rape
unlawfulness of act may conceivably be excluded if X is himself/herself compelled to compel Z to
perform the act upon Y.
4.3.3.4 Intention
See corresponding element in the crime of rape
4.3.4 Compelled self-sexual assault

4.3.4.1 Definition – NOT required to memorise definition - must know elements of offence & able to
identify an act of compelled self-sexual assault.

A person (X) who unlawfully & intentionally compels a complainant (Y) without Y’s
consent to –
engage in
masturbation;
any form of arousal/stimulation of a sexual nature of the female breasts; or
sexually suggestive/lewd (lustful/vulgar) acts with Y himself/herself;
engage in any act which has/may have the effect of sexually arousing/degrading Y; or
cause Y to penetrate in any manner whatsoever her own genital organs/his/her anus,
is guilty of the offence of compelled self-sexual assault.
Elements of crime are:

(a) the compelling of somebody else;
(b) to engage in the conduct set out in the definition;
(c) without consent of the other person;
(d) unlawfulness; and
(e) intention
crime created in s7 deals with situations in which there are only two persons – the perpetrator (X) & the
victim (Y)
X compels Y to perform the “indecent” act upon Y himself/herself.
4.3.4.2 The act

example of conduct punishable under this section - X tells Y that he will kill him/her - if he/she does not
self-masturbate - impossible for Y to escape his/her dilemma & where Y yields to the pressure &
performs the act.
act in paragraph (c) refers to - Y forced to penetrate himself/herself - insert his/her finger into his/her
own anus/her vagina.
requirement of “absence of consent” - same as for crime of rape - corresponding element
S56(1) provides - accused charged with this crime - “it is not a valid defence for that accused person to
contend that a marital/other relationship exists/existed between him/her & the complainant”.

unlawfulness conceivably excluded if X himself/herself compelled to compel Y to perform the act.
4.3.4.4 Intention
Same as crime of rape - corresponding element in the crime of rape.
4.4 SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST PERSONS 18 YEARS/OLDER

4.4.1 General
Act creates various offences which may be committed in respect of persons 18 yrs/older
Brief summary of punishable acts: NOT required to memorise various ways crimes committed against
persons 18 yrs & older - must identify act which amounts to offence in given set of facts.
(i) unlawful & intentional compelling of person 18 yrs/older without his/her consent to witness sexual
offences, sexual acts with another/self-masturbation - s8(1)–(3)
irrelevant whether act performed for sexual gratification of perpetrator (X)/for third person (Z)
word “sexual act” defined as either sexual penetration/sexual violation - s 1(1)
S v Pretorius:
• accused performed act of self-masturbation in lounge of his house in front of domestic
servant
• then asked if she would like to help him masturbate & she replied she would not
• continued to masturbate in front of her finally moving to the bathroom but leaving the door
open in full view of complainant
• charged with contravention of s 8(3) - he had unlawfully & intentionally compelled/caused
complainant to witness act of self-masturbation
• accused argued - domestic servant had opportunity not to witness - she must have
effectively consented thereto
• was convicted of offence & appealed against conviction
• court of appeal confirmed conviction on basis that accused had caused her to witness the
act - pointed out that ordinary meaning of word “cause” = “bring about”
• further found - conduct of accused unlawful because complainant had not consented to
witnessing the act
• court found the appellant abused his position of power/authority in self-masturbating in
complainant’s presence & attempting to induce complainant to participate in his act of self-
masturbation
• Because complainant dependent on income from the job to support children did not
expressly indicate objection to appellant’s conduct
• court rejected argument that her failure to expressly object/indicate
unwillingness/resistance amounted to voluntary/uncoerced consent.
(ii) unlawful & intentional exposure/display (or causing exposure/display) of the genital organs,
anus/female breasts of X/Z to Y - person 18 yrs/older without Y’s consent (s 9)
irrelevant whether act performed for sexual gratification of perpetrator (X)/third person (Z)
offence generally referred - “flashing”.
(iii) unlawful & intentional exposure/display (or causing exposure/display) of persons 18 yrs/older to child
pornography.
irrelevant whether act performed for sexual gratification of perpetrator (X)/third person (Z)
NB - crime committed even if Y consented to exposure of display of child pornography to
himself/herself (s 10).
(iv) engagement of persons 18 yrs /older in sexual services for financial/other reward, favour/compensation
to Y/third person (Z) (s 11)
X to be convicted of offence act must be performed:
(a) for purpose of engaging in a sexual act with Y (if sexual act in actual fact committed/not) (s 11(a));or
(b) by committing a sexual act with Y (s 11(b)).
conduct of X punishable even if Y consented to the act

Therefore person who engages services of prostitute (18 yrs/older- male/female) may be convicted of
this offence
section not expressly criminalise activity of Y (prostitute) - clear Y’s conduct furthers/promotes criminal
activity of X - Y convicted of being an accomplice to the crime committed by X
4.5 INCEST
4.5.1 Definition
S12(1) provides:
Persons who may not lawfully marry each other on account of consanguinity, affinity/an adoptive
relationship & who unlawfully & intentionally engage in an act of sexual penetration with each other
are, despite their mutual consent to engage in such act, guilty of the offence of incest.
“consanguinity”, “affinity” & “adoptive relationship” - circumscribed in subsection (2)
Elements of crime are:

(a) act of sexual penetration;
(b) between 2 people who may not lawfully marry each other on account of consanguinity, affinity/an
adoptive relationship;
(c) unlawfulness; and
(d) intention.
4.5.2 The act

crime committed if sexual penetration takes places between people who may not lawfully marry each
other on account of consanguinity, affinity/an adoptive relationship.
S12(2) reads as follows: Not required to memorise - must be able to identify factual situation involving
people who may not lawfully marry each other on account of consanguinity, affinity/an adoptive
relationship.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a) the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (blood relationship) are
the following:
(i) Ascendants (dominant) & descendants (offspring) in the direct line; or
(ii) collaterals, if either of them is related to their common ancestor in the first degree of descent;
(b) prohibited degrees of affinity (likeness) are relations by marriage in ascending & descending line; and
(c) an adoptive relationship is the relationship of adoption as provided for in any other law.”
4.5.3 Unlawfulness
sexual penetration must be unlawful – i.e. not committed under duress
Consent by other party no defence - both parties consented - both parties guilty of the crime
4.5.4 Intention
Intention element of the crime
parties not only intend to have sexual intercourse with each other - also be aware of fact are related to
each other within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, affinity/adoptive relationship.
4.6 BESTIALITY
4.6.1 Definition - NOT required to know definition in detail - be able to identify act prohibited in terms
of provision
A person who unlawfully & intentionally commits an act
(a) which causes penetration to any extent whatsoever by the genital organs of –
(i) X into/beyond the mouth, genital organs/anus of an animal; or
(ii) an animal into/beyond the mouth, genital organs/anus of X; or
(b) of masturbation of an animal, unless such act is committed for scientific reasons/breeding purposes/of
masturbation with an animal,
is guilty of the offence of bestiality (s 13).

court in M held - existence of such crime = not unconstitutional pg 391 in case book – MUST STUDY FOR
EXAMS
4.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN

4.7.1 General
Chapter 3 of Act comprising of s15 to 22 - sexual offences against children
most NB of these crimes 1st one - sexual penetration of children below the age of 16 ys even with their
consent
4.7.2 Consensual sexual penetration of children

4.7.2.1 Definition
A person (X) who commits an act of sexual penetration with a child (Y) is, despite the consent of Y to the
commission of such an act, guilty of the offence of having committed an act of consensual sexual
penetration with a child (s 15).
NOTE: For purpose of s15 & 16 -“child” defined in s1(1) - “a person 12 yrs/older but under the age of
16 yrs”
Elements are:
(a) commission of an act of sexual penetration
(b) with a person 12 yrs/older but under the age of 16 yrs
(c) unlawfulness and
(d) intention
referred to as “statutory rape”

X commits act of sexual penetration with child below age 12 – he/she guilty of this crime – any
ostensible “consent” young child regarded by law invalid
Sexual penetration of child between ages 12 & 16 = criminalized - child not yet mature enough to
properly appreciate implications & consequences of sexual acts - especially sexual penetration of female
by male
therefore specially protected
Consent by the child to the commission of the act is no defence
act takes place without consent by child - X commits more serious crime of rape
The Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development (decided 3 Oct 13) - Constitutional Court considered constitutionality of criminalisation of
consensual sexual conduct of children 12 yrs/older but under age of 16 yrs
provisions of Sexual Offences Act = s15 & 16
court explained - crime committed in following circumstances:
• Firstly - adult (18 yrs/older)/minor (16 yrs but under age of 18) engages in consensual sexual
penetration with adolescent (12 yrs/older but under age of 16 yrs).
• Secondly - crime committed when adolescents (12 yrs/older but under age of 16 yrs) engage in
consensual sexual penetration with each other.
S16 of Act contains same provisions as s15 except it criminalises “sexual violation” - broadly defined as
“direct/indirect contact” & includes some forms of masturbation by another person, petting & kissing
provisions similar in other respects to s15(2)
“close-in-age” defence available to child charged with sexual assault - accused child may rely on defence
that both of accused children & age difference between them no more than two yrs – s56
pointed out by court - 12-yr-old & 15-yr-old engage in kissing - both committing offence in terms of s16
If 15-yr-old prosecuted 12-yr-old must also be prosecuted - neither may rely on close-in-age defence
North Gauteng High Court ruled provisions unjustifiably infringe children’s constitutional rights to
dignity, privacy & bodily & psychological integrity as well as rights in terms of s28(2) of the Constitution
Constitutional Court asked to confirm ruling of High Court

contended by applicants that provisions so broad - instead of protecting children - harmed children -
would be exposed to criminal justice system as result of prohibited conduct
Such exposure (argued in expert evidence before court) would harm child’s development of proper
understanding of & healthy attitudes to sexual behaviour
Due to adverse consequences rights to human dignity, privacy, physical & psychological integrity as well
as “best interests of the child” principle infringed
Constitutional Court considered impact of provisions on each rights:
pointed out - children enjoy each of fundamental rights in Constitution granted to “everyone”
expert evidence before court indicated data revealed that majority of SA children 12 yrs/older
but under 16 yrs begin explore sexuality & is part of child’s development
Adolescents charged under impugned provisions might be shamed & embarrassed by criminal
prosecutions which might have negative impact on natural development
Another adverse consequence - child might be discouraged from seeking help for issues relating
to sex from parents/other people
instead of achieving positive outcomes - provisions more likely to heighten risk of adolescents
having negative experiences
dealing 1st with right to dignity - court agreed that criminalisation of consensual sexual conduct -
“form of stigmatisation which is degrading & invasive”
infringement of s10 - right to dignity therefore apparent since as court noted “an individual’s
human dignity comprises not only how he/she values himself/herself but also includes how
others value him/her”
negative evaluation by others would be a consequence of criminal trial & conviction of such
adolescent
right to privacy - court indicated that provisions invaded “the most intimate spheres of personal
relationships”
evidence was led to the effect that exposure of children to criminal justice system for engaging
in consensual sexual behaviour would have negative impact on them generally & would likewise
be contrary to best interests of the child in terms of s28(2) of Constitution
Turning to limitation analysis - court rejected respondents’ contention (argument) that
implementation of provisions would require prosecutorial discretion at highest level & that
there are other diversionary measures available to avoid criminal trial & conviction
court pointed out - adolescents would inevitably be exposed to being arrested & questioned by
police
no evidence before court that purpose of provisions - protect adolescents from risks associated
with sexual acts & consequently deter them from engaging in such conduct - could reasonably
be expected to be achieved
was evidence before court - have opposite effect - “cultivating a society in which adolescents
are precluded from having open & frank discussions about sexual conduct with their parents
and caregivers”
court found - no rational link between provisions & stated purpose
also considered possibility - less restrictive means used to educate children about risks of
matters like child pregnancy
provisions - declared inconsistent with Constitution & invalid to extent that they impose
criminal liability on children under age of 16 yrs
Because of complexity of matter (example - need to impose criminal liability on adult for
engaging in sexual conduct with consenting adolescent) - declaration of invalidity suspended
for 18 months - allow parliament to amend provisions
provisions have not yet been amended by parliament
4.7.2.2 The act

provision which was conditionally declared unconstitutional in Teddy Bear case provides a child must be
12 yrs/older but under age of 16 yrs at time of commission of act
definition of crime in subsection (1) - not require X to be above certain age

subsection (2) provides – X also a child (person 12 yrs/older but under age of 16 yrs) - institution of
prosecution be authorised in writing by national director of public prosecutions
Two defences X may rely on when charged with this crime (s 56(2)).
• First defence: Y deceived X about his/her age
s56(2)(a) - valid defence for somebody charged with this crime to contend the child (Y) deceived
X into believing he/she 16 yrs/older at time of alleged commission of crime & X reasonably
believed that Y was 16 yrs/older
provision not apply if X related to Y within prohibited degrees of blood, affinity/an adoptive
relationship as set out in definition of incest
submitted that prosecution bears onus of proving X not deceived into believing Y was 16
yrs/older - is evidential onus on X to raise defence & lay factual foundation for existence of
belief
• Second defence: X & Y both children
s56(2)(b) - valid defence for somebody charged with this crime to contend that both X & Y
“children” (betw ages 12 & 16 yrs) and age difference betw them not more than two years at
time of alleged commission of crime
if X 15 yrs old at time of act he/she - have valid defence if Y 13 yrs at that time - not if Y 12 yrs
at that time
entire s15 declared unconstitutional - declaration of unconstitutionality been suspended for 18

months to give parliament opportunity to amend provisions
Act must be unlawful
Compulsion conceivably exclude unlawfulness
Unlawfulness be excluded by official capacity - medical doctor examines child - places his/her finger in
child’s vagina/anus/mouth
4.7.2.4 Negligence sufficient form of culpability

Intention specifically mentioned as requirement for conviction in most crimes created in the Act - not
mentioned as requirement for conviction of the present crime
Happens that X bona fide believes female Y at least 16 yrs of age - in fact just below age of 16 at time of
commission of act
S56(2)(a) - X not rely on defence he made mistake regarding Y’s age
Section provides - X’s belief that Y already 16 yrs must be reasonable
Word “reasonable” - objective element into inquiry - X held liable if reasonable person would have
realised Y not yet 16 yrs - X found guilty of the crime if state proves only negligence
4.7.3 Consensual sexual violation of children

NOT required to know exact provisions of s16
Only difference between this crime & consensual sexual penetration of children in contravention of s15 -
the latter crime relates to situations where child betw ages of 12 & 16 yrs sexually penetrated - in
present crime such child is not sexually penetrated but only sexually violated.
2 special defences created in s56 also apply to this crime
Same remarks apply to elements of unlawfulness & intention & to the consent of national director of
public prosecutions which must be obtained if X below age of 16 yrs
As in other crime X may be male/female & same applies to Y.
4.7.4 Sexual exploitation of children under the age of 18 years

4.7.4.1 Definition
S17 creates number of crimes relating to sexual exploitation of children
Summary of s17’s provisions
WORD “CHILD” USED IN SECTION - PERSON UNDER AGE OF 18 YRS OLD

(a) Sexual exploitation of a child

s17(1) provides - any person engages services of a child (with/without his/her consent) for sexual
favours, any type of reward - irrespective of whether sexual act committed/not - guilty of the crime of
sexual exploitation of a child
example - X commits the crime if obtains services of Y for sex for reward even if Y is consenting 17-yr-old
person
(b) Involvement in the sexual exploitation of a child
Subsection (2) provides - person (X) who offers services of child complainant (Y) to third party (Z),
with/without consent of Y for financial/other reward, for purposes of commission of sexual act with Y
by Z/by detaining Y by threats for purposes of commission of sexual act - guilty of the crime of being
involved in sexual exploitation of a child
(c) Furthering the sexual exploitation of a child
subsection (3) - person who allows/permits commission of sexual act by Z with child Y, with/without
consent of Y/permits property which he/she (X) owns to be used for commission of sexual act with a
child Y - guilty of furthering sexual exploitation of a child
(d) Benefiting from sexual exploitation of a child
Subsection (4) - person who intentionally receives financial/other reward from commission of sexual act
with child complainant by 3rd party - guilty of benefiting from sexual exploitation of a child
(e) Living from the earnings of sexual exploitation of a child
subsection (5) - person who intentionally lives wholly/in part on rewards/compensation for commission
of sexual act with a child (Y) by 3rd person (Z) - guilty of living from earnings of sexual exploitation of a
child.
(f) Promoting child sex tours
Subsection (6) - a person who organises any travel arrangements for 3rd person (Z) with intention of
facilitating commission of sexual act with a child (Y)/prints/publishes information intended to promote
such conduct - guilty of promoting child sex tours.
4.7.5 Sexual grooming of children under age of 18 yrs

NOT expected to memorise all ways which offence committed - must be able to identify act of sexual
grooming of child in a given set of facts
S18 criminalises long list of acts which amount to requesting, influencing, inviting, persuading,
encouraging/enticing child (Y) - person under age of 18 yrs - to indulge in sexual act/diminishing his/her
resistance to performance of such acts - irrelevant whether child consented to the act
S18(2) - person commits crime of sexual grooming of child if he/she among other things performs any of
the following acts:
• display an article to Y intended to be used in performance of sexual act/display of
pornography/publication/film which is intended to encourage child to commit sexual act
• commission of any act with/in presence of Y with intention to encourage child to commit sexual act with
him/her/3rd person/to reduce unwillingness on the part of Y to perform such act
Further acts which amount to the offence - specifically aimed at prevention of grooming of child over
internet. Punishable acts are:
• arrange meeting with child (any part of world) to commit sexual act with child
• invite child to travel to meet X to commit sexual act with child
4.7.6 Displaying of pornography to children, use of children for child pornography & benefiting from
child pornography
S19 prohibits person from unlawfully & intentionally exposing/displaying child pornography to persons
younger than 18yrs
S20 creates crime of using child for/benefiting from child pornography - targets different roleplayers
actively involved in obtaining children & using them to create child pornography
does not matter whether Y consents to the act/not/receives any benefit/reward from such proposed
conduct

Subsection (2) - aimed at punishing all roleplayers who benefit in any manner from involvement in child
pornography
NOT expected to memorise above definition of the crime - must be able to identify prohibited act in
terms of this offence
4.7.7 Compelling children to witness sexual crimes, sexual acts or self-masturbation

S21 creates offence similar to offence in s8 (“Sexual offences against person 18 yrs/older”) - offence
however applies to children under age of 18 yrs
4.7.8 Exposing/display of genital organs, anus/female breasts to children (“flashing”)

offence same as offence in respect of adults (s9) - except one important difference : adults act must be
performed without consent of victim & children offence committed even if the child consented
(offence committed with/ without consent of child)
4.8 SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

4.8.1 General
Mentally disabled persons constitute group of persons particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation -
Consequently mentally disabled people need particular protection by the law
4.8.2 Definition
Chapter 4 of the Act, comprising s23 & 26, deals with sexual offences against persons who are mentally
disabled.
expression “person who is mentally disabled” defined as follows in s1(1):
A person affected by any mental disability, including any disorder/disability of the mind, to the extent
that he/she, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence in question, was
(a) unable to appreciate the nature & reasonably foreseeable consequences of a sexual act;
(b) able to appreciate the nature & reasonably foreseeable consequences of such an act, but unable to
act in accordance with that appreciation;
(c) unable to resist the commission of any such act; or
(d) unable to communicate his/her unwillingness to participate in any such act.
offences created in respect of mentally disabled persons - similar to offences created in respect of
children - Section 17 – 20 applicable!!!
4.9 FAILURE TO REPORT SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN & MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS
S54(1) provides any person who has knowledge that a sexual offence has been committed against a
child must report such knowledge immediately to a police official
S54(2) provides - person who fails to report such knowledge is guilty of an offence
S54(2) places similar obligation on any person to report knowledge, reasonable belief/suspicion that
sexual offence has been committed against a person who is mentally disabled
Failure to comply with these obligations amounts to an offence
4.10 TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES

Act provides that a person who traffics in any person (Y) for sexual purposes without person’s consent -
guilty of the offence of trafficking in persons for sexual purposes - s71(1)
Encouraging, incitement, instigation & other preparatory actions amount to offence of involvement in
trafficking in persons for sexual purposes - s71(2)
4.11 ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY AND INCITEMENT

S55 provides - any person involved in commission of sexual offence by way of attempt, conspiracy,
aiding/abetting, inducement, incitement, instigation, instruction, commanding,
counselling/procurement - guilty of an offence

STUDY UNIT 5 - CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND POTENTIAL LIFE
5.2 MURDER
5.2.1 General
NOT required to study prescribed punishment for murder in any detail for examination
Definition:
Murder is the unlawful & intentional causing of the death of another human being
Elements of crime:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person
(3) unlawfully
(4) intentionally
General:
Many different ways person can cause death of another
Crime of murder in SA law covers wide field
Moral reprehensibility of the intentional causing of another’s death vary from case to case
1 extreme – case where X kills Y cold-bloodedly with premeditation & out of hatred
Other extreme – X & Y drink liquor together, Y acts provocatively towards X, quarrel ensues, Y slaps X
across the face whereupon enraged X kills Y
Also situation – X gives Y, who suffers from cancer & endures excruciating pain, lethal injection to release
him from his suffering; X at Y’s request assists him to commit suicide & even where X stumbles upon Y in
the act of committing adultery with X’s wife & an enraged X then kills Y
According to SA law – all these situations X liable to be convicted of murder
USA –well known “murder in the 1st degree” & “murder in the 2nd degree”
English likewise distinguishes between murder & voluntary manslaughter
German law – between mord & totschlag
Dutch law – between moord & doodslag
Similar/analogous differences between different crimes reflecting different types of intentional causing of
death found in most other legal systems
Present definition of murder in SA law is an oversimplification of something which is more complex than
1 might initially tend to think
If like other legal systems (above) our law had recognized 2 different crimes by which the unlawful,
intentional killing of someone else were punished, our courts would not have experienced so many
problems deciding what effect of provocation on liability was
Provoked homicide could in principle have been treated as falling under the less serious form of
intentional homicide
Causing the death

Act consists in voluntary act/omission which causes the death of another human being
Brief summary of these rules:
x must either commit a voluntary positive act (commission)/there must be a voluntary omission
(omission) on his part in circumstances in which there is a legal duty on him to act positively
Act/omission is voluntary if X capable of subjecting his bodily movement to his will/intellect
Act/omission qualifies as the cause of Y’s death if it is both the factual cause & legal cause of the
death
Factual cause of death if it is a condition sine qua non – indispensable condition of the death – X’s
conduct cannot be thougt away without Y’s death disappearing at the same time
Legal cause of Y’s death if a court is if the view that there are policy considerations for regarding
it as the cause of Y’s death
1/more of number of theories of legal causation used – individualization theory (proximate
cause), theory of adequate causation/the novus actus interveniens theory

Another human being

Neither suicide nor attempted suicide is a crime
Does not mean to instigate, assist/put another in a position to commit suicide can never be criminal
Certain circumstances such conduct amount to murder/culpable homicide – since instigator’s conduct
may be causally related to the death/amount to attempted murder
Human being killed must be a live human being
To “kill” unborn foetus & separate it from mother’s body – treated in our law as abortion – not murder
Various tests used to ascertain whether child was born alive – breathed, had independent blood
circulation/completely expelled from mothers body
S239(1) of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 – child deemed to have been born alive if it is proved that it
breathed whether it had independent blood circulation/not & not necessary to prove child was at time of
death entirely separated from mother’s body – presumption of live birth if child breathed
Presumption rebuttable not yet decided – been submitted it’s not
Section merely procedural importance – does not lay down substantive law
Facilitates task of prosecution in case child has breathed – ordinary not difficult to prove
Hydrostic test – lungs placed in water to determine whether they float employed
Section not state when child born alive but how it may be proved
Remains possible for X to prove that even if it breathed child was dead before completely expelled from
mother’s body
Wording of section ambiguous: irrebuttable presumption of live birth not only inference to be drawn –
fact that wording ambiguous –more reason for interpreting in X’s favour
Unlawfulness
Killing must be unlawful
Certain grounds of justification – private defence (including sellf-defence), necessity, official
capacity/obedience to orders – may justify otherwise unlawful killing
Consent to killing by deceased not exclude unlawfulness
Euthanasia not grounds of justification
Intention
Form of culpability required = intention
(Unlawful) negligent causing of another’s death = culpable homicide
Rules relating to element of intention summary:
Intention requirement satisfied not only if X has direct intention (dolus directus) to kill Y but also
if he foresees possibility of Y being killed & reconciles himself with the possibility (dolus
eventualis)
Test for intention = subjective
Subjective mental state inferred fromm objective facts proved by state
Awareness of unlawfulness is integral part of intention
Mistake concerning material element of crime (requirement that it is a human being that must
be killed) excludes intention
X’s motive irrelevant
Punishment
(a) General
Death sentence used to be competent sentence for murder – 1995 Makwanyane - Constitutional Court
held – form of punishment unconstitutional – amounts to unjustifiable violation of the right to life, right
to dignity & right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman/degrading punishment
Before 1997 court had free discretion as to period of imprisonment imposed on conviction of murder
Incidence of murder increased alarmingly since 1990 (moratorium 1st placed on execution of death
sentences)
Reaction to high crime level S51 of Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 enacted
Makes provision for min sentences imposed for certain crimes – murder in certain circumstances

Subsection (6) of S51 provides – min sentences not applicable in respect of a child who was under age 16
at time of commission of the crime
(b) Imprisonment for life must sometimes be imposed
S51(1) – Regional Court/High Court must sentence person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life in
following circumstances:
(1) murder planned/premeditated
(2) Y was law enforcement officer (police) who has been murdered while performing his functions as a
law enforcement officer, irrespective of on duty/not
(3) Y somebody who has given/was likely to give material evidence at a criminal proceeding with
reference to any crime referred to in Schedule 1 (list of crimes described as serious) of Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of 1997
(4) Y’s death caused by X committing/attempting to commit (after having committed/attempted to
commit) rape/compelled rape
(5) Y’s death caused by X committing/attempting to commit (after having committed/attempted to
commit) robbery with aggravating circumstances
(6) murder committed by person, group of persons/syndicate acting in execution/furtherance of common
purpose/conspiracy
(7) Y killed to unlawfully remove any part of his body
(8) Y’s death resulted from certain crimes mentioned in Witchcraft Suppression Act 3 of 1957
Existence of punishment as imprisonment for life (replaced death sentence as max sentence imposed on
conviction of murder) must be taken with pinch of salt, person who received such punishment may be
released on parole
(c) Other min periods of imprisonment must sometimes be imposed
If 1 of circumstances not present – X not qualify for mandatory imprisonment for life
S51(2) – in such situations high/regional court – nevertheless obliged to impose following min period of
imprisonment
(1) 15 yrs – 1st offence
(2) 20 yrs – 2nd offence
(3) 25 yrs – 3rd/subsequent offender
(d) Avoidance of min sentences
Always cases court of opinion imposition above min periods imprisonment – considering circumstances
of case – harsh/unjust
Subsection (3)(a) of S51 – legislature created mechanism whereby court freed from obligation of
imposing 1 of min sentences above
According to subsection – court not bound to impose imprisonment for life/for min periods of
imprisonment above – if substantial & compelling circumstances which justify imposition of lesser
sentence than prescribed
Such circumstances exist – court may impose period of imprisonment less than period prescribed by
legislature
Crucial words in Act relating to avoidance of mandatory min sentences – “substantial & compelling
circumstances”
Court initially came to conclusions not always harmonious
Malgas – Supreme Court of Appeal considered interpretation of these words & formulated long list of
rules to be kept in mind by courts when interpreting the words
Without setting out these rules – may be stated – most NB – provides that if court satisfied the
circumstances of the case render prescribed sentence unjust in that it would be disproportionate to the
ccrime, the criminal & needs of society – so that justice would be done by imposing that sentence – it is
entitled to impose a lesser sentence
Dodo – Constitutional Court held – introduction by legislature of min sentences in S51 not
unconstitutional
Pay particular attention - requirement that “another person” must be killed and more particularly that
the object of this crime must be a living human being

Read Case Mshumpa – IRMA to PLEASE SUMMARIZE??

(case deals with requirement that victim of crime of murder must be living human being, also application
of principles of participation in crimes of attempted murder, robbery & assault, crimes that featured in
judgment - incitement to commit attempted murder & crime of defeating/obstructing course of justice)
5.3 CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Elements of crime:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person
(3) unlawfully and
(4) negligently
Definition
Culpable homicide is the unlawful, negligent causing of the death of another human being
Difference between culpable homicide & murder

Form of culpability required is negligence
Test for negligence in principle objective
Court must ask itself
(a) reasonable person in same circumstances would have foreseen the possibility that Y’s death may
result from X’s conduct
(b) whether reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against such a possibility
(c) whether X’s conduct deviated from what reasonable person would have done in the circumstances
Been proved X (charged with murder) killed the deceased unlawfully – because of factors such as
intoxication/provocation lacked intention – crime not automatically reduced from murder to culpable
homicide
Court must be satisfied X negligent in causing Y’s death
Easy to draw conclusion in cases of assault resulting in death – no general presumption – that in every
case of assault which results in death X ought to have foreseen that death might result & that he was
therefore negligent
Type of case in which court even though X at first glance would seem to have had an intention to kill Y,
convict X of culpable homicide
Cases where X in killing, exceeds bounds of ground of justification such as private defence (self-defence)
X is then convicted not of murder but culpable homicide
Previously cases referred to as the “particular excuse cases” – said reason X convicted of culpable
homicide (not murder) in such cases although there was intention to kill – intention “not entirely but to
some extent excusable”
Closer examination of these cases reveals that in these cases intention to kill is absent – X lacked
awareness of unlawfulness
Awareness of unlawfulness indispensable component of concept of intention as employed in criminal law
X directs his will to kill Y (factors such as – excitement, over-eagerness) he fails to appreciate acting
unlawfully- real reason why dolus/intention to kill in its proper legal connotation is lacking
“partial excuse rule” according to which person may be guilty of culpable homicide even though he had
an “intention to kill” is irreconcilable with the clear view of Appellate Division especially in later
judgement such as Ntuli that the form of culpablility in culpable homicide is not intention but negligence
Number of cases – question arose – X could be convicted of culpable homicide if charged with this crime
– evidence revealed that he in fact had intention to kill
Different divisions of supreme court came to different conclusions – Ngubane – Appellate Division
resolved differences by holding – wrong to assume that if X acted intentionally – impossible to find he
was also negligent – means in this type of case X may be found guilty of culpable homicide despite fact he
killed Y intentionally
ONLY difference between murder & culpable homicide lies in the form of culpability required for each
Case of murder, intention is required - case of culpable homicide X must have acted negligently in causing
the death of the deceased

No attempt
Person cannot intent to be negligent & intention is required in an attempt to commit a crime – no crime
as attempted culpable homicide
SUMMARY
(1) Murder is the unlawful & intentional causing of the death of another person, while culpable homicide is
the unlawful & negligent causing of the death of another person.
(2) For murder & culpable homicide it is required that “another person” be killed.
TEST YOURSELF

STUDY UNIT 6 CRIME AGAINST BODILY INTEGRITY
6.1 ASSAULT
(Criminal Law 447–454; Case Book 238–244)
6.1.1 Definition
A person commits assault if she unlawfully & intentionally
(1) applies force, directly/indirectly, to the person of another, or
(2)inspires a belief in another person that force is immediately to be applied to her.

(1) the application of force (or inspiring of belief that force is to be applied)
(2) unlawfulness
(3) intention
6.1.3 Historical overview

In common law assault in sense of an attack/threat of attack to the person of another was not known as
independent crime - was comprehensive crime – iniuria -included all kinds of violations of the rights of
personality
Under influence of English law - assault in our law developed into independent crime
An iniuria committed against another’s dignity (dignitas) punished in our law as crimen iniuria;
an iniuria against another’s good name (fama) punished criminal defamation
Assault is nothing other than iniuria against the physical integrity (corpus) of another.
6.1.4 Ways in which the crime can be committed

Assault may take different forms
1st ly - application of force to the person (body) of another
2nd ly - inspiring fear in Y - a belief in Y that force is immediately to be applied to her
LEARN DIAGRAM
6.1.5 Application of force – direct

first way crime can be committed - application of force
distinguish between direct & indirect application of force
direct application of force most common way in which crime committed
form of crime corresponds most closely to ordinary lay-person’s idea of assault
example:
• X punches Y with her fist, or
• kicks her, or
• slaps her in the face
fact Y does not feel much/any physical pain – irrelevant
X commit the crime even if only spits in Y’s face/trips her so that she stumbles.
6.1.6 Application of force – indirect

application of force may be indirect
X commits act - results in Y’s physical integrity being infringed

examples:
• X sets vicious dog on Y, or
• X snatches away chair from under Y just as she is about to sit on it resulting in Y’s falling to the ground or
• X derails train on which Y is travelling, or
• X frightens horse on which Y is riding - Y falls from the horse
two examples from case law of convictions of assault where application of force indirect:
(1) Marx -X gave 3 glasses of wine to drink to each of 2 children (5&7)
children drank the wine & became sick as result
younger child could not walk at all & was in semiconscious condition
X convicted of assault
fact that harm/discomfort internal rather than external - irrelevant.
(2) A - X a policeman forced Y who he just arrested & taken to police station to drink his own urine
X convicted of assault
Court rejected proposition - urine not poisonous/dangerous - forced drinking of it - not constitute assault
- holding that forced drinking of any substance constitutes assault.
6.1.7 Inspiring fear of immediate force

Inspiring fear/a belief in Y that force is immediately to be applied to her - constitutes act of assault
no physical contact with/impact on, Y’s body
unusual way of committing the crime - departs from layperson’s conception of what constitutes assault
rules setting out preconditions for holding somebody liable for assault - be convicted of assault:
(1) threat - 1 of violence to the person of Y - threat by X to damage Y’s property is not sufficient
(2) threat 1 of immediate violence - threat by X to cause Y physical harm in future (next day) - not qualify as
assault
(3) threat 1 of unlawful violence - If X entitled by law to threaten Y with violence should Y not behave in
certain manner (leave X’s house/premises) - does not commit assault if she threatens Y
X may always threaten Y to use force to defend herself/property.
(4) Y (complainant) must subjectively believe X intends to carry out threat & is able to do so
essence of type of assault is intentional inculcation of fear upon Y
If Y not fear threat no assault committed
(5) general consensus of opinion - modern writers - X commits this form of assault even though she does
not perform any act/gesture but merely threatens Y verbally - if Y turns corner to be confronted by
motionless X who (gun in hand) commands “Hands up!” - X commits assault
6.1.8 Unlawfulness
use of force/inspiring of fear must be unlawful - must be no ground of justification for X’s act
examples of instances - X’s act would be justified (not unlawful)
(1) Private defence: Y threatens to kill/assault X - to defend herself, X uses force against Y.
(2) Official capacity: X a police official uses force to arrest Y, who committed a crime in her presence.
(3) Parental authority: X gives her naughty 7yr daughter a moderate hiding to discipline her
(4) Consent
(a) X a surgeon cuts open Y’s body in course of performance of operation upon Y to which Y has consented
(b) Y a sportswoman (netball/hockey player) injured by X in course of sporting contest in respect of which
Y has voluntarily consented to take part.
6.1.9 Intention
X must have intention to apply force to body of another/inspire in her fear of application of force
Implies following:
(1) intention may take form of direct intention, indirect intention/dolus eventualis.
Example of assault in which X has intention in form of dolus eventualis is: X throws stones at birds -
children around playing - foresees possibility that if she throws stone at bird stone may miss bird & strike
one of the children - hopes this will not happen & nevertheless decides to go ahead - unperturbed

(unworried) by possibility of injuring a child - throws a stone which misses bird she aimed at & strikes
child.
(2) cases of assault which take place by means of inspiring fear (opposed to application of force), X must
know her conduct will inspire fear in Y - means X must believe her threats will inspire fear in Y.
(3) ordinary principles relating to intention - X’s intention must incorporate knowledge of unlawfulness -
means X must know her conduct not covered by ground of justification - if X believes is entitled to act in
private defence because she fears imminent unlawful attack by Y upon herself - where in fact not entitled
to private defence because Y does not intend to attack her - lacks necessary intention to assault.
(4)Chretien - intoxication may lead to X lacking intention to assault - X must be found not guilty
(5)doubtful whether our courts prepared to recognise provocation as ground for excluding intention
required for ordinary assault. (They recognise provocation exclude “special intention” required for
qualified assaults - assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.)
6.1.10 Attempt
Previously -assumed attempted assault impossible - reason: Every time X attempts to assault Y, but her
blow misses Y, X nevertheless inspired belief in Y that force is immediately to be applied to her &
therefore X guilty of completed assault even in these cases which at first glance appear to constitute
attempted assault only
now recognised that above argument is fallacious & there may indeed be cases in which only attempted
assault committed
granted that where X has indeed inspired fear in Y - commits completed assault - must be remembered in
exceptional cases possible X’s blow at Y which misses her may not arouse any fear in Y - such cases only
attempted assault committed
Y may be unaware of X’s words/conduct in instances where she is blind/deaf/unconscious/under
influence of liquor/she does not understand X’s threatening words - Even where she is aware &
understands the threat she may be completely unperturbed - knows it is only a toy revolver X is pointing
at her
6.1.11 Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm

under influence of English law – number of qualified forms of assault (qualified by intention to achieve certain
goal) have developed in our law
each qualified form is a separate, substantive crime – not merely aggravated form of assaultto distinguish assault
from qualified forms of assault – assault which is not qualified referred to as “common assault”/”ordinary
assault”
most NB of these crimes one known as assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm
all requirements for assault apply to this crime – addition there must be intent to do grievous bodily harm
whether grievous bodily harm is in fact inflicted on Y immaterial in determining liability (great importance for
purpose of sentence)
whether X had intent to do grievous bodily harm is factual question
NB factors which may indicate X had such intention:
nature of weapon/instrumentused,
way it was used
degree of violence
part of body aimed at
persistence of attack
nature of injuries inflicted if any
Crime may be commited even though physical injuries slight
Joseph – X drove truck & deliberately swerved toward Y – did not actually hit him – X nevertheless conficted of
assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm – conversely crime committed may be common assault even
though bodily harm of serious nature has in fact been inflicted – dolus eventualis sufficient
Need not necessarily be of permanent/dangerous nature – twisting of arm/attacking with fists – even if blow
aimed at head – not necessarily indicative of intention to do grievous bodily harm
Such intention can be inferred if
X kicks Y in face with heavy boot while Y is lying prostrate

X administers electrical shocks to body of Y

X lets loose vicious dog on Y & dog bites Y
X throws acid in Y’s face
X found quilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm even though did not use any instrument such as
knife when attached Y, but used her hands/fists only
X may be convicted of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm on ground of not only actually inflicting
violence on Y’s body, but also on ground of a threat to inflict grievous bodily harm on Y
Rule which applies – same as in common(ordinary) assault
6.1.12 Assault with intent to commit another crime

Various other forms of assault - each consisting of separate offence- consisting of assault with intent to
commit some commit some other crime
Example: assaut with intent to commit rape, robbery/murder
All requirements for ordinary assault applicable – in addition there must be intent to commit the further
crime
1 of few instances where assault with intent to murder does not overlap with attempted murder – X
means to murder Y by poisoning her but events not reached stage where Y has swallowed the poison –
will be attempted murder not assault with intent to murder
POINTING OF A FIREARM
6.2.1 Definition
S120(6) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 provides that it is an offence to point:
(a) any firearm, an antique firearm/an airgun, whether/not it is loaded/capable of being discharged, at
any other person, without good reason to do so; or
(b) anything which is likely to lead a person to believe that it is a firearm, an antique firearm/an airgun at
any other person, without good reason to do so.
subsection creates two different offences - offences so closely related - convenient to discuss them as a
single offence.
6.2.2 Elements of the offence

(1) the pointing of
(2) a firearm/other article
(3) at any person
(4) unlawfully and
(5) intentionally
offence created in this subsection may overlap with crime of assault in form of inspiring fear of
immediate personal violence
6.2.3 The act: “To point ... at”

proscribed act consists simply in pointing firearm/article described in subsection at somebody else - to
secure a conviction - state need not prove any of the following:
(1) X fired a shot
(2) Firearm/article was loaded
(3) Firearm/article was of such nature that it could be discharged - was capable of firing a shot
expression “point at” - interpreted in more than one way:
• First - interpreted narrowly - meaning the pointing of firearm at Y in such a way that if discharged the
bullet would hit Y (interpretation adopted in Van Zyl)
• Secondly - interpreted broadly - meaning the directing of firearm towards Y in such a way that if it were
discharged the bullet would either strike Y/pass in her immediate vicinity (interpretation adopted Hans)
support for both interpretations found in case law - submitted latter (broader interpretation) is correct 1
reasons for following broader interpretation:

(1) can assume intention of the legislature - to combat evils surrounding handling of firearms on as broad a
front as possible.
(2) narrow construction of expression would make unduly difficult for the state to prove commission of
offence - would be extraordinarily difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that if bullet had been fired
it would actually have hit Y & not merely have missed her by millimetres.
(3) harm sought to be combated by the legislature - arousal of fear in mind of Y of being struck by the bullet
- exist irrespective of proof that bullet would have actually struck her/just missed her.
6.2.4 A firearm, et cetera
What must be pointed is firearm, antique firearm/airgun/anything likely to lead a person to believe that
it is a firearm/antique firearm/airgun.
Definition same as unlawfully possessing firearm
Effect of paragraph (b) subsection (6) – X may commit the offence even if she points a toy pistol @Y –
provided toy pistol likely to lead person to believe it is a real pistol
6.2.5 “Any other person”

Firearm/article described in Act must be pointed at a person - to point at animal - not lead to conviction.
6.2.6 Unlawfulness
requirement of unlawfulness not mentioned in definition of offence
words “without good reason to do so” in definition wide enough to incorporate grounds of justification
clear X not guilty of the crime if example points firearm at another while acting in private defence/X is
police officer lawfully effecting an arrest.
6.2.7 Intention
Intention not expressly required in definition of offence in subsection (6)
highly unlikely that legislature intended to create strict liability offence
also unlikely it intended mere negligence to be sufficient form of culpability - words “point at” prima facie
denote intentional behavior
corresponding offence in previous legislation - replaced by present Act required the firearm be “wilfully”
pointed - submitted - form of culpability required for conviction under the subsection is intention.
means X must know that
(1) what she is handling is an object described in the Act, namely a firearm, antique firearm,
airgun/anything likely to lead person to believe that it is such an article
(2) she is pointing weapon at another person – if she thinks she is pointing it at an animal/inanimate
(lifeless/dead/non-living) object -lacks intention
(3) no “good reason” for her conduct & that it is unlawful - not covered by a ground of justification
Hodgkinson - X pressed water pistol against body of 1 of his employees - was charged & convicted of
contravening s120(6) of Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 by unlawfully pointing firearm/something likely
to be believed to be a firearm “without good reason to do so” – appeal: court held - culpability to be
proved was intention & it was not a strict liability offence. words “without good reasons to do so” made it
clear that conscious decision to point object resembling firearm under circumstances that would
constitute a threat was envisaged (seen) by legislature. verb “to point” describes conscious, deliberate
action. was evidence before trial court that water pistol was lying openly in the office & X & employees,
including appellant would often make practical jokes & spray water on one another with water pistol.
court of appeal set aside conviction on ground X had lacked intention to commit the offence.
SUMMARY
Assault
(1) act of assault may consist either application of force to body of another person/inspiring of fear/belief in
Y that force is immediately to be applied to her. The application of force may be direct/indirect.
(2) Grounds of justification possibly be raised on a charge of assault - private defence, official capacity,
parental authority & consent.

(3) Intention is required form of culpability for the crime of assault. Negligence not sufficient form of
culpability for this crime.
(4) possible to commit attempted assault.
Assault with the intention to do grievous bodily harm

(5) requirements for ordinary assault apply to this crime in addition there must be intent to do grievous
bodily harm.
(6) Whether grievous bodily harm is in fact inflicted on victim is immaterial in determining liability. is only the
intention to do such harm that is in question.
(7) NB factors which may indicate that person had such an intention are the nature of the
weapon/instrument, way in which it was used, degree of violence used & part of body aimed at. Assault
with intent to commit another crime
(8) requirements for ordinary assault also applicable to these offences. In addition there must be intention
to commit the further crime for example rape, robbery/murder. Pointing of a firearm
(9) expression “point at” interpreted as directing firearm towards Y in such a way that if it were discharged
bullet would either strike Y/ pass in her immediate vicinity.
(10) T he gist of the definition of a firearm is any device manufactured or designed to propel a bullet or
projectile through a barrel or cylinder by means of a burning propellant.
(11) Intention is the required form of culpability for the offence.

STUDY UNIT 7 Crimes against dignity, reputation and freedom of movement
7.1 BACKGROUND
crimes against dignity & reputation, abduction & kidnapping - 2 crimes related to protection of family life
& freedom of movement
7.2 CRIMEN INIURIA

7.2.1 Definition
Crimen iniuria is the unlawful, intentional & serious infringement of the dignity/privacy of another.

(1) the infringement
(2) of another’s dignity/privacy
(3) which is serious
(4) unlawfulness
(5) intentional
7.2.3 Introduction
person values not only his physical integrity (freedom from physical attacks by others) but also his
personality rights - include right to dignity & privacy
well known that insults to person’s dignity regarded by him in just as serious light as insults to his physical
integrity
criminal law punishes not only violations of person’s physical integrity (“assault”) but also violations of
certain rights to personality - last-mentioned violations punished under headings of “crimen iniuria” &
“criminal defamation”.
7.2.4 Distinction between crimen iniuria and criminal defamation

• crimen iniuria - violations of a person’s dignity & privacy are made punishable.
• criminal defamation - violations of a person’s good name/reputation are made punishable.
person’s reputation refers to what others think of him - violation of reputation always involves three
parties:
• person who makes the defamatory statement
• complainant (Y) - person about whom defamatory statement is made
• so-called third party (one/more other people) to whose knowledge defamatory statement must come
crimen iniuria only two parties involved:
• wrongdoer (X) – says/does something which violates dignity/privacy of
• complainant (Y),
where X insults/degrades Y over telephone (remarks nobody other than Y hear)/watches Y undressing.
7.2.5 The interests protected by the crime

interest protected by the crime - a person’s dignitas (dignity) & privacy
7.2.5.1 Dignity
crime first protects person’s dignity/dignitas.
dignitas mean:
Melius de Villiers (The Roman and Roman-Dutch Law of Injuries) classical description of concept which
our courts have followed:
That valued & serene condition in his social/individual life which is violated when a person is, either
publicly/privately subjected by another to offensive & degrading treatment/when exposed to ill-will,
ridicule, disesteem/contempt.
(quoted with approval in Umfaan 1908; Jana 1981)
- Other expressions used by courts include “mental tranquillity” (Holliday) & “his proper pride in himself”
(Tanteli)

Gist of concept of dignity usually expressed “mental tranquillity”, “self-respect”/“feeling of chastity”.
7.2.5.2 Privacy
Crimen iniuria protects not only person’s dignity but also privacy
courts regard privacy as something which is included in concept of dignity - but number of commentators
have observed properly viewed privacy cannot be accommodated under concept of dignity
reasons for view:
right to privacy infringed without Y being aware of the infringement (X watches Y undressing) (Holliday
supra)
On other hand - infringement of Y’s dignity/right to self-respect is only conceivable if Y aware of X’s
insulting words/conduct (Van Tonder)
This is reason why both terms “dignity” & “privacy” been designated as protected interests in definition
of the crime above.
Bill of Rights in SA Constitution recognises person’s right to dignity & right to privacy in different
sections. S10 recognises person’s right to dignity & s14 his right to privacy.
7.2.6 Infringement of legal interest may lead to both civil claim and criminal prosecution
If X’s dignity/privacy unlawfully & intentionally violated by Y’s conduct - X may institute civil claim against
Y - claims an amount of money for damages/compensation from Y for unlawful infringement of his
interests.
same applies if X’s good name/reputation which has been violated by Y
In latter case a claim for defamation which X institutes against Y
civil claims entirely different from criminal prosecution for crimen iniuria/defamation
nothing unusual to find person whose dignity/good name has been infringed
• not only institutes civil claim against alleged infringer, but also
• lays charge of crimen iniuria/criminal defamation against alleged wrongdoer with police, resulting in
criminal prosecution for one of these crimes.
7.2.7 Infringement of interests protected

7.2.7.1 General
(1) can be committed either by word/deed.
(2) Many/perhaps most cases of crimen iniuria involve some taint of sexual impropriety - crime is not
confined to insults of such a nature.
(3) many instances of crimen iniuria involve conduct by male towards female, X may be either male/female,
& same applies to Y.
7.2.7.2 Subjective and objective aspects of infringement

infringement of interests protected contains both subjective & objective element.
subjective element is:
infringement of dignity (opposed to infringement of privacy) - Y must
- be aware of X’s offending behaviour and
- feel degraded/humiliated by it.
Is following exception to this rule: Y a young child/mentally defective person - not be able to understand
nature of X’s conduct & consequently not able to feel degraded by it
This does not afford X a defence - for this reason the crime can be committed even in respect of young
child/mentally defective person (Payne)
proof of fact that Y felt degraded - usually assumed that conduct which offends sensibilities of reasonable
person would also have offended Y’s sensibilities
If comes to light Y did not take any offence at (did not in any way feel aggrieved/humiliated by) X’s
behavior - court will not convict X of the crime.

infringement of privacy (opposed to dignity) - different rule applies:

need not be established that Y was aware of X’s offensive conduct
if X watches Y undressing - X have infringed Y’s privacy irrespective of whether Y aware of being
watched/not (Daniels)
objective element is:
feelings as “mental tranquillity” & “self-esteem” (describe dignitas) highly subjective & emotional
concepts - existence & intensity may vary - person to person
certain person be hypersensitive & easily take affront - another more robust/broadminded & not feel
degraded if same conduct directed at
reason law must of necessity apply following objective standard:
X’s conduct be of such nature that it would offend at least the feelings of a reasonable person
so timid/hypersensitive takes affront at conduct that would not affront a reasonable person - law does
not assume crime has been committed
7.2.7.3 Examples of infringement of dignity (conduct constituting infringement of Y’s dignity):

(1) Indecent exposure -X exposes private parts to Y (without Y’s consent) (A) - does not matter whether
takes place in public/private. (conduct arguably also categorised as instance of invasion of privacy.)
(2) Communicating to Y (usually a woman) a message containing explicit/implicit invitation to/suggestion of
sexual immorality
(Olakawu) - X unsolicited sends indecent photographs to Y.
(3) Address another in language which humiliates/disparages him such as calling him “pikkenien” – Mostert
(4) Acts which constitute assault may also constitute crimen iniuria - X spits in Y’s face (Ndlangisa)
(5) uttering words constituting vulgar abuse/gross impertinence (cheek) may constitute the crime provided
the circumstances sufficiently serious
Examples cases - X convicted of crimen iniuria:
• Walton –Y a mother asked X to stop making a noise with his motorcycle so that child could sleep - X
shouted at Y, “Come here lady and I will give you another.”
• Momberg - X swore at traffic officer who issued him a ticket for traffic offence shouting at him, “Jou lae
donnerse bliksem!” (“You low-down damn scoundrel!”).
7.2.7.4 Examples of infringement of privacy

examples of infringement of privacy:
(1) person’s privacy infringed by “Peeping Tom” - someone who peeps through window/other aperture at
somebody else (usually a woman) undressing/taking a bath
Cases - “Peeping Toms” - most common instances of criminal invasion of privacy which come before
courts (Schoonberg; Holliday supra)
fact that Y at time being watched by X had not yet undressed offers X no defence - mere unwanted
intrusion by X into Y’s private sphere enough to constitute infringement of interests protected by the
crime
(2) person’s privacy infringed by “bugging” - someone planting listening device in Y’s house, room/office &
listening to private conversations (A)
fact that contents of conversation overheard did not reveal anything shameful/scandalous - not afford X
a defence - mere unlawful intrusion by X into Y’s private sphere enough to constitute infringement of the
interests protected by the crime.
(3) person’s privacy conceivably be infringed in variety of other ways - opening & reading of a confidential
postal communication (including e-mail) addressed to him/prying into private life in unwarranted
manner by means of apparatus such as cameras, telescopes & other “bugging devices”.
7.2.8 Violation of dignity/privacy must be serious

to constitute crimen iniuria - violations of dignity/privacy must be serious/same requirement is
sometimes expressed may not be of a trifling (trivial/small/unimportant) nature (Seweya)
requirement vague - nevertheless necessary

everyday life - common that people argue with each other & in course of argument - 1 person may say
something to other - technically amounts to infringement of other’s dignity (X swears at Y)
ill-mannered drivers may snarl at other road users/make uncouth (rude/vulgar) gestures
law cannot possibly regard all relatively small & unfortunate episodes that occur everyday as crimes
If every swearword/scornful remark resulted in criminal prosecution - courts inundated with unnecessary
trials - as said in Walton “in the ordinary hurly-burly of everyday life a man must be expected to endure
minor/trivial insults to his dignity”- Whether words/behavior serious enough to qualify depends on
circumstances of each case - Factors may play role in deciding whether behaviour was serious (list not
exhaustive):
(1) ages of the parties - Certain conduct towards young persons sometimes viewed in more serious light
than directed at mature people.
(2) gender of the parties - Van Meer - Court stated “the law would naturally be always more studious to
protect girls & women against insults from men than in insults offered by one man to another”- no rule
stipulating that the crime can only be committed by a man towards a woman - also man towards a man, a
woman towards woman/woman towards man.
(3) nature of the act - Certain types of conduct by nature notoriously (very) serious - indecent
exposure/activities of “Peeping Toms”.
(4) relationship between the parties - violation of X’s dignity more serious if she insulted by stranger than
when insulted by husband/boyfriend in course of i.e. domestic argument.
(5) persistence of the conduct - persistent repetition of conduct may push over borderline between
nonpunishable conduct & crimen iniuria - to stare at woman scarcely injurious - to follow her & rudely
stare persistently may be (Van Meer supra).
(6) publicity with which conduct accompanied - degree of impairment of dignity greater where X’s words
heard not only by Y(to whom addressed) others as well/otherwise made known to larger audience.
(7) Sexual impropriety - X makes unwanted overtures towards Y containing element of sexual impropriety -
conduct viewed in more serious light than when overtures not contain such element - crime can be
committed even if there no suggestion of sexual impropriety in X’s advances towards Y.
(8) Y’s public standing - dignity of all people protected by the crime - attacks upon dignity of person
occupying public office & related to such person’s performance of duties be viewed in more serious light
compared with same behaviour directed at person in private capacity - to swear at police/traffic officer
for performing duties more serious than swearing at private person in private capacity (Momberg supra) -
reason - offensive words directed at person occupying public office viewed as expression of contempt not
only to individual person who words directed but also to institutions such persons represent - institutions
are necessary to maintain law & order & secure public peace & security.
7.2.9 Unlawfulness
Conduct otherwise amount to violation of dignity/privacy - justified by grounds of justification as
• Necessity - although X appeared naked in Y’s presence it appeared a fire broke out in X’s house while
having a bath & for this reason he had to flee for his life while naked
• consent - Y gives X permission to look at her while undressing
• official capacity - X a policeman who in course of performance of duties as detctive enters Y’s house
without Y’s permission & searches the house in effort to find evidence of commission of a crime he is
investigating
7.2.10 Intention
crime only committed intentionally - Negligence insufficient ground to base conviction - X must know his
words/conduct violate Y’s dignity/privacy & must know there no ground of justification for his conduct.
7.3 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Definition:
Criminal defamation consists in the unlawful & intentional publication of matter concerning another
which tends to injure his reputation

Elements of this crime:

(1) the publication
(2) of defamatory matter
(3) which takes place unlawfully and
(4) intentionally
Existence of crime confirmed

Before 2009:
uncertain whether crime existed in our law
writers argue the crime no longer existed/it ough no longer exist
prosecutions rare despite fact - defamation of other people occurs daily
since 1953 no reported judgement in which person convicted
people defamed may claim damages from alleged defamer in civil courts
impression 1 gets – prosecution authorities charge people with criminal defamation only if
defamed person a prominent person in society – politician/judge
hard to justify tendency towards “selective prosecution”
IN 2009:
question whether crime still exists & whether existence compatible with provision of
Constitution came before Supreme Court of Appeal in Hoho
unanimous judgement – court held crime not ceased to exist because of disuse – no good
reasons why ot should not still exist & its existence not incompatible with provision of
Constitution
Problem with decision – not removed criticism in everyday legal practice that criminal law does
not protect every person right to good reputation on equal basis
SA prosecuting authorities – already hard pressed to prosecute everybody with committing the
many seious crimes committed in this country will hardy waste time to prosecute people who
have defamed others who do not hold a prominent position in society
If Supreme Court of Appeal held that the crime should be restricted to cases in which a person
seriously defames another perhaps still been rational ground for restriction of prosecution to
really serious instances of violation of anothers reputation as where prominent people in society
are defamed
Court in Hoho expressly held – violations of other peoples reputations are criminal even if degree
of violation not serious
Court held – to prevent non-serious cases coming before court – court apply de minimis rule
Difficult to understand how serious defamation committed against ordinary person(not
prominent position in society) not be prosecuted by applying the de minimis rule
Certain that prosecutions for this crime will in practice be restricted to cases of defamation of
serious nature
Difficult to agree with courts decision – non-serious instances of defamation still falls within
ambit (field) of the crime
Publication of defamatory matter

Persons good name/reputation (fama) harmed only if conduct/words complained of come to notice of
someone other than Y – if publication takes place
If conduct comes to notice of Y only – at most amount to crime iniuria if Y’s dignitas been impaired
Words defamatory – expose person to hatred, contempt/ridicule/tend to diminish esteem of person to
whom they refer is held by others
“vulgar abuse” not likely to lower reputation of person it is addressed & therefore ordinarily not amount
to defamation

Requirement of publication is concerned:

• term “publication” used does not necessarily mean the allegations should be made public in
printed form - means the allegations must come to attention of people other than Y
• publication can therefore take place orally/in writing
• come to attention of Y only can at most constitute crimen iniuria if of such nature that Y’s
dignity is injured
Hoho - X convicted of 22 charges of criminal defamation stemming from having published various leaflets
defaming certain political office bearers & officials in Eastern Cape
On appeal - Supreme Court of Appeal - following matters considered: whether crime been abrogated
(nullified) by disuse - whether degree of seriousness of conduct was element of offence & whether
offence was constitutional
Court held crime still existed & no proof that it had been repealed through disuse by silent consent of the
whole community/by a paucity(lack) of prosecutions
Court held practice of confining criminal proceedings for defamation to serious cases - not a legal rule - If
prosecution instituted for nonserious defamation - lack of seriousness would be reflected in the
sentence.
could be concluded - crime of defamation consisted only in unlawful & intentional publication of matter
concerning another which tended to injure his reputation
Court held - crime was constitutional, arguing as follows:
Although freedom of expression fundamental to democratic society - not of paramount value &
had to be considered in context of other values such as human dignity
law of defamation - civil & criminal - designed to protect reputation of people
Although criminal remedy much more drastic than civil remedy - requirements for succeeding in
criminal proceedings much more onerous(heavy/difficult) than in civil proceedings
state had to prove all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt
To expose person to criminal conviction if proved beyond reasonable doubt that he acted
unlawfully & knew he acted unlawfully - reasonable limitation on the right to freedom of
expression
no reason why state should prosecute in case of complaint in respect of injury to person’s
physical integrity (assault) but not in case of complaint in respect of injury to reputation
Unlawfulness
Publication of defamatory matter which is otherwise prima facie unlawful justified on grounds
(a) it is the truth & for public benefit that it be made known
(b) it amounts to fair comment
(c) communication is privileged
Grounds of justification do not differ from well-known defences available to defendant in civil defamation
action
Intention
X must intent to harm Y’s reputation by unlawful publication of defamatory matter concerning him
aware of the fact – what he says/writes tend to injure Y’s reputation
Implies – X must intent communication to come to notice of somebody other than person it is addressed
& intent allegation to refer to Y(not somone else)
Thinks words covered by defence of truth & public interest, fair comment/privilege – lacks necessary
intention
7.4 ABDUCTION
In our law abduction is regulated only by common law.

7.4.1 Definition
A person commits abduction if he/she unlawfully & intentionally removes an unmarried minor from the
control of his/ her parents/ guardian, without their consent, intending that he/she/somebody else, may
marry/have sexual intercourse with the minor.
7.4.2 Origin and character of the crime

abduction dates from period in history when women (especially minors) played a subordinate role in
society
parents/guardians exercised considerable authority over them
had little freedom of movement & often regarded as economic assets of their parents
purpose of the crime - prevent outsiders from removing minor from authority of parents & depriving
parents of their rights (economic & otherwise) over minor
particular - crime protected parents’ right to consent to daughter’s marriage
scope of crime - later extended to protect parents’ rights in respect of their sons as well.
Nowadays - minors are more independent of parental authority
Nevertheless - crime still exists & protects rights of parents to consent to marriage of minor children,
exercise control over where they stay
Although importance of crime diminished - still serves purpose - it punishes unscrupulous (dishonest)
persons who entice minors to leave parental homes to make them available for purposes of engaging in
indiscriminate sex (often with minor’s consent & for remuneration).
7.4.3 Legal interest protected by the crime

those of parents/guardian of the minor - minor’s consent to removal not defence
interests protected = twofold: factual exercise of control over minor & parents’/guardian’s right to
consent to minor’s marriage.

(1) the removal
(2) of an unmarried minor
(3) from the control of his/her parents/guardian
(4) with the intention to marry/have sexual intercourse with the minor
(5) without the consent of the parents or guardian
(6) unlawfulness
(7) intention
7.4.5 Removal
perpetrator (X) must remove minor (Y) from 1 place to another
X be either male/female
In vast majority of reported cases - X male & Y (minor) female
removal need not be forcible – almost all cases of abduction Y consents to removal
not required X should himself effect removal/be present at time of removal
sufficient if X & Y arrange to meet - place away from house of parents (Nel; Jorgenson)
7.4.6 Person removed must be an unmarried minor

person removed (Y) must be unmarried & minor & be either male/female (In practice Y usually female)
person a minor - below age of 18 yrs (s17 of Children’s Act 38 of 2005)
7.4.7 There must be a removal from the control of the parents or guardian
Y must be removed from control of his/her parents/guardian
Abduction committed against parents/guardian & not against minor - Y’s consent to removal does not
afford X a defence
possible parents have completely relinquished control over minor - Y left parental home to go & live &
work elsewhere & parents no longer know where Y finds herself & no longer care what she does

If this the case - X does not commit abduction if takes Y from where she stays to another place –
Bezuidenhout
7.4.8 Intention to marry/have sexual intercourse with minor

crime only committed if X removes Y with a certain aim in mind
aim - that somebody (X himself) either marries Y/has sexual intercourse with her
crime to be complete - not required that marriage/sexual intercourse actually have taken place - All
required is an intention on part of X to achieve one of these aims
temporary removal of girl from home to have sexual intercourse - not yet abduction
X must intend to remove Y from home either permanently/a substantial period
man wishes to have sexual intercourse with girl - impractical for him to at her parents’ home (she lives) &
couple drive to another place for purpose of sexual intercourse - whereafter he immediately brings her
back home - not committed abduction
conduct may amount to seduction - seduction not same as abduction (Seduction not constitute a crime)
to distinguish between seduction & abduction - law requires X should have had intention of removing Y
for substantial period (Killian)
intention to marry Y/have sexual intercourse with her must exist at time of removal
If removal for innocent purpose & X decides after to have sexual intercourse - crime not committed –
Sashi
NB - crime is committed if X’s intention that someone other than himself/herself should marry Y/have
sexual intercourse with him/her (Adams)
draws attention to important aspect of the crime - situation where unscrupulous persons entice minors
to leave their homes to engage in indiscriminate sex with strangers (often - remuneration to minor)
7.4.9 Without the consent of the parents/guardian

removal must take place without consent of parents/guardian
Whether/not Y consented to removal = immaterial
In practice - Y would usually consent to removal/sometimes request X to take her away
not a defence unless both the parents/guardian consented
Y not consent - apart from abduction, X also guilty of more serious crime of kidnapping – crime which (in
cases victim is no longer child) only committed if victim does not consent to his/her removal
What must be lacking is consent of parents/guardian to both removal & purpose of the removal
7.4.10 Unlawfulness
must be no ground of justification for X’s conduct
removal justified by necessity - X acts under compulsion
7.4.11 Intention
form of culpability = intention
general principles relating to intention - X’s intention must relate to all the elements of the crime
X must know Y an unmarried minor (Churchill) & Y’s parents have not consented to removal (Sita)
7.5 KIDNAPPING
Definition:
Kidnapping consists in unlawfully & intentionally depriving a person of his/her freedom of movement
and/or if such person is under the age of 18 yrs the custodians of their control over the child
Elements of crime:
(1) the deprivation
(2) of freedom of movement (or parental control)
(3) which takes place unlawfully, and
(4) intentionally

Is a crime against a person’s freedom of movement/against a parent’s/a custodian’s control over a

child.
NB features of the crime:
• parent cannot commit the crime in respect of her own child
• Forcible removal not requirement
• length of time for which person deprived of freedom of movement = immaterial
• Motive (demanding ransom) = immaterial for purposes of liability - may be a factor that is taken into
consideration for sentencing
• Unlawfulness may be excluded if X acted in official capacity (police officer effecting a lawful
arrest)/where person aged 18/above consented to be removed.
• Intention always requires X had knowledge of unlawfulness - means X must know Y did not consent to
removal/Y is minor – parents/custodian did not consent
Appellation
Crime derived from lex Fabia de plagariis – Roman law & known in common law as plagium
In SA – past – given many names –
“manstealing”/”womanstealing”/”childstealing”/”plagium”/”kidnapping” & in Afr.
“menseroof”/”kinderroof”/”ontvoering”/”vryheidsberowing” & “kinderdiefstal”
Submitted – most satisfactory description – “kidnapping” – conveys to layman the character & most NB
essentials of the crime
Human being cannot be object of theft & therefore crime not form of theft – discriptions as
“manstealing” etc be avoided
Submitted – best Afr. Equivalent of “kidnapping” = “menseroof”
Crime committed in respect of woman/man/child
Relation to other crimes

Established – “childstealing” not separate crime but species of kidnapping
Result of inclusion of childstealing in crime kidnapping – kidnapping now a dual character: infringe either
of 2 interests (1) person’s freedom of movement/(2) parent’s/custodian’s control over a child
child removed without her own/parents consent – both these interests infringed
kidnapping not confused with abduction
Abduction committed against parental authority over minor AND Kidnapping in principle committed
against person’s freedom/freedom of movement
Abduction minor removed in order to enable someone to marry/have sexual intercourse
Kidnapping – X’s motive for removing Y is immaterial – crime committed – sufficient if X intends to
deprive Y of her freedom of movement/Y’s parents/guardian of their control
X’s motive in depriving Y of her freedom is to demand ransom for her release – existence of such “ulterior
purpose” not requirement for liability although almost invariably ground for imposing more severe
sentence
X demands ransom – also guilty of extortion
Interest protected
Usually described as “the liberty of another” – clear by term “liberty” – meant liberty in sence of freedom
of movement only
Law undoubtedly recognizes the crim can also in certain circumstances be committed against person who
consents to own removal – child who already had ability to form independent judgement of own
consents to own removal from parents/custodians control
Lentit was assumed that Y 17yr old girl – removed willingly but X’s conviction of kidnapping nevertheless
upheld on appeal
although term “child” invariably employed in cases of “childstealing” – clear that “child” in respect always
means minor
where child has herself consented to removal would be inexact to describe legal interest violated by
crime as freedom of movement

what is violated in such cases is the control exercised over a child by her parents/custodians
Meaning of word “child”/”minor”

word “child” always used in so-called childstealing – word always meant “minor”
before 2005 – no doubt word child denoted someone who was a minor in terms of common law – person
below 21 yrs
S17 of Childrens Act 38 of 2005 – child, male/female is major upon reaching age of 18yrs
Effect of provision on definition kidnapping – word minor as used in former/traditional definition now
means somebody under age of 18yrs
Parents cannot commit crime in respect of own child

If father & natural guardian of child (divorced his wife) removes child from her care to keep in his own
care – does not commit the crime
True even if court awards custody & control of child to mother
Does not mean divorce father can with impunity (freedom/immunity/exemption) remove child from care
of mother to whom courthas awarded custody & control – by doing so – infringes a court order & may be
guilty of contempt of court
Deprivation of freedom of movement

Removal usually effected by force – forcible removal not a requirement
Removal may be effected by cunning/craft – Long, X pretended to be photographer’s assistant who had
to fetch a little girl from her school to photograph her – this way obtained possession of the girl
Crime also be committed even though no physical removal – Y concealed/imprisoned where she happens
to be
Duration of deprivation usually irrelevant

Still not perfectly clear whether deprivation of freedom/control must last for specific period of time &/so
how long period must be
Duration of deprivation been regarded as material element of the crime in some cases & rejected in
others
Weight of authority favour view “time factor” immaterial – submitted correct view
Only relevance time factor may have (affecting sentence) is distinguishing kidnapping from cases of
assault involving a “transient & incidental seizure” of person for short period
Depreviation for short period - some hrs – sufficient
X has kidnapped Y with object of demanding ransom – illogical to require Y’s captivity last for more than
short period
X’s purpose is to obtain ransom money asap & then release Y asap
Yime element may sometimes be of importance in providing evidence of X’s intention
Unlawfulness
Otherwise unlawful deprivation of freedom may be justified by official capacity(police lawfully arrests
someone)/by consent of person removed unless is a child
Intention
X must know Y has not consented to removal/Y a child that parents/gustodians have not consented
X need not intent to deprive Y permanently of her freedom of movement – sufficient if intends to release
Y upon payment of ransom even if takes place after few hrs
X’s motive in depriving Y of freedom of movement/parents or custodians of their control immaterial for
purpose of liability although may affect degree of punishment
GLOSSARY
dignitas dignity

SUMMARY
Crimen iniuria
The crime of crimen iniuria protects both a person’s dignity and privacy.
The gist of concept of dignity (dignitas) - usually expressed as “mental tranquillity”, “self-
respect”/“feeling of chastity”.
Although many/perhaps most cases of crimen iniuria involve some measure of sexual impropriety - crime
is not confined to insults of such nature.
In instances of infringement of dignity (opposed to infringement of privacy) - Y be aware of X’s offending
behaviour & feel degraded/humiliated by it.
Examples: conduct infringes Y’s dignity - indecent exposure, communicating to Y (practice, usually
woman) message containing invitation to/suggestion of, sexual immorality & vulgar abuse.
Examples: conduct infringes Y’s privacy - activities of “Peeping Toms”, planting a listening-in device in Y’s
house, room/office & opening & reading confidential postal communication addressed to Y without his
consent.
to qualify as crimen iniuria - infringement of dignity/privacy must be serious.
required form of culpability for this crime - intention
Criminal defamation
crime protects the reputation of a person.
person’s good name/reputation can be harmed only if conduct/words complained of come to notice of
someone other than Y - if publication takes place. If conduct comes to notice of Y only - can at most
amount to crimen iniuria.
Grounds of justification - same as defences available to defendant in civil defamation action - truth &
public benefit, fair comment & privilege.
X must intend to harm Y’s reputation by unlawful publication of defamatory matter concerning him - X
must know words not covered by any ground of justification - X must have necessary knowledge of
unlawfulness
Abduction
7 different elements identified in crime of abduction
Kidnapping
interest protected in principle - freedom of movement of a person - person is a child - interest which is
infringed is the control of a parent/guardian over the child.
X’s motive in depriving Y of his/her freedom of movement need not be to demand ransom for his/her
release - if ransom demanded - X punished for extortion also
Childstealing form of kidnapping.
Forcible removal not requirement for the crime - removal also effected by cunning(sneaky/sly)/craft.
not required that person be removed from 1 place to another - also committed even though no physical
removal - Y concealed/imprisoned where he happens to be.
no such requirement for kidnapping that perpetrator must intend to deprive Y permanently of his
freedom of movement

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

STUDY UNIT 8 – THEFT
8.1 Definition
Theft is the unlawful, intentional appropriation of movable, corporeal property which
(a) belongs to & is in the possession of, another
(b) belongs to another but is in the perpetrator’s own possession or
(c) belongs to the perpetrator but is in another’s possession & such other person has a right to possess it
which legally prevails against the perpetrator’s own right of possession
Provided that the intention to appropriate the property includes an intention permanently to deprive the
person entitled to the possession of the property, of such property.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRIME

Case Book 244–256
absence of legislation defining the crime rely on provisions of Roman-Dutch law to define its contents
RomanDutch law - crime comprised an exceptionally large number of acts
covered the appropriation not merely of another’s property in possession of such other person - also of
another’s property already in perpetrator’s own possession
Example of the lastmentioned form of theft: Fearing her house may be burgled while away on
holiday my neighbour requests me to keep a bottle of precious wine belonging to her in my
house & to look after it while she is away. I agree to do so - receive the bottle of wine & put it
away in my house - before my neighbour returns from holiday, I drink all the wine myself.
type of conduct - consists in appropriating someone else’s property already in perpetrator’s
possession/control = known as embezzlement.
our law unlike other legal systems - embezzlement not separate crime - form of theft
above definition of theft - embezzlement covered by words in subparagraph (2) - “belongs to another but
is in the perpetrator’s own possession”
acts of embezzlement amount to theft - cannot define theft in our law in terms of removal of another’s
property
above example - I drank my neighbour’s wine - I did not first remove the wine from her possession – I
already possessed it myself
Another unusual characteristic of the crime in our law - can be committed even if X takes back her own
property which is temporarily in another’s lawful possession - X has pledged her watch to Y & then,
before paying her debt to Y withdraws it from Y’s possession without Y’s consent. above definition of the
crime – type of conduct covered by words in subparagraph (3) - form of theft described as unlawful
arrogation of the possession of a thing - such conduct also amounts to theft - incorrect to describe theft
in our law exclusively in terms of the appropriation of somebody else’s property.
8.3 LATIN TERMINOLOGY

Since most important concepts relating to theft derived from Roman law - some original Latin
terminology still used today
The Latin word for theft is furtum
act of theft described by Romans as contrectatio
Generally speaking - contrectatio meant a physical handling of the property - almost always involved
touching property
Today - clear - commit theft without necessarily touching the stolen property - drive somebody else’s
sheep from her land onto my own land
present law - act by which theft committed much broader than that conveyed by meaning of word
contrectatio - word preferably be avoided describing the act of stealing
courts sometimes still use word contrectatio - then term nothing more than an “eruditesounding”
synonym for “the act of stealing”
prefer to describe act as an appropriation of the property:word not only “appropriation” understandable
to layperson - also flexible enough to encompass wide variety of acts amounting to theft

object of the crime – property/thing stolen - described in Latin as res

Animus furandi means “intention to steal”
can express the crux of intention required for theft better by describing it as an “intention to
appropriate”
expression invito domino means “without the owner’s consent” - refers to the unlawfulness requirement
8.4 DIFFERENT FORMS OF THEFT

Depending upon way committed - speak of & distinguish between following different forms of theft in
our law:
(1) The removal of property. X removes property belonging to somebody else from that person’s possession
& appropriates it - most common form of theft.
(2) Embezzlement. X appropriates another’s property already has in her possession.
(3) Arrogation of possession. X removes own property which is in the lawful possession of another (pledgee)
& appropriates it.
also possible to distinguish further forms of theft
certain instances of theft of money in form of credit - governed by certain rules applicable only
to such cases.
four basic requirements of the crime which (in principle) must always be complied with – no matter what
form of theft one is dealing with
8.5 FOUR BASIC REQUIREMENTS

Four basic requirements must be complied with before a person can be convicted of theft in any of its
forms.
(1) an act of appropriation
(2) in respect of a certain type of property (/thing)
(3) which takes place unlawfully and
(4) intentionally (more particularly with intention to appropriate)
8.6 THEFT IN THE FORM OF THE REMOVAL OF PROPERTY

form of theft - X removes Y’s property from Y’s/somebody else’s possession & appropriates it - most
common form of theft. The four basic requirements for liability for this form of theft are the following:
8.6.1 Act of appropriation

A person commits an act of appropriation if she commits an act whereby
(1) she deprives the lawful owner/possessor of her property, and
(2) she herself exercises the rights of an owner in respect of the property.
(Tau)
thus behaves as if she is the owner/person entitled to the property - she is not - and in so doing exercises
control over the property.
8.6.1.1 Act of appropriation consists of two components

Consists of following two components:
• a negative component - exclusion of Y from the property
• a positive component - X’s actual exercise of the rights of an owner in respect of the property in the place
of Y
If only second component been complied with & not first - no completed act of appropriation
explains why X does not commit theft in the following two types of situation:
(1) The “pointing out” situation. X points out certain property (cow) to Z & tells Z the property belongs to
her (X). property in fact belongs not to X but to Y. X “sells” the property to Z - before Z can remove it Y the
true owner intervenes & X’s fraudulent conduct is revealed. (Makonie & Strydom - examples of situation
of this kind.) set of facts such as this - could argue - has been compliance with positive component (X
professed to exercise the rights of an owner). it is clear that negative component not been complied with

- real owner Y has not yet been excluded from control over her property. therefore no completed act of
appropriation & X cannot be convicted of theft. (may be convicted of attempted theft.)
(2) The situation where X is apprehended before she can complete the taking of the property. X exercises
the rights of an owner over the property but is caught before she can succeed in getting the property
under her control. Example - X sets out to steal a motor car - gets into Y’s car & starts tampering with the
electrical wiring below the steering column of the car - before she can succeed in starting the car - caught
by a police officer. the positive component of appropriation is present (X acted as if she were the owner)
but negative component absent (Y the real owner was not excluded from her property) - there has not
been a completed appropriation of the property - X at most - convicted of attempted theft.
8.6.1.2 Border between attempted and completed theft

X carries away Y’s thing - apprehended shortly thereafter - before succeeded in removing property to
exact locality has in mind - whether should be convicted of completed theft/attempted theft only
test employed to distinguish between attempted & completed theft = same as employed to distinguish
between uncompleted & completed act of appropriation: crucial question – whether at stage when X
was apprehended Y had lost control of her property & X had gained control of the property in Y’s place
answer to question depends upon particular circumstances of each case
- character of property taken
- way in which person would normally exercise control over property of such nature, and
- distance between place from which property was removed & place where X was apprehended with it
Since the thief & owner have opposing claims to the property - cannot simultaneously exercise control
over it
precise moment which owner loses control & thief gains it is a question of fact
Tarusika and N 51 - was held X had already gained control of property & had consequently committed
completed theft when he removed a blanket from a washing line, placed it under his arm & had been
caught in possession of it 20 metres from the line.
8.6.1.3 Stealing from a self-service shop

X intending to steal - conceals in her clothing article offered for sale in self-service shop & is apprehended
with article before leaving shop - courts decided - some cases - convicted of completed theft (M; Dlamini)
be inclined to think owner of shop exercises control over all articles as long as they are still in the shop &
X guilty of completed theft only if caught after having moved past the checkout point/perhaps after
having left the shop itself
fact courts accept X convicted of completed theft in such circumstances be explained as follows: public
invited to help themselves in shop & even security personnel who have to try to trace thieves in the shop
find it impossible to keep all clients continually under surveillance while in the shop - cannot be said that
the owner of selfservice shop exercises effective control over all articles while the shop is open
Nkozi - court observed “one should be cautious not to lavishly apply the shoplifting principle to all other
cases where a determination has to be made between completed and attempted theft”
court’s view - theft out of self-service shops constitutes “a special form of theft” - is always risk that
person who contemplates theft & hides article under clothes may get away with his act (Tau)
whether completed/only attempted theft committed in context of self-service shop depends on facts of
each particular case
Mekula - good illustration of application of the principles
- X took bottle of whiskey from shelf of liquor store & concealed it under his clothes
- spotted by security guard
- attempted to put bottle back but bottle broke
- convicted of theft
- on review conviction set aside on ground that owner had not yet been excluded from his
property
- court found the owner still exercised effective control over bottle through security guard
- security guard had noticed intended offence & X had recognised that it would not be possible for
him to leave the premises with the liquor
- conviction for completed theft therefore incorrect & replaced by conviction for attempted theft

illustrate - each instance - determine whether shop owner still had effective control over property
8.6.2 The property

In principle - theft committed only in respect of certain type of property (thing)
there are specific exceptions to this rule
qualify as property capable of being stolen - property must comply with following requirements:
(1) property must be movable - example of immovable property = farm - cannot steal part of farm by moving
its beacons/fences - If part of immovable property is separated from the whole - qualifies as something
that can be stolen; examples - mealie cobs separated from mealie plants (Skenke) & trees cut down to be
used as firewood (Williams)
(2) property must be corporeal - must be independent part of corporeal nature. In principle - must be able to
see/touch it - cannot steal a mere idea (Cheeseborough)/a tune (last-mentioned case X might be liable for
damages in terms of legal provisions relating to copyright). rule that only corporeal property capable of
being stolen should be viewed circumspectly (warily). requirement watered down in our law
two exceptions to the rule:
Firstly - from Roman times - law recognised that owner may steal own property from somebody else who
is in lawful possession of property (pledgee) - form of theft known as “the arrogation of possession”. in
reality - not the property that is stolen - act directed at corporeal thing - infringed is possessor’s right of
retention - a right & therefore something incorporeal.
A second exception to the rule: certain types of conduct recognised by courts as theft - theft of money
through “manipulation” of cheques, banking accounts, funds, false entries, et cetera - object stolen - not
corporeal thing in form of individual coins/money notes - but incorporeal - “credit”/“abstract sum of
money”
Mintoor - court held - electricity cannot be stolen since not a particular material but a movement of
molecules; a form of energy
Ndebele - court regarded approach - out of step with modern developments in law of theft. Lamont J
argued - courts moved away from “physical handling of the property” requirement to broader & more
abstract requirement of “appropriation.”
development occurred to make provision for more complicated financial transactions that take place in
modern times - theft through manipulation of credit
such instances taking not consist in physical removal of a thing but the “appropriation of a characteristic
which attaches to a thing & by depriving the owner of that characteristic”
court explained energy created by electricity - not exist as abstract concept - exists in reality in form of
energised electrons
characteristic which attaches to electron is energy by which it moves & it is that characteristic that is
consumed when the electricity passes through a load in the customer’s residence through the customer’s
circuit
characteristic of electricity & extent to which it has been used is measurable
is produced & sold to customers by Eskom & is susceptible to theft
Read judgment in Ndebele
(3) property must be available in (or capable of forming part of) commerce. (Latin phraseology - in
commercio.)
Property available in commerce - capable of being sold, exchanged/pledged/generally of being privately
owned.
following types of property - not capable of forming part of commercial dealings - not susceptible to
theft:
(a) Res communes- property belonging to everybody- air, water in ocean/water in a public stream
(Laubscher).
Mostert - accused, 2 sugar cane farmers charged - various offences under the National Water Act 1998,
as well as common law offence of theft – Allegedly - pumped more water from river than legally
permitted as riparian owners.

Supreme Court of Appeal held - water flowing in a river/stream (water resource as envisaged in
legislation) - incapable of being stolen - accused convicted of statutory offences not of common law
offence of theft.
(b) Res derelictae - property abandoned by owners with intention of ridding themselves of it.
Property which person merely lost such - money which has fallen out of person’s pocket - not a res
derelict - person did not have the intention to get rid of it.
accepted - articles thrown out by householders in garbage containers/dumped onto rubbish heaps are
res derelictae.
(c) Res nullius - property belonging to nobody - can be subject of private ownership - wild animals/birds
(Mafohla (wild kudu); Mnomiya (honey of wild bees)).
such animals/birds - reduced to private possession by capture - example birds in cage/animals in zoo -
can be stolen (Sefula).
(4) property must belong to somebody else - cannot steal one’s own property.
exception to this rule - the unlawful arrogation of the possession of a thing (furtum possessionis)
8.6.3 Unlawfulness
most NB ground of justification excluding unlawfulness of the act - consent by owner to
removal/handling of the property
requirement - owner should not have consented to taking - often expressed in legal literature by
statement - X should have acted invito domino - Latin expression means “without the owner’s consent”.
Presumed consent (“spontaneous agency”) - also constitute ground of justification - example: While my
neighbour Y is away on holiday, her house is threatened by flood waters; I remove her furniture to my
own house in order to protect it. I am then not guilty of theft.
8.6.4 Intention
form of culpability required for theft = intention
never committed negligently
general principles relating to intention - intention (and X’s knowledge) must refer to all the
requirements/elements of the crime
8.6.4.1 The intention in respect of the property

This aspect of the requirement of intention - X must know what she is taking/that at which her conduct is
directed - movable corporeal property - available in commerce & belongs to somebody else/(cases of
theft in form of arrogation of possession) which belongs to herself - respect of which somebody else has
a right of possession which prevails against her (X’s) right of possession.
X believes her action directed at a res nullius/res derelict - particular piece of property in fact not a res
nullius/res derelict - lacks intention to steal & cannot be convicted of theft.
Rantsane - X removed dirty mattress cover from garbage container in military camp -was under
impression the owner (defence force authorities at camp) had thrown it away – was a res derelicta. It
appeared the quartermaster at camp had not discarded it - 1 of the conscripts (rookies/recruits) had
possibly dumped it in garbage container- regarded it as too dirty to sleep on - X found not guilty of theft -
had acted mistakenly & therefore lacked intention to steal
X believes property she is taking belongs not to another but to herself - lacks intention to steal.
8.6.4.2 The intention in respect of the unlawfulness

X aware of fact that she is acting unlawfully - that Y had not agreed to removal/handling of the property.
Slabbert - Y invited X for drink at Christmas - arriving at his host’s home - found no-one there & helped
himself to drinks - found not guilty on charge of stealing some of Y’s drinks - lacked awareness of
unlawfulness: thought Y would not object if he helped himself to drinks.
8.6.4.3 The intention in respect of the act (ie intention to appropriate)

the act of stealing consists in an appropriation of the property - follows that intention in respect of the
act consists in the intention to appropriate the property.

a Meaning of intention to appropriate

concept “appropriation” comprises two components - positive &negative
positive component consists in X exercising the rights of an owner over the property - negative in X
excluding the owner from her property
intention to appropriate is a mirror image of the act of appropriation - must reflect both components of
the concept “appropriation” - result, X must have
(1) an intention to exercise the rights of an owner in respect of the property, as well as
(2) an intention to exclude the owner from exercising her rights over her property /to deprive her of her
property
b Intention permanently to deprive

intention to deprive owner (Y) of her property - be qualified in a very important respect:
- X’s intention must be to deprive Y permanently of her property.
- X wishes to deprive Y only temporarily - she still respects & recognises Y’s right to her property
throughout
- contrary to essence of appropriation
- I take my friend’s car without her consent not intending to deprive her of it permanently but
intending merely to take a joyride in it & return it to her
- If this my intention when I take & use the car - not commit theft - lack intention to appropriate
the property
Past - not always clear whether intention permanently to deprive Y of her property was required for a
conviction of theft
particular intention not required in Roman & Roman-Dutch law (our common law)
Instead of this requirement - common law required an intention to act lucri faciendi gratia – with an
intention to derive benefit from handling of the property. (“benefit” - widely interpreted in our common
law.)
common law did not require intention permanently to deprive Y of her property - X convicted of theft -
even intended to use property without Y’s consent only temporarily before returning it to Y
form of theft in common law - known as furtum usus – theft of the use (of property)
legal literature - type of conduct sometimes referred to as “unlawful borrowing”/“arrogation of the use
of a thing”
Before 1955 - uncertainty in our law whether furtum usus (temporary use of property without owner’s
consent) - still theft
In 1955 - Appellate Division – Sibiya - removed uncertainty - holding that furtum usus no longer form of
theft in our law & X to be convicted of theft - intention permanently to deprive Y of her property is
therefore required
In this case - X removed Y’s car without his consent & took a joyride in it - intending to return it to Y - car
overturned & landed in a donga - police arrived at the scene, X (who was apparently
unscathed(unharmed/safe/untouched)) - still standing near the car - Appellate Division held - he had not
committed theft.
Read Sibiya
c Intention to appropriate includes intention permanently to deprive

Sibiya & other later judgments emphasised intention permanently to deprive Y of property - better to
describe intention in respect of the act as intention to appropriate the property
intention to appropriate not in conflict with intention permanently to deprive
intention to appropriate wide enough to encompass intention permanently to deprive
all emphasis on intention permanently to deprive Y of her property & neglects intention to appropriate
(more particularly - intention directed at positive component of concept of appropriation) - is a danger -
X may be convicted of theft where facts reveal she actually committed only malicious injury to property
example - X chases Y’s cattle over precipice(cliff,height,rock face) to their death without performing any
further acts in respect of the cattle/X merely sets Y’s furniture alight - X has intention permanently to
deprive Y of her property - questionable whether she has intention to appropriate the property

clear from judgment - Sibiya - mere temporary use of another’s property not constitute theft
does not mean such conduct not punishable
After judgment in Sibiya - legislature passed legislation aimed at preventing X from escaping criminal
liability in such a situation
s1 of Act 50 of 1956m - legislature created offence penalising unlawful removal of another’s property for
temporary use in certain circumstances
amounts to statutory form of unlawful borrowing
d Exceptions to the rule that temporary use is not theft

following important qualification to the rule that mere temporary use of another’s property is not theft:
(1) X removes Y’s car intending to use only temporarily - before she returns the car -breaks down/possibly
collides with some object & X simply abandons it without notifying Y of situation - guilty of theft.
abandoning car without caring whether Y will ever find it again - X adopts intention opposite of an
intention of returning the car to Y: foresees possibility that Y may lose her car & behaves recklessly
towards this possibility. state of mind amounts to intention in form of dolus eventualis to deprive Y
permanently of her car. facts in Laforte similar; in this case, X was convicted of theft.
(2) X takes Y’s property without Y’s consent - not to take & use it unreservedly for own benefit but to retain
it as a pledge/security for a debt which Y owes her - lacks intention to appropriate & not guilty of theft.
intention to appropriate = absent - X not wish to deprive Y of full benefit of her ownership: prepared to
return the property to Y as soon as Y has repaid the debt. Van Coller - X “flying doctor” in Botswana took
possession of 4 microscopes belonging to Botswana government without its consent. intended returning
microscopes provided certain criminal charges against him were withdrawn by Botswana authorities, as
they had undertaken to do. court held - his intent could not be reconciled with intent to deprive owner of
the full benefit of his ownership - court held - X had not committed theft.
e Intention to acquire benefit not required

Unlike common law - our law - intention to acquire some form of gain/advantage from
acquisition/handling of property no longer a requirement for theft.
Kinsella - illustrates this principle - X a major in the Defence Force - removed property belonging to the
Defence Force without its permission & sold it - not with intention of converting the proceeds of the sale
for his own personal benefit - use proceeds to acquire certain facilities for residents of the military camp
of which he was in charge. His defence - never intended to acquire any personal advantage from
transaction was rejected. Court stated - been guilty of theft even if he had intended to donate the
proceeds of the sale to a charitable organization
It follows - in order to be convicted of theft- not required X should intend to “keep the property for
herself”
X were to remove Y’s property without consent & minutes later give it to Z as a present - still guilty of
theft
8.7 EMBEZZLEMENT
theft committed in variety of ways
X commits theft in form of embezzlement - also called “theft by conversion” - appropriates another’s (Y’s)
property already in her (X’s) possession
only difference between this form of theft & theft in form of removal of property - found in way in which
act of appropriation takes place: unlike theft in form of removal of property – embezzlement: X need not
first remove property from Y’s possession before appropriating it; she only commits an act of
appropriation in respect of property already in her possession
other requirements for the crime apart from the act - the property, the unlawfulness & the intent
requirements - same as in case of theft in form of removal of property
In embezzlement - way X comes into possession of the property is immaterial
Example - immaterial whether animal that X appropriates accidentally walked onto X’s land/whether its
owner had entrusted it to her.
examples of acts amounting to X’s appropriation of Y’s property - already in X’s possession:
• where X consumes the property (eats Y’s food/burns Y’s firewood)

• where she sells it (Attia; Markins Motors (Pty) Ltd)

• where she donates it
• where she exchanges it for something else (Van Heerden)
• where she uses it to pay her debts
conduct of somebody who finds/picks up an article - somebody else has lost & keeps it for
herself/example uses, consumes/sells it - in certain circumstances amount to theft
if finder knows who owner of article is/how to trace her but fails to inform owner & example consumes it
herself - conduct would amount to appropriation of the article (Spies and Windt ; Luther)- (person who
picks up a single coin/other article of small value & appropriates it would normally not be charged
with/convicted of theft - operation of maxim de minimis non curat lex.)
failure/procrastination by X to return property to Y/false denial of possession - cannot without more
adobe construed as an appropriation of property (Kumbe)
have to investigate all circumstances of case before assuming X’s mere failure amounts to appropriation
not inconceivable X’s mere passivity/omissio may amount to an appropriation – example - happen if X
simply refuses to return Y’s mantelpiece clock which she had to look after - which now in her lounge
where she can regularly consult it to ascertain the time - X’s decision not to return the property – not
constitute its appropriation – thoughts/resolve - not punishable
8.8 ARROGATION OF POSSESSION (FURTUM POSSESSIONIS)

today - furtum usus - no longer regarded as a crime in our law - furtum possessionis is
owner steals her own thing by removing it from possession of a person who has a right to possess it
which legally prevails over owner’s own right of possession
pledgee & somebody who has a right of retention - examples of persons who enjoy such preferential
(special/favored) right of possession
following example:
- X wishes to borrow money from Y - Y only prepared to lend X money if X gives her (Y) her (X’s) watch as
security for repayment of the debt. X gives Y her watch & Y lends X the money. In terms of the
agreement, X will get her watch back only after she has repaid Y the amount of money owing. Before she
has paid Y the money, X takes the watch into her own possession without Y’s consent = theft in form of
arrogation of possession.
- form of theft is peculiar - what X steals is in fact own property
- Roberts - X took his car to a garage for repairs - garage had lien (“right to retain”) over car until account
for repairs had been paid - X removed his car from garage without permission - convicted of theft
- Janoo – X owner of carton of soft goods (ordered by post) removed carton from station without
permission of railway authorities - entitled to receive goods only against signature of receipt & certificate
of indemnification - intention in removing goods - to claim loss from railway - was found guilty of theft
8.9 CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE THEFT OF MONEY

modern business community cash seldom used
Money changes hands by means of cheques, negotiable instruments, credit/debit entries in
books/registration in electronic “memory” of computer
X an attorney undertakes to administer financial affairs of Y - aged widow growing senile
As trustee of Y’s money - X has obligation to receive all cheques made out to Y/representing funds which
she is entitled & deposit them into her banking account/invest them for her at favourable rate of interest
X receives the cheques - contrary to her (X’s) duties deposits them into her own (X’s) banking account -
enable her (X) to pay her own private debts
such set of facts - X does not handle tangible coins/notes - corporeal things
dealing with & converting to her own use is something incorporeal - “credit”/“abstract sum of money”
convicted of theft - would mean - convicted of theft of incorporeal property
according to our courts - consideration affords her no defence on a charge of theft: conduct described
above constitutes theft (Kotze 1965; Verwey)
courts emphasise - what is important – not the particular mechanisms employed by X to acquire money
but the economic effect of her actions - reduction of credit in Y’s banking account (Scoulides)

position same if (above example) - X had undertaken to write out cheques on behalf of Y in order to pay
her creditors - contrary to her undertaking - X wrote out cheques enabling her to withdraw money from
Y’s banking account & channel money into own banking account to pay her (X’s) own private debts
X guilty of theft of the money
fact that as trustee has the right to write out cheques on Y’s behalf - not afford X a defence - according to
the courts -Y has so-called “special interest/property” in the money/funds in her account - writing out
cheques contrary to her duties - X infringes Y’s “special interest/property” (Manuel)
8.10 THEFT A CONTINUING CRIME

Theft = delictum continuum/continuing crime
means commission of the crime continues for as long as stolen property remains in possession of thief
result of this rule - generally our law draws no distinction between perpetrators & accessories after the
fact in respect of theft
If X has stolen property & thereafter Y assists X - still in possession of the property- to hide/sell It - Y guilty
not merely of being accessory after the fact to the theft but also of theft as co-perpetrator - at time
assisted X - theft not yet completed but still in process of taking place
Von Elling - X convicted of theft (co-perpetrator) - at request of Z who had stolen a motorcar - drove car
from one garage to another with intention of concealing it from the owner
GLOSSARY
animus furandi the intention to steal
contrectatio the act of stealing (handling or touching of the property)
delictum continuum a continuing crime

furtum Theft
furtum possessionis t heft of the possession of the property (arrogation of
possession)
furtum usus t heft of the use of the property (no longer a form of theft in
our law)
invito domino without the consent of the owner

lucri faciendi gratia the intention of gaining some gain or advantage
res the thing or property
res communes things belonging to everybody
res derelictae abandoned things
res in commercio things that are capable of forming part of commerce
res nullius things belonging to nobody
SUMMARY
(1) The act of stealing consists in the appropriation of the property.
(2) The act of appropriation consists in any act whereby X
(a) deprives the lawful owner/possessor of her property, and
(b) exercises the rights of an owner herself in respect of the property
(3) person commit theft of another’s property either in circumstances in which the property is in owner’s
possession/circumstances in which it is in perpetrator’s own possession. The former form of theft is
known as removal of property & latter as embezzlement.

(4) It is possible for the perpetrator (X) to commit theft even in respect of property belonging to herself -
happens if removes own property from possession of person (as pledgee) who has a right to possess it
which legally prevails over the owner’s own right of possession. This form of theft is known as the
(5) For property to be capable of being stolen, it must
(a) be movable
(b) be corporeal
(c) be capable of forming part of commerce (which means that it should not fall into one of the following
categories:
(i) res communes – things belonging to everybody
(ii) res derelictae – abandoned property
(iii) res nullius – things belonging to nobody)
(d) belong to somebody else (except in cases of the arrogation of possession)
(7) I n order to be unlawful, the act of stealing must take place, inter alia, without the permission of the
person who has a right to possess it.
(8) In order to have the intention required for theft, X’s intention (which includes her knowledge) must
(a) relate to the act
(b) relate to the nature of property
(c) relate to the unlawfulness, and,
(d) furthermore - must have intention permanently (and not temporarily) to deprive person entitled to
possession of the property, of such property. intention relating to act means X must intend to
appropriate the property. intention relating to nature of property (ie, the property requirement) means
she must know that the thing she is appropriating is a movable, corporeal thing belonging (in principle) to
another. intention in respect of unlawfulness requirement comprises - knowledge on the part of X that
person who is entitled to possession of property has not consented to the taking of the property.
(9) The intention permanently to deprive person entitled to possession of such property - X does not commit
theft if she takes property with intention merely of using it temporarily & then of returning it to the
person entitled to its possession.
(10) In theft in the form of embezzlement, X appropriates another’s property which already happens to be in
her (X’s) possession. Here it is not necessary for X first to remove the property from another’s possession,
since she is already in possession of it.
(11) I n theft in the form of the arrogation of possession, the owner steals by removing her own property from
the possession of the person who has a right to possess it and whose right legally prevails over the
owner’s own right of possession.

STUDY UNIT 9 Robbery & receiving of stolen property
9.1 ROBBERY
Case Book 257–260
9.1.1 Definition
Robbery consists in theft of property by unlawfully and intentionally using
(1) violence to take the property from another or
(2) threats of violence to induce the other person to submit to the taking of the property.
customary to describe robbery as “theft by violence” - though incomplete - description reflect the
essence of the crime.

(1) the theft of the property
(2) the use of either actual violence or threats of violence
(3) a causal connection between the violence (or threats thereof) and the acquisition of the property
(4) unlawfulness
(5) intention
9.1.3 General character of the crime

All requirements for theft apply to robbery
Just as in theft - only movable, corporeal property available in commerce can form the object of robbery
possessor/person - entitled to the property must not have consented to the taking & X must have known
that consent was lacking.
9.1.4 Application of force

As appears from the defi nition of the crime, robbery can be committed in two ways, namely either by
the application of actual violence or by threats of violence. (The crime of assault, likewise, can be
committed in these two ways.) As far as the actual application of violence is concerned, the violence must
be aimed at Y’s person, that is his bodily integrity (Pachai 1962 (4) SA 246 (T) 249). The violence may be
slight, and Y need not necessarily be injured. Robbery is likewise committed if X injures Y and thereupon
takes the property from him while he (Y) is physically incapacitated, provided that X already at the time
of the assault intended to take it (Mokoena 1975 (4) SA 295 (O); L 1982 (2) SA 768 (ZH)).
9.1.5 Threats of violence

Robbery committed even if no actual violence against Y: threat of physical violence against Y if he does
not hand over the property is sufficient (Ex parte Minister of Justice: In re R v Gesa, R v De
Jongh;Benjamin)
Y simply submits through fear to the taking of the property
Y need not be physically incapacitated
threats of violence – express/implied.
9.1.6 Causal link between violence (threats thereof) & the acquisition of the property
must be causal link between the violence/threats of violence on one hand & acquisition of the property
on the other
If X acquires the property not as result of violence (threats) but as result of some other
consideration/event - not commit robbery
judgment in Pachai illustrates this rule - X made telephone calls to Y in course of which he threatened Y -Y
reported telephone calls to police - set a trap for X in Y’s shop - X entered the shop demanded money &
cigarettes from Y & aimed a pistol at Y - Y handed over the money & cigarettes to X - that stage police
were hiding in the shop & immediately after the handing over of the property arrested X - Court held - Y
did not hand over the property to X as a result of X’s threats - but in course of a prearranged plan

together with the police which was aimed at securing X’s arrest – Consequently - X not found guilty of
robbery - found guilty of attempted robbery
X steals something from Y & uses violence to retain the property (prevent Y from regaining
property)/avoid being caught by the police (someone else) - does not commit robbery - may be convicted
of the 2 separate offences of theft & assault (John; Ngoyo)
converse also true: X only wanted to assault Y & after having knocked him unconscious for first time
discovers his (Y’s) watch lying in the road & then only hits on idea of taking it & in fact does so - does not
commit robbery but the 2 separate offences of assault & theft (Malinga; Marais)
violence/threats of violence precede acquisition (gaining) of the property
Yolelo - Appellate Division held
- no absolute rule that requires violence to precede the acquisition: If such close connection
between the theft & the violence that these can be seen as connecting components of one &
the same course of action robbery may according to this decision be committed even though
the violence does not precede the taking of the property
- X in process of stealing certain articles from Y’s house
- Y caught him red-handed in the house
- X assaulted Y & incapacitated her by gagging her with napkin tying her arms & locking her up in
the bathroom
- X continued to search house for money & arms
- If considers facts of case - difficult to assume the assault on Y took place after X had already
completed the theft.
9.1.7 The “bag- and cellphone-snatching cases”

Sithole - Natal Court held - handbagsnatcher commits robbery & not theft
Y carrying her handbag clutched under her armpit - X behind her & suddenly grabbed it & ran off - Court
expressed view - for handbag-snatching to amount to robbery - sufficient if X intentionally uses force in
order to overcome the hold which Y has on the bag for the purpose of carrying it/if X intentionally uses
force to prevent/forestall such resistance as Y would ordinarily offer to the taking of the bag, if she
were aware of X’s intentions - judge emphasised - not necessary for Y to offer resistance/to try to retain
possession of the bag
Mofokeng & Witbooi - judgment in Sithole followed by other divisions of the Supreme Court
Salmans - question before Court - whether grabbing of a cellphone out of complainant’s hand constituted
robbery/merely theft - Upon extensive review of case law & academic opinion - Court concluded - any
force applied to the person of a victim (however slight) - sufficient to constitute robbery - Court argued
that physical grabbing of a handbag/cellphone out of complainant’s hand is a physical intervention
necessary for dispossession - To “grab” - in Court’s words “to seize suddenly & roughly” - does not
matter whether act is labelled “force”/“violence” - is a physical act against the person of another-
complies with definition of robbery & does not amount to theft
decision in Salmans cited with approval in Mambo
If Y offer resistance - clings on to her handbag/cellphone while X pulls it away from her/drags her -self-
evident there is actual violence & consequently X’s conduct amounts to robbery (Hlatwayo)
9.1.8 Property need not be on the victim’s person or in his presence

Ex parte Minister van Justisie: In re S v Seekoei - violently attacked Y & forced her to hand him the keys
to her shop(2km away) - tied her to a pole using barbed wire & drove her car to shop - he stole money &
other property - trial judge refused to convict X of robbery - was of opinion it was a requirement for
robbery that property should be on the victim’s person/in his presence at time of theft
Appellate Division held - trial judge erred in this regard - for robbery no such requirement existed & X
should have been convicted of robbery

9.2 RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

Definition
A person commits the crime of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen if he unlawfully &
intentionally receives into his possession property knowing, at the time that he does so, that it has been
stolen

(1) receiving
(2) stolen goods
(3) unlawfully and
(4) intentionally (includes knowledge of fact the goods are stolen)
Appellation, origin & overlapping with theft

Roman law – receivers of stolen property generally regarded as thieves themselves & Roman-Dutch law
as thieves/”helers”(receptors/receptators)
“Heling” no longer charged – been superseded by “receiving”
“Receiving” shorter version of “receiving stolen property knowing it is stolen”
“Receiving” unknown in common law & developed by Cape courts in 19th century under influence of
English law
Peculiarity of this crime – coincides with theft
Person who commits this crime = simultaneously accessory after the fact to theft – in our law treated as
thieves(perpetrators) – because of the rule that theft is a continuing crime
All “receivers”may be charged with theft – general practice – charge them with more specific crime of
receiving
Charge better acquaints X with allegations against him than charge of theft only
Criminal Procedure Act – theft a competent verdict on charge of receiving & receiving cometent verdict
on charge of theft
Stolen Property
Property received must be stolen
Stolen if obtained by theft, robbery, housebreaking with intent to steal & theft/theft by false pretences
Obvious – crime committed only in respect of property capable of being stolen – movalble corporeal
property in commercio
Punishable – receiving stolen property
If person receives the proceeds of the sale of stolen property – not commit the crime
Unlawfulness
Receiving must be unlawfull
Receiver receives property with consent of owner/with intention of retirning it to the owner/handing it
over to police – does not commit the crime
Sawitz – poice recover stolen property & handed it to the thief with request he give it to - police can trap
X in act “receiving” – was done &X convicted of receiving – defence that police consented to the receiving
was rejected
Receiving the property

Crime not consist being in possession of stolen goods – receiving such goods
Concept “receiving” – taking into possession
Receiving take place in any of recognized ways in which movable property can be delivered incl.
constructive modes of delivery
Negotiation between thief & X incl. physical inspection of goods by X – not sufficient to render X guilty of
receiving
Possession gained by receiver need not amount to juridical possession in sense that he intends to keep
the property as own(possession civilis) – crime committed if keeps property temporarily for another
(possession naturalis)

Culpability
Firstly – knowledge by X – receiving the goods into his possession – awareness on his part that he has
custody & control over property
Secondly – appreciation of fact that goods are stolen
Dolus eventualis suffices – sufficient X aware of possibility property might be stolen & despite this
decided to receive it
Submitted that its this principle which courts apply in stating that mental element is satisfied where X has
strong suspicion the goods are stolen but willingly refrains from making inquiries to avoid confirmation of
suspicions
At moment received goods – receiver must know they are stolen – if discovers subsequently & then
appropriates the goods (selling/consuming) – guilty of independent theft
Not yet decided by courts – submitted that receiver like thief – must have intention to deprive owner of
benefits of ownership permanently – crime of receiving equated by courts with theft
SUMMARY
Robbery
(1) Robbery can be defined as theft by violence - violence may be actual/in form of a threat of violence.
(2) must be causal connection between violence & obtaining of the property - X merely wishes to assault Y, &
in fact does so. After the assault, Y lies unconscious on the ground. At that stage, X discovers for first time
that Y is wearing a valuable watch. X takes the watch for himself. X not guilty of robbery but of assault &
theft.
(3) X snatches Y’s handbag (clasping under her arm) away from her & runs away with it - does not according
to courts commit only theft but robbery - intentionally forestalls any possibility of Y offering any
resistance.
(4) not required for robbery that property should be on the person of the victim/in his presence when the
violence takes place.
Receiving stolen property
(5) correct, complete name of this crime “receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen”.
(6) person who commits this crime renders himself (same time) guilty of being an accessory after the fact to
theft - persons who are accessories after the fact to theft - usually regarded as thieves (perpetrators of
theft) - crime of receiving overlaps crime of theft.
(7) can be committed only in respect of property that is capable of being stolen.
(8) X need not touch the property when he receives it - Neither necessary for him to receive the property
with intention of keeping it for himself - also commits the crime if receives it with intention of keeping it
temporarily for somebody else.
(9) X must know the property is stolen/must foresee possibility it may be stolen & reconcile himself to such
possibility.

STUDY UNIT 10 FRAUD & RELATED CRIMES

10.1 FRAUD
Case Book 260–263
10.1.1 Definition
Fraud is the unlawful & intentional making of a misrepresentation which causes actual prejudice/which is
potentially prejudicial.

(1) misrepresentation
(2) which causes/may cause prejudice & which is
(3) unlawful and
(4) intentional
10.1.3 The misrepresentation

1st requirement for fraud - must be a misrepresentation - conduct requirement of the crime
misrepresentation = a deception by means of a falsehood - X represent to Y that a fact/set of facts exists
which in truth does not exist.
(1) Form that the misrepresentation may take: will generally take form of writing/speech - conduct other
than writing/speech sometimes sufficient - a nod of the head signifying consent (Larkins)
(2) misrepresentation be either express/implied
rule relating to implicit misrepresentation:
- general course of events somebody who buys goods not by paying cash but on credit implicitly
represents that at time of purchase - willing to pay for them/intends to pay for them in future &
she believes will be able to do so
- If at time of purchase in fact has no such intention/belief - misrepresents state of her mind
(Persotam)
Mdantile
- X bribed security official to gain entrance to station platform & hence onto train
- was charged & convicted of fraud
- court held - fact there not sufficient evidence of oral statement whereby misrepresentation was
made expressly - not stand in way of conviction for the crime
- Through his conduct - X represented to world he had a valid ticket knowing that such
representation was false
- court found his conduct intended to induce Transnet to convey him at its expense & its detriment
- misrepresentation as well as real prejudice had been established.
(3) misrepresentation made either a commissio (positive act)/an omissio (omission)
- most cases - misrepresentation made by means of a commissio.
- omission by X to disclose a fact - in eyes of law amount to making of a misrepresentation - if legal
duty on X to disclose the fact
- legal duty may arise:
(a) specifically by statute
- s137(a) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
- insolvent person obliged to disclose is insolvent to any person from whom receives credit for
more than a certain amount during sequestration of estate
(b) from considerations other than the terms of a statute
- such as where court is of opinion X should have acted positively to remove a misconception
which would (natural course of events) have existed in Y’s mind
- example - Larkins supra - X informed Y on 24 August his salary for the month would be
deposited in his banking account on 30 August
- On the strength of this Y lent him money
- X failed to mention - prior to 24 Aug he had ceded his entire salary for the month to some other
person
- was convicted of fraud on the strength of his omission

- Yengeni – X member of parliament failed (breach of a parliamentary code of conduct) to disclose

to parliament a benefit negotiated for himself
- Court held - although the breach of the parliamentary code of conduct in itself did not amount to
fraud - X nevertheless be convicted of fraud - was under a legal obligation to speak & had by his
deliberate failure to disclose benefit intended to mislead parliament.
(4) sometimes been stated (Larkins supra 92) - a mere false promise as to the future cannot be equated to a
misrepresentation.
- misrepresentation must refer to an existing state of affairs/some past event - not to some future
event (Feinberg)
- contention = misleading - person who promises to do something at some future stage implies
when making the promise that intends fulfilling it
- If is not her intention - guilty of a falsehood regarding an existing state of affairs - implies that she
has a certain belief/intention which she in fact does not have (Persotam supra).
- NB consequence of above - rule which has developed - person writing out a cheque & handing it
to another - generally deemed to have implied that at that stage she believes there are sufficient
funds in her banking account to cover payment of the cheque when it is presented to the bank
(Deetlefs)
(5) misrepresentation also made in respect of computer
- example -X uses Y’s pin number without Y’s consent to transfer credit from Y’s account to her
own
- she (X) may be convicted of fraud - falsely presents that it is Y who is transferring the money/that
Y has consented to the transfer
10.1.4 The prejudice

10.1.4.1 General
2nd element of the crime - requirement that the misrepresentation must cause actual prejudice/be
potentially prejudicial
lying not punishable as fraud
crime only committed if the lie brings about some sort of harm to another - purposes of this crime- harm
referred to as “prejudice”.
many instances of fraud - person to whom false representation is made is in fact prejudiced
example - X falsely represents to Y that painting she is selling to Y - an original painting by famous artist &
therefore worth great amount of money - in fact a copy of original & worth very little (if any) money
Actual prejudice - not required; potential prejudice sufficient to warrant a conviction
Nor required that prejudice be of a patrimonial nature
10.1.4.2 Prejudice may be either actual or potential

if prosecution has not proved misrepresentation resulted in actual prejudice - X may still be convicted - if
proved her misrepresentation was potentially prejudicial.
Assume X insured with insurance company all articles belonging to her against theft
subsequently claims an amount of money from insurance company on ground that certain articles
belonging to her have been stolen
Her allegation that articles have been stolen = false
If insurance company paid her the money she claimed - company would have suffered actual prejudice.
Assume after she has put in her claim - company discovers articles concerned not stolen & X’s claim was
therefore false
It accordingly refuses to pay X the amount of her claim
X nevertheless convicted of fraud? - “Yes” - although company not suffered any actual prejudice - X’s
misrepresentation resulted in potential prejudice

Potential Prejudice:
(1) means - misrepresentation looked at objectively involved some risk of prejudice/it was likely to prejudice
- Mngqibisa - X falsely represented to Y (acted on behalf of insurance company) that at time of
collision he had been the driver of his motor vehicle - in fact his wife (Z) had been the driver - At
time of collision Z still a learner driver
- In terms of insurance policy - additional excess payable in event of claim where driver was only in
possession of learner driver’s licence
- After misrepresentation to Y, X told A, the claims assessor the truth - that his wife (Z) actually
driver of vehicle at time of collision
- claim was never paid out
- X charged with fraud - caused potential prejudice to insurance company
- argued by state that insurance company was potentially prejudiced - might have been induced to
pay out under policy on basis that statement was true
- Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed - only potential prejudice required for the crime of fraud &
this approach has consistently been followed through the years
- fact X had subsequently told truth to A (claims assessor) - not regarded as factor exonerating him
- was convicted of fraud on basis that potential prejudice occasioned at the time of making the
false representation
(2) “Likely to prejudice” - not mean there should be probability of prejudice but that there should be a
possibility of prejudice (Heyne) - what is required is that prejudice can be not will be caused
(3) possibility of prejudice should not be too remote/fanciful (farfetched/unlikely)(Kruger)
(4) prejudice need not necessarily be suffered by the representee (party to whom misrepresentation is
directed); prejudice to 3rd party/the state/community in general = sufficient (Myeza)
(5) It is not relevant that Y, the victim, was not misled by the misrepresentation; the representation’s
potential which is the crucial issue
Dyonta - X attempted to sell glass as diamonds to Y
X & Y knew the articles were glass & not diamonds
X nevertheless convicted - “representation that the stones were diamonds was capable in the ordinary
course of events of deceiving a person with no knowledge of diamonds & that being so, the
misrepresentation was calculated to prejudice ... .” - follows - makes no difference whether/not Y reacts
to the misrepresentation/whether X’s fraudulent scheme successful/not (Isaacs)
(6) Since potential prejudice sufficient - unnecessary to require a causal connection between
misrepresentation & the prejudice- Even where no causal connection - may still be fraud - provided one
can say that misrepresentation holds potential for prejudice - successful misrepresentation is not
required for fraud
10.1.4.3 Prejudice may be either proprietary or non-proprietary in nature

prejudice may be proprietary/non-proprietary in nature
Prejudice described as proprietary if it has to do with person’s property/material possessions - if it
consists in money/something which can be converted into money
other instances of prejudice - prejudice is non-proprietary in nature
in most cases – prejudice/potential prejudice is of proprietary nature - need not necessarily be the case
examples of fraud involving non-proprietary prejudice:
(1) writing examination for another – at very least - constitutes potential prejudice to education authorities
(Thabetha)
(2) submitting forged driver’s licence to prosecutor during trial for a traffic offence (Jass)
(3) making false entries in a register reflecting sale of liquor – prejudices the state in its control of sale of
liquor (Heyne supra)
(4) laying a false charge with/making a false statement to the police (Van Biljon)
(5) Failing to disclose to parliament (breach of a parliamentary code of conduct) - benefit negotiated for
oneself (Yengeni supra) – prejudice/potential prejudice suffered - parliament & individual members
cannot function properly without correct information & accurate knowledge of particular matter before it
which has to be considered.

(6) Failure to disclose (in tender application for school textbooks) - family connection to person employed by
state in Department of Education
Tshopo - court held - such omission amounts to misrepresentation - prejudicial to other tenderers &
community at large & renders state incapable of administering public funds fairly.
10.1.5 Unlawfulness
Compulsion/obedience to orders - conceivably operate as grounds of justification
fact that Y aware of falsehood - no defence
any fraudulent misrepresentation = obviously unlawful - unlawfulness not play important role in this
crime.
10.1.6 Intent
general principles relating to intent - X’s intent must relate to all requirements of the crime other than
the intent requirement - means - apart from intention relating to unlawfulness (awareness of
unlawfulness) - X’s intent must cover the following:
- intent relating to requirement of misrepresentation - X must know/at least foresee possibility that the
representation making to Y is untrue
- intent relating to requirement of prejudice - X must know/at least foresee possibility that Y/some other
party may suffer actual/potential prejudice as result of her misrepresentation (Bougarde)
- distinction between an intention to deceive & an intention to defraud:
- former means an intention to make somebody believe that something which is in fact false is true
- latter means the intention to induce somebody to embark – as a result of the misrepresentation – on
a course of action prejudicial to herself (Isaacs supra)
- former is the intention relating to the misrepresentation & the latter is the intention relating to both
the misrepresentation & the prejudice
- Is latter intention which must be established in order to convict somebody of fraud - means that the
mere telling of lies which the teller thereof does not believe will cause the person to whom they are
told to act upon them to his prejudice, is not fraud (Harvey)
- Gardener
- X & Y (2 chief executive officers of company A)
- failed to disclose their interests in company B to board of company A
- Company A bought shares in company B & as result of this transaction X & Y secured substantial
profits
- charged with fraud & duly convicted
- appeal - questions before court were whether they had intention of defrauding company A &
whether their failure to disclose resulted in actual/potential prejudice to the company
- court summarised following requirements for this type of fraud (Burstein):
(1) a duty to disclose the particular fact
(2) a wilful breach of this duty
(3) an intention to defraud which involves
(i) knowledge of the particular fact
(ii) awareness and appreciation of the existence of the duty to disclose
(iii)deliberate refraining from disclosure in order to deceive and induce the representee to act to its
prejudice or potential prejudice
(4) actual/potential prejudice of the representee
- court found that conduct of X & Y was potentially prejudicial to company A
- precluded company A from considering the advantages & disadvantages of the sale & induced
company A to raise the finance & pay X & Y for their interest in company B
- conduct was deliberate since it was done to avoid proper consideration of the transaction by
the board in the self-interest of X and Y
- considering the intention to cause prejudice, the court deemed it unnecessary to be more
specific as to the nature of that prejudice

- court stated that when company directors directly withhold information material to affairs of
their company from the board of directors - in the absence of an explanation for such conduct
which may reasonably be true - case of fraudulent non-disclosure - because the company can
only make decisions through a board that is properly informed
- such circumstances - both prejudice & intention to prejudice have been proved
- X & Y - deliberately withheld knowledge of their interest in company B from board of company A
- intention can therefore only have been that they feared steps which board if properly informed
would take & intended to preclude such action
- board was therefore deprived of opportunity to exercise its judgment in interests of the company
& was a fact that both X & Y aware of
- court upheld conviction for fraud for these reasons.
Read S v Gardener
10.1.7 Attempt
potential prejudice sufficient to constitute fraud - view has long been held - there can be no such crime as
attempted fraud - even if misrepresentation is not believed/even if Y does not act on strength of the
representation - potential prejudice is present & consequently fraud is committed (Nay; Smith)
Heyne - Appellate Division held - attempted fraud indeed possible - will arise in case where
misrepresentation has been made - not yet come to Y’s attention – example: letter containing
misrepresentation is lost in the post/intercepted
10.2 FORGERY & UTTERING
Definition of forgery
Forgery consists in unlawfully & intentionally making a false document to the actual/potential prejudice
of another
Elements of the Crime

(1) making a document
(2) which is false
(3) prejudice
(4) unlawfulness and
(5) intention (incl. intention to defraud)
Character
Forgery = species of fraud
In forgery misrepresentation takes place by way of falsification of a document
Apart from this – all requirements for crime of fraud must be present – intention to defraud &
actual/potential prejudice
small point of difference between fraud & forgery:
• fraud completed only when misrepresentation has come to the notice of the representee
• forgery completed moment document is falsified – document then brought to attention of
others – separate crime committed – uttering the document
Person who falsifies document in most cases also person who offers it to another – customary to charge
that person with forgery & uttering – which are 2 distinct crimes
The Document
Never yet been necessary for the court to define meaning of “document” for purpose of crime of forgery
De Wet & Swanepoel – contended – proper interpretation of common law forgery can be committed
only in respect of limited class of documents: documents embodying legal transaction/which afford
evidence of such transaction/officially drawn-up documents
Our courts influenced by English law & broader definition of “document” – S219 of Native Territories
Penal Code – interpret term “document” more broadly for purpose of the crime

Example – held – forgery can be committed in respect of following type of document: testimonial, written
request to military authorities for a pass, certificate of completence to repair watches
Other examples – cheques, receipts, promissory notes, bonds, general dealers’ licences & documents
setting out educational qualifications
Falsification
Document not forged/falsified because it contains untrue statements
Document false when purport to be something other than it is
If it is spurious imitation of another document/its falsly purporting to have been drawn up by somebody
other than its author/contains information (figures/dates) which it did not originally contain & which is of
material interest for purpose of the transaction forming background of the charge
Falsification achieved in many ways – alteration, erasure, substitution/addition of particulars on the
document/endorsement BUT NOT by the destruction of the whole document
Document falsely purporting to be copy of non-existent document = forged document incl. signed in the
name of fictitious person
Prejudice
Requirement same as fraud except the existence of potential prejudice in case of forgery can be inferred
at an early stage than in case in fraud – as soon as forgery of the document has been completed
As in fraud – prejudice need not be actual/patrimonial
Mere forgery of document does not automatically imply prejudice
Fact that forgery = clumsy/ineffectual – not mean cannot be potential prejudice
Intent
Requirement that X must have intention to defraud (not merely to deceive) = identical with
corresponding element in crime of fraud
Intention to defraud – knowledge on part of X that she is falsifying a document
Definition of Uttering
Uttering consists in unlawfully & intentionally passing of a false document to the actual/potential
prejudice of another
Most cases person who utters the document = one who forged it & will be charged with 2 offences –
forgery & uttering
Person who utters document = not person who forged it – will be charged with uttering only
Uttering like forgery = species of fraud & elements of prejudice & intention to defraud similar to
corresponding elements of crime of fraud
Requirement of false document = same as in crime of forgery
Only element in definition of this crime which does not also form part of the definition of forgery is
“passing off” of the document – means document is communicated to another person by an offer,
delivery/attempt to make use of it in some/other way
Person who utters document must represent it as genuine – therefore mere handing over of false
document by forger to accomplice (aware is forged document) & who has not yet uttered the document
herself – not constitute an uttering of the document
If document does not reach person to whom addressed (lost in post) – only attempted uttering
Passing off of document can take place through instrumentality of some other person/agent
Immaterial whether person to whom document is uttered is in fact misled thereby
10.3 THEFT BY FALSE PRETENCES

10.3.1 Definition
A person commits theft by false pretences if she unlawfully & intentionally obtains movable, corporeal
property belonging to another, with the consent of the person from whom she obtains it, such consent

being given as a result of a misrepresentation by the person committing the offence & she appropriates
it.

(1) a misrepresentation by X to Y
(2) actual prejudice (harm/loss) suffered by Y - parts with her property by allowing X to take possession of it
(3) a causal connection between the misrepresentation & the prejudice
(4) an appropriation of the property by X
(5) unlawfulness
(6) intention
10.3.3 General character of crime

regarded both as form of theft & a form of fraud
when X commits this crime:
- 1st - commits fraud by making a misrepresentation to Y
- 2nd ly – Y as result of misrepresentation “voluntarily” hands over movable, corporeal property to
X;
- 3rd ly - X appropriates this property
- In short - fraud followed by a theft
- Example - X goes to Y’s house & falsely represents to Y (housewife) that she (X) repairs & services
television sets & that her (Y’s) husband has requested her (X) to fetch their television set for
servicing. On the strength of this misrepresentation, Y allows X to remove the set from their
home. X disappears with it & appropriates it to herself. X thus makes use of a misrepresentation
to obtain Y’s consent to her removal of the property, thereby excluding any resistance by Y to the
removal
Cases such as these are treated as theft - assumed that although Y seemingly consented to part with
property & to allow X to take it Y’s “consent” not regarded by law as valid consent: consent induced by
fraud/misrepresentation = not regarded as valid consent
crime of theft by false pretences = strictly speaking unnecessary - every case in which X is convicted of
this crime - could equally be convicted of fraud
therefore completely overlaps with fraud
if crime were to disappear - would always still be possible to charge X with & convict of fraud
Although every case of theft by false pretences also involves fraud - opposite = not the case: every case of
fraud not involve theft by false pretences - X can commit fraud without obtaining/appropriating movable,
corporeal property (writes an examination in Y’s place)
SUMMARY
Fraud
(1) misrepresentation in fraud is presentation of a fact which does not exist, and
(a) may be made in speech, writing/in conduct
(b) may be made expressly/tacitly
(c) may consist in either a commission/an omissio
(d) is not made through a mere false promise as to the future
(2) misrepresentation in fraud must cause actual prejudice/be potentially prejudicial to another.
(3) The prejudice required for fraud may be
(a) either actual/potential, and
(b) either proprietary/non-proprietary in nature
(4) Because of wide interpretation of prejudice - need not be actual causal connection between
misrepresentation & prejudice required.
(5) Fraud - X’s intent must relate to both misrepresentation & the requirement of prejudice.
(6) Heyne - Appellate Division decided - attempted fraud can be committed if misrepresentation has not yet
come to the complainant’s attention.

Forgery and uttering

(7) Forgery a form of fraud in which misrepresentation takes place by means of forgery.
(8) crime of uttering takes place when forgery brought to attention of someone else.
(9) crimes of forgery and uttering - courts give wide interpretation to concept “document”.
(10) Forgery - document regarded as false if it purports to be something other than it is.
Theft by false pretences
(11) Theft by false pretences always involves fraud - then followed by theft of property concerned.
(12) theft by false pretences - Y consents to part with property in favour of X - consent not regarded
by the law as valid consent.

STUDY UNIT 11 CRIMES RELATING TO DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
BACKGROUND
Criminal law protects interests in property by punishing those who damage property
general crime used for this purpose = malicious injury to property
Malicious injury to property overlaps with crime of arson - merely a particular form of malicious injury to
property (Motau)
MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY
11.2.1 Definition
Malicious injury to property consists in unlawfully and intentionally
(1) damaging property belonging to another person or
(2) damaging one’s own insured property with the intention of claiming the value of the property from
the insurer.

(1) damaging
(2) property
(3) unlawfully and
(4) intentionally
11.2.3 The property

The property must be corporeal & may be either movable/immovable.
In principle - cannot commit the crime in respect of one’s own property - stands to reason that owner of
property = free to do with his property what he likes
Example: I no longer like my old rickety table - commit no crime if chop it to pieces & use as firewood - for
this reason - required that the property should belong to another
courts have held - X also commits the crime if sets fire to his own insured property to claim its value from
insurer of the property (Gervais; Mavros; Van Zyl)
11.2.4 Damage
Damage = difficult to define in abstract terms - includes total/partial destruction of property - animal is
killed/wounded (Laubscher)/loss of property/substance (draining of petrol from container) & causing of
any injury (permanent/temporary) to property
can be damage even where original structure of property not changed – example: statue painted
(Bowden)
will usually be assumed there is damage if property has been tampered with in such way - will cost the
owner money/at least some measure of effort/labour to restore to its original form (Bowden supra)
11.2.5 Unlawfulness
unlawful injury to property justified by
(1) statutory provisions giving X the right to destroy, wound/catch trespassing animals (Oosthuizen)
(2) necessity - X defends himself against an aggressive animal (Jaffet)
(3) official capacity – example:policeman breaks open door to gain access to house - a criminal is hiding
(4) consent by the owner of the property
11.2.6 Intention
The crime can only be committed intentionally
In practice - crime described as “malicious” injury to property – However - use of word “malicious” may
be misleading - creates impression X has to act with evil/malicious motive
X’s motive in fact not relevant consideration (Mnyanda)

ARSON
Definition
A person commits arson if he unlawfully & intentionally sets fire to:
(a) immovable property belonging to another; or
(b) his own immovable property, in order to claim the value of the property from the insurer
Elements of crime
(a) setting fire to
(b) immovable property
(c) unlawfully and
(d) intentionally
Requirements for crime

Is only a particular form of the crime of malicious injury to property
Can only be committed in respect of immovable property
Movable property set on fire – crime of malicious injury to property committed provided other
requirements for this crime complied with
Crime completed ONLY @ moment property has been set on fire
X caught at stage before property set on fire – guilty of attempted arson only – provided conduct
according to general rules governing liability for attempt – proceeded beyong mere act of preparation
As in malicious injury to property – cannot in principle commit arson of 1’s own property
Courts incl. Appellate Division- Mavros – held – X commits arson if sets fire to own insured property to
claim its value from insurer
Better to punish this type of conduct as fraud instead of arson – courts will in all probability not depart
from appeal court’s view – facts amount to arson & this is reason crime defined above in terms including
this type of situation
Intention & more particularly intention to damage property by setting fire to it (causing harm to
somebody) required
Dolus eventualis = sufficient
SUMMARY
Malicious injury to property
(1) The property must be corporeal & may be movable/immovable.
(2) usually be assumed - is damage if property has been tampered with in such way - will cost owner
money/at least some measure of effort/labour to restore to its original form.
(3) Intention is a requirement for the offence - perpetrator’s conduct need not be accompanied by
evil/malicious motive.
Arson
(4) Arson - only be committed in respect of immovable property - movable thing is set on fire - amounts to
malicious injury to property.
(5) Intention & more particularly intention to damage property by setting fire to it - causing patrimonial harm
to somebody is required.

STUDY UNIT 12 Housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime
DEFINITION
Housebreaking with intent to commit a crime consists in unlawfully & intentionally breaking into &
entering a building/structure, with the intention of committing some crime in it.
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

(1) breaking and entering
(2) a building or structure
(3) unlawfully and
(4) intentionally
BREAKING AND ENTERING

requirement of an act in this crime - two components:
(1) breaking into the structure
(2) entering it
12.3.1 Breaking
When uses word “breaking” - inclined to think of an act which causes damage to building/structure
most cases this crime is committed - some degree of damage to building caused by X - it is not a
requirement for liability for this crime that actual damage be inflicted to the building or structure.
All that is required for an act to amount to a breaking is the removal/displacement of an obstacle which
bars entry to the building & which forms part of the building itself.
(Meyeza; Ngobeza)
word “breaking” - therefore so-called “term of art” - an artificial concept
If applies above criterion to concrete facts - finds acts such as following do not amount to a “breaking in”
(no displacement of obstacle forming part of the building):
• walking through an open door into a building
• climbing through an open window into a building
• stretching one’s arm through an open hole in a wall of a building
(Makoelman; Rudman)
most obvious act which does qualify as a breaking in - physically breaking a door, window, wall/roof of
a building (to gain entry)
acts which are on the face of it more innocuous than those described qualify as a breaking
Examples:
• merely pushing open a closed (even though not locked) door/window
(Faison)
• merely pushing open a partially closed door/window (Moroe)
(reason why last-mentioned acts qualify - X displaces an obstacle which bars entry into building & which
forms part of the building itself.)
in effort to gain entry into house through open window - X shifts a flower pot placed on the windowsill to
one side - act not qualify as a breaking in - flower pot not form part of building/structure
if pushes a blind in front of open window to one side to gain entry - act qualify as a breaking in - blind is
attached to the window & therefore forms part of building (Lekute)
been held - curtain at a window = not an “obstruction” & X therefore does not “break into” a house if she
pushes a curtain at an open window to one side to gain entry (Hlongwane)
conclusion - must be stressed - the breaking in must be into the building - To break out of building after
having entered it without a breaking in cannot lead to conviction of housebreaking (Tusi) - X walks
through open door into building & while inside wind blows door shut & X has to open the door (or break
it down) to get out of the building - no “breaking into” for purposes of this crime.

12.3.2 Entering
“breaking” without “entering” = not sufficient to constitute the crime (Maruma) - may amount to
attempt to commit the crime
Like “building” & “breaking”, “entering” also has technical meaning - entry complete moment X has
inserted any part of her body/any instrument she is using for that purpose, into the opening - with
intention of thereby exercising control over some of the contents of the building/structure (Melville)
Mavela - X broken a window & was about to enter with his body - was seen by someone & desisted - not
clear had already inserted a part of his body/his hand into premises - convicted only of attempted
housebreaking with intent to steal.
BUILDING/STRUCTURE
house, structure/premises in respect of which crime is committed - any structure which is/might
ordinarily be used for human habitation/for the storage/housing of property.
difficult to deduce (from cases) a general principle that can be applied to decide whether particular
premise/structure qualifies as a premise/structure in respect of which the crime can be committed
submit following principle - advocated in De Wet & Swanepoel - should be followed in this respect:
- If structure/premises = used for storage of goods - must be immovable BUT if used for human habitation -
does not matter whether movable/immovable
- explains why structures such as the following (immovable) always qualify as structures in respect of which
the crime can be committed:
a house
a storeroom
a factory
business premises
- also explains why structures such as the following (movable/not - used for human habitation) do not
qualify as structures in respect of which the crime can be committed:
a motor car
a tent which is used only for the storage of goods (Abrahams)
a railway truck used for conveying goods (Johannes)
a fowl run made of tubes and wire netting (Charlie)
an enclosed backyard (Makoelman)
caravan = “house on wheels” - movable thing - used for human habitation/storage of goods/both -
accordingly a structure which does not readily fit into classification set out in principle advanced &
applied above
position in our law - whether caravan can be broken into - summarised as follows: Generally speaking, the
courts accept that a caravan does qualify as a structure, even if the breaking in takes place at a time when
nobody is living in it (Madyo; Temmers) - it does not qualify if (although it can be moved) used for the
purpose of storing goods (Jecha)
Temmers supra - Court rejected criterion which we advanced above - submit the alternative, very vague
criterion applied by Court in this case - not be followed
Mavungu - X broken into brand-new caravan which was property of caravan business - did not
steal anything - intended to sleep there - Court held - caravan was a “house” for purpose of
housebreaking & also a “building” for purposes of trespassing - X convicted of housebreaking with intent
to commit statutory crime of trespassing (s 1(1)(b) of the Trespass Act 6 of 1959).
UNLAWFULNESS
breaking into & entering of building/structure must be unlawful
the crime not committed if one breaks into & enters own house/room which you share with someone
else/if one has permission to enter (servant) (Faison supra; Mashinga)

INTENTION
intention required for this crime - two completely distinct components:
(1) X must have the intention of unlawfully breaking into & entering the house/structure
Such intention absent if she believes that she is breaking into her own house/is committing the act of
housebreaking with the consent of the owner of the house.
(2) X must have the intention of committing some other crime inside
housebreaking without such intention - not amount to the crime
housebreaking without such an intention may depending on circumstances - punishable as malicious
injury to property
further crime which X intends to commit must be different from the housebreaking itself (Melville supra).
In practice - housebreaking - mostly committed with intention to steal - in principle charges of
housebreaking with intent to commit any crime are competent
legislature has sanctioned charges of housebreaking with intention of committing a crime unknown to
the prosecutor
READ s95(12) with ss262 & 263 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
SUMMARY
(1) act consists in (a) housebreaking & (b) entering of a building/structure.
(2) “breaking” consists in removal/displacement of any obstacle which bars entry to the structure & which
forms part of the structure itself.
(3) entering = complete moment X inserted any part of her body/any instrument using for that purpose into
the opening with intention of exercising control over some of the contents of the building/structure.
(4) Building/structure may be any movable/immovable structure which is/might ordinarily be used for
human habitation/any immovable structure which is/might be used for storage/housing of property.
(5) intention required for housebreaking comprises following two distinct components – both must be
present:
(a) X must have the intention of unlawfully breaking into & entering the building/structure.
(b) X must have the intention of committing some other crime inside of the building/structure.

MUTIPLE CHOICE
Question 1
(i) Public violence can only be committed in a public place.

(ii) The crime of common-law perjury can only be committed if the
particular statement is made orally.
(iii) If X attempts to induce Y, a witness in a court case to give false
evidence in court, X’s conduct may amount to committing the
crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
(1) Only statements (i) and (iii) are correct.

(3) Only statement (ii) is correct.
(4) Not one of these statements are correct (5) Only statement (iii) is
correct.
Question 2
(i) X may be guilty of corruption even if he or she only makes an

offer to Y to give Y an improper benefit (assuming that X has an
intention required for corruption).
(ii) In order to prove the requirements of the acct in the crime of
possession of a drug, it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove
either that X had exercised control over the drug as if he or she
were the owner, or that he or she had exercised control over it
on behalf of somebody else.
(iii) If X buys a dagga cigarette from Y in order to smoke it him-or
herself, he or she commits an act in connection with the sale of
dagga and is accordingly guilty of dealing in drugs.
(1) Only statement (i) is correct

(2) Only statements (i) and (ii) are correct
(3) Only statements (ii) and (iii) are correct (4) Only statement (ii) is
correct

Question 4
(i) The crime of unlawfully possessing a weapon is defined by the

legislature in such a way that X commits the crime only if he or
she exercises control over the weapon with the intention of
possessing it as an owner for his or her own benefit.
(ii) Negligence is a sufficient form of culpability in the crime of
unlawfully possessing an arm.
(iii) If a female commits an indecent act with an 18-year-old boy she
renders herself guilty of contravening a provision of the Sexual
Offences Act 23 of 1957.
(1) Only statement (iii) is correct.

(3) Only statements (i) and (ii) are correct.
(5) Only statement (i) is correct.
Question 5
(i) In order to be convicted of common-law abduction, the

prosecution must prove that X in fact married the minor or had
sexual intercourse with her.
(ii) Common-law abduction is only committed if the removal of the
minor takes place violently.
(iii) Common-law abduction can also be committed in respect of a
male (as opposed to a female) minor.
(1)Only statement (i) is correct.

(5) Not one of these statements is correct.
Question 6

(i) It is quite possible for a person to render him-or herself guilty of

contempt of court even if he or she did not have culpability in
the form of intention, but only in the form of negligence.
(ii) A person can be convicted of assault with the intent to do
grievous bodily harm only if he or she had indeed inflicted
grievous bodily harm on the complainant.
(iii) If X, a male, intentionally puts his hand on the breast of Y, a
female, without her consent, but without injuring her, he may
render himself guilty of indecent assault.

(2) Only statements (i) and (iii) is correct.
(5) Only statements (ii) and (iii) are correct.
Question 7
(i) If a male, X, secretly watches a female, Y, while she is

undressing, he can be convicted of crimen iniuria even if, at the
time she was undressing, Y was not even aware that someone
was watching her.
(ii) If X plants a bugging device in Y’s flat and listens to Y’s
conversations without Y’s consent, X can be convicted of crimen
iniuria only if the conversation which X overhears contains
something scandalous or improper.
(iii) Arson can only be committed in respect of immovable property.

(5) Only statements (ii) and (iii) are correct.
Question 8
(i) The reason the word “malicious” appears in the crime

“malicious injury to property” is that this crime can be

committed only if X had an evil motive when he damaged the

property.
(ii) For the purpose of the crime of forgery a document is deemed to
be forged if it contains an untrue statement.
(iii) A person may only be convicted of fraud if it is proved that the
person to whom he or she had made the misrepresentation was
in fact misled by the misrepresentation.

(4) Not one of these statements is correct.
Question 9
(i) The threat of violence in robbery may either be express or

implied.
(ii) In robbery there must be a causal link between the application
of violence and the acquisition of the property.
(iii) For the conviction of fraud a causal link between the
misrepresentation and the prejudice is not required.
(1) Only statement (i) is correct

(3) All three statements are correct.
Question 10
(a) An indirect perpetrator is a person who makes use of somebody

else to commit a crime.
(b) Williams 1980 (1) SA 60 (A) is authority for the point of view that a
person may be convicted as an accomplice to the crime of murder.

(c) A “joiner in” is a person who actively associated himself with the
common purpose of others (to kill Y) at a time before the lethal
wound had been inflicted upon Y.
(1)Only statement (a) is correct.

(2)Only statement (a) and (b) are correct.
(3)Only statements (a) and (c) are correct.
(4)Only statement (b) is correct.
(5)All of these statements are correct.
Question 11
(a) For a conspiracy to be punishable, an agreement between at least

two persons to commit a crime is required.
(b) The purpose of the prohibition of the incitement to commit a crime
is to discourage people from seeking to influence others to commit
crimes.
(c) The public violence can be committed by an individual acting
alone.

(2) Only statement (a) and (c) are correct.
(5) Only statement (b) is correct
Question 12
(a) The crime of common-law perjury is only committed if the false

declaration is made in the course of legal proceedings.
(b) Laying a false criminal charge against another may amount to the
crime of defeating or obstructing the course of justice. (or
attempting to do so)
(c) Fair comment on the outcome of a case or on the administration
of justice in general does not constitute contempt of court.


(4) Only statement (a) is correct
(5) Only statement (a) and (c) are correct.
Question 13
(a) Where an editor of a newspaper is charged with the contempt of

court on the ground of having publishes information in his
newspaper concerning a pending case which tends to influence
the outcome of the case, it is sufficient if the state proves
culpability in the form of negligence.
(b) Unfair criticism of the South African Police Service by a newspaper
reporter may amount to contempt of court.
(c) The reason for the existence of the crime of contempt of court is to
protect the dignity of an individual.

(2) Only statement (c) is correct
(5) None of these statements are correct.
Question 14
(a) The crime of extortion can only be committed by a public official.

(b) The benefit in extortion is limited to patrimonial benefit.
(c) The crime of extortion is completed the moment X intentionally
exerts pressure on Y to hand over a benefit to him, irrespective of
whether X has received the benefit or not.

(5) None of these statements is correct

Question 15
(a) If X obtains drugs for her own use, she cannot be convicted of the
crime known as “dealing in drugs”.
(b) Culpability in the form of intention is required for the offence of
“dealing in drugs”.
(c) Corruption in its active form is completed only once X has given
the benefit to another.

(3) All of these statements are correct.
Question 16
(a) A husband may not be convicted of raping his wife.

(b) If X, a twenty-two-year-old male, exposes himself indecently in
front of a 13-year-old schoolgirl he may be convicted of a
contravention of section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957.
(c) The crime of common-law abduction can only be committed by a
male person.

Question 17
(a) In A 1993 (1) SA 600 (A) the court held that because urine is not a
poisonous or dangerous substance, X cannot be convicted of
assault if he forces Y to drink his own urine.
(b) The crime of indecent assault cannot be committed by a female.
(c) X may only be convicted of assault with the intent to do grievous
bodily harm if the victim had in fact been seriously injured.


(4) None of these statements is correct.
Question 18
(a) A person cannot be convicted of theft in respect of property

belonging to him-herself.
(b) An intention to require a benefit is a requirement for the crime of
theft.
(c) To listen to another person’s private telephone conversations by
means of an electronic bugging device amounts to the crime of
criminal defamation.

Question 19
(a) It is not required for robbery that the property should necessarily
be on the person of the victim or in his presence when the violence
takes place.
(b) The misrepresentation required for the crime of fraud may consist
in an omission.
(c) If X breaks into motor car with the intent to steal a car radio, he
may be convicted of the crime of housebreaking with intent to
commit a crime.


Question 20
(a) In the crime of corruption, the benefit must be of a patrimonial

nature.
(b) Corruption in its active form is completed only once X has given
the benefit to another.
(c) Incest is no longer a crime in our law.
(1) Only statement (a) is correctly.

(5) Not one of theses statements are correct.
Question 21
(a) Only a declaration that is made under oath can lead to a conviction of
perjury.
(b) X can be convicted of contempt of court if he unlawfully and
intentionally falsely pretends to be an officer of the court, like an
advocate or attorney.
(c) A reporter may be convicted of contempt of court if a reasonable
person in his position could foresee that the information which he
publishes might deal with a pending case.



Question 22
(a) Attempted assault is possible.

(b) If X is charged with murder, but it cannot be proved that he had the
necessary intention to murder, he will invariably be convicted of
culpable homicide.

Question23
(a) In Van Zyl 1993 (1) SACR 338 (C) the court held that the offence of
pointing of an arm is committed only if the arm is pointed directly at
the particular person in such a way that, if it were discharged, the
bullet would strike that person.
(b) A person below the age of 16 years may possess an arm without a
license with prior consent of the holder of a license to possess such
firearm.
(c) It is not possible to convict X of robbery unless the property was on
the victim’s person.

Question 24

(a) Spitting in someone’s face can amount to both assault and crimen
iniuria.
(b) X can be convicted of kidnapping if he unlawfully and intentionally
deprives Y of her freedom of movement by locking her up in her own
bathroom.
(c) X will be guilty of statutory abduction if he abducts a minor with the
intention to marry her.

Question 25
(a) If a moveable, corporeal thing is set on fire unlawfully and

intentionally, it amounts to arson.
(b) Every case of theft by false pretences involves fraud, but every case of
fraud does not involve theft by false pretences.
(c) It is required for the crime of fraud that there is a causal connection
between the misrepresentation and the prejudice.

Question 25
(a) For the purposes of the offence of unlawfully possessing drugs in

contravention of section 4 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140
of 1992, to “possess” a drug means to possess the drug in the
ordinary juridical sense of the word, or to keep, store or have in
custody or under control or supervision such drug.
(b) For possession of a dangerous or undesirable dependence-producing
substance (such as dagga, heroin or mandrax), a court may impose

any fine it deems fit to impose, or imprisonment for a period not

exceeding 15 years, or both such fine and such imprisonment.
(c) In the case of Solomon 1986 (3) SA 705 (A) the Appeal Court held that
a person who buys drugs for her own use does not commit an act
amounting to dealing in drugs.

PUBLIC VIOLENCE:
Smokers United, a group of cigarette smokers, is very upset about the

rising prices of cigarettes. They decide to march to the office of the
Minister of Finance to hand over a petition from smokers all over South
Africa complaining about the rising prices of cigarettes and the manner
in which smokers are being treated since the new legislation on smoking
has come into operation. They do not have permission to march, but
decide to continue nevertheless. The police request them to disperse in a
peaceful manner but they refuse.
Some of the protesters throw stones at the police and some try to enter
the office of the Minister by breaking down the door. The police throw
teargas at them and the protestors run away. The police succeed in
arresting five of the protesters. Can these five people be convicted of any
crime?
Yes, they can be convicted of the crime of public violence:

They participated in the protest.
They disturbed public peace and order.
It was a joint action. Public peace and order was disturbed by a
number of persons acting in concert. These people acted with a
common purpose. Once it has been established that the accused
knowingly participated with the aim of threatening public peace and
order, it is not necessary for the police to prove the specific acts
that were committed by each of the accused.

The acts were accompanied by violence. Note, however, that the

crime is committed even if there is no actual disturbance of the
public peace and order or no actual infringement of the rights of
another. It is sufficient if the action is aimed at these purposes. See
the study guide 4.2.2.
PERJURY:
Discuss the crime known as “statutory perjury” that is the

contravention of section 319(3) of Act 56 of 1955.
(8)
Statutory perjury:
Here the State needs to prove that X on 2 different occasions made

2 statements under oath and these statements conflict with each
other.
The difference between common law and statutory perjury are:

a) in CL perjury, only one statement and in SP, two statements
b) in CL perjury crime can only be committed during the course
of a legal proceeding; in SP neither of the statements need be
made in the course of a legal proceeding.
Definition
Perjury at common law consists in the unlawful, intentional making
of a false declaration under oath (or in a form allowed by law to be
substituted for an oath) in the course of a legal proceeding.
Discuss the liability of a newspaper editor for the crime of

contempt of court in the form of commentary in the form on
pending cases. (4)
Definition
1) Violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body
or a judicial officer in his judicial capacity, or

2) The publication of information or comment concerning a

pending judicial proceeding, which has the tendency to
influence the outcome of the proceeding or to interfere with
the administration of justice in that proceeding
Intent
In general intention is an essential element of the crime except in
cases where the editor of a newspaper is charged with this crime on
the ground of the publication in his newspaper of information
concerning a pending case, which tends to influence the outcome of
the case. Culpability in the form of negligence will be sufficient to
establish contempt of court in such circumstances. However,
remarks in a newspaper article, for example, must be read in
context to establish the presence of intent. Liability of a newspaper
editor: in Harber the Appellate Division held that it is not necessary
to prove intention in these cases, since, in cases such as these the
culpability may consist or either intention r negligence. The editor
would be negligent if the reasonable person in his position could
foresee that the information which he publishes might deal with a
pending case or that it might scandalize the court.
Define perjury at common law. (3)

One of the elements of common-law perjury is that the false

declaration must be made in the course of legal proceedings.
Discuss what is meant by “In the course of legal proceedings.”
(5)

A distinction is drawn between contempt in facie curiae and
contempt ex facie curiae.
In facie curiae literally means “in the face of the court”, and
contempt in this form is contempt in the presence of the judicial

officer during a session of the court. In Nyalanbisa the court held

that merely falling asleep in court does not necessarily amount to
contempt in facie curiae, since it merely amounted to “a trivial
breach of court etiquette”.
CONTEMPT OF COURT:
Discuss the form of contempt of court known as “contempt in facie

curiae.”
In your answer you need not also give a definition of contempt of court.
(6)
In facie curiae “in the face of the court; in the open court” – is
contempt in the presence of the judicial officer during a session of
the court. Contempt of court in facie curiae takes place when X
behaves in such a way in court as to violate the dignity or authority
of the judge or magistrate, for example by singing loudly in court.
The court has the power to evict the wrongdoer summarily and
sentence him. This is done to maintain the dignity of the court; but
must be applied with great circumspection.
Only give the definition of ONE of the following crimes:

Contempt of court OR Public Violence
(3)

1) Violation of the dignity, repute or authority of a judicial body
or a judicial officer in his judicial capacity, or
2) The publication of information or comment concerning a
pending judicial proceeding, which has the tendency to
influence the outcome of the proceeding or to interfere with
the administration of justice in that proceeding.
Public violence is the unlawful and intentional performance of an

act or acts by a number of persons, which assumes serious
proportions and is intended to disturb the public peace and order by
violent means, or to infringe the rights of another.

Name the elements of ONE of the following crimes:

(i) Perjury at common law

1) An act
2) Performed by a number of persons
3) Which assumes serious proportions
4) Which is unlawful
5) Intentional
(ii) Contempt of court (4)
The elements of the crime are

1) Any act which
2) Defeats or obstructs the course of justice
3) In an unlawful and
4) Intentional manner
Briefly discuss contempt ex facie curiae in the form of scandalising the

court. (4)
Ex facie curiae occurs through actions or remarks out of court, and

can take a variety of forms:
• Scandalizing the court by the publication of allegations which,
objectively speaking, are likely to bring judges or magistrates
or the administration of justice through the courts generally
into contempt, or unjustly to cast suspicion on the
administration of justice
• The failure to comply with a court order
CORRUPTION:
Discuss the elements of ‘acceptance’ (the element of the act) in

respect of the crime or corruption committed by the recipient.
(5)

General crime of corruption: the crime committed by the recipient

1) The acceptance by Y
2) Of gratification
3) In order to act in a certain way
4) Unlawfulness
5) Intention
1. The acceptance (element of an act)

The legislature employs two ways to broaden the meaning of
“accept”:
• The Act also provides (in s 3(a)) for certain conduct by Y
which precedes the acceptance, namely
 To agree to accept a gratification or
 To offer to receive
The Act provides that the words or expressions “accept”, “agree to

accept” and “offer to accept” as used in the Act, also have the
following broader meanings:
1) To demand, ask for, seek, request, solicit, receive or obtain
gratification
2) To agree to perform the acts named under (1)
3) To offer to perform the acts named under (1)
The following considerations afford Y no defense:

1) The fact that Y did not accept the gratification “directly”, but
only “indirectly”. Y does not have to accept the gratification
personally. The fact that Y makes use of a middle man to
accept the gratification affords her no defense.
2) The fact that Y did not in actual fact later perform the act
which X had induced her to perform. Therefore, the crime is
completed even if Y has not yet done what she had
undertaken to do, expressly or implicitly.
3) The fact that the corrupt activity between X and Y was
unsuccessful. This consideration affords neither X nor Y a
defense.

4) For the purpose of liability, it is irrelevant that the state or

the private enterprise concerned with the transaction did not
suffer prejudice as a result of X or Y’s conduct.
5) The fact that Y accepted the gratification but that she, in
actual fact, did not have the power or right to do what X
wished her to do, affords neither X nor Y a defense.
EXTORTION:
Fully discuss the crime of extortion. In your answer you must inter alia
give the definition of the crime, identify the elements of the crime, and
discuss the elements of the crime.
(9)
Definition: is the unlawful and intentional acquisition of a benefit

from some other person by applying pressure to that person which
induces her to part with the benefit.
Elements:
1. the acquisition of
2. a benefit
3. by applying pressure
4. a causal link between pressure and acquiring benefit (NB) 5.
unlawfulness and
6) intention.
The perpetrator:
Crime can be committed by anyone, not just an official.
Exertion of pressure:
X MUST acquire the benefit by applying pressure and Y must give
way under the stress of the pressure.
Pressure can be threats, inspiring fear and intimidation (thus
robbery and extortion can overlap).

Threats can be in the negative, like threatening to not return

something borrowed, it can be threats of defamation, or
employment benefits etc.
The benefit:
For long time there was uncertainty regarding whether or not the
benefit had to be one of a patrimonial nature.
In Von Mollendorff the AD limited it to one of a patrimonial nature.
But the legislature intervened with the General Law Amendment
Act which stated that any advantage was enough. In J, Y was
threatened by X that unless he had sexual intercourse with him,
he’d show nude photos of her to her parents. Court found him
guilty.
The crime is not committed until the benefit has been handed to X.
Causation:
Just like in robbery (see later and remember the connection!) there
must be a causal link between the pressure and the acquisition of
the benefit. If the benefit was handed over not due to the pressure
but because of a trap set for X by Y, X is only guilty of attempted
extortion.
Unlawfulness:
Obviously the pressure must be exerted unlawfully, but this does not
mean that if Y is threatened with something which X is entitled to,
the treat can never be sufficient for extortion.
It’s irregular if police official states he’ll prosecute unless Y pays
him a sum of money.
Intention:
X must intend her words to give fear, intend to acquire the benefit
realizing he’s not entitled to it. Motive irrelevant.
Discuss the requirement of causation in the crime of extortion.


Causation:
extortion.
Discuss the requirement of unlawfulness in the crime of extortion.

(3)

Unlawfulness:
him a sum of money.
Y, a married woman, has a secret affair with a colleague. Y and her lover
go away for a weekend and are spotted together by X, one of her
husband’s friends. X phones Y the following Monday and tells Y that he,
X, will tells Y’s husband if Y does not have sexual intercourse with him
(X). Y has sexual intercourse with X. Does X commit extortion? Discuss
(6)

Elements:
1. the acquisition of
2. a benefit
3. by applying pressure
4. a causal link between pressure and acquiring benefit (NB) 5.
unlawfulness and
6. intention.

The perpetrator:
Crime can be committed by anyone, not just an official.
Exertion of pressure:
X MUST acquire the benefit by applying pressure and Y must give
way under the stress of the pressure.
Pressure can be threats, inspiring fear and intimidation (thus
robbery and extortion can overlap).
Threats can be in the negative, like threatening to not return
something borrowed, it can be threats of defamation, or
employment benefits etc.
The benefit:
For long time there was uncertainty regarding whether or not the
benefit had to be one of a patrimonial nature.
In Von Mollendorff the AD limited it to one of a patrimonial nature.
But the legislature intervened with the General Law Amendment
Act which stated that any advantage was enough. In J, Y was
threatened by X that unless he had sexual intercourse with him,
he’d show nude photos of her to her parents. Court found him
guilty.
The crime is not committed until the benefit has been handed to X.
Causation:
extortion.
Unlawfulness:
him a sum of money.
Intention:

X must intend her words to give fear, intend to acquire the benefit
realizing he’s not entitled to it. Motive irrelevant.
Discuss the question whether the crime of extortion is committed by X

in the following circumstances:
(i) X threatens to sue Y if he (Y) does not pay back the money he
owes her. Y does on fact owe X money and has already, for a
considerable time, refrained from paying his debts on demands
by X. Y, is afraid of the legal costs that may incur if he does not
pay the money, immediately he pays his debts to X.
(ii) X tells Y that she will hire somebody to break into his house
and steal his property if he does not pay back the money that
he owes her. Y, being afraid, pays her immediately.
(iii) X is Y’s boss at work. She tells Y that he will not get a
promotion unless he has intercourse with her. Y refuses and
lays a charge at
the police. (9)
(1) X cannot be convicted of extortion since her conduct is not

unlawful. It is not against the legal convictions of society
to obtain a perfectly legitimate advantage (payment of a
debt) by means of a threat of legal action.
(2) X can be convicted of extortion. It is undoubtedly against

the legal convictions of society to use this type of pressure
(i.e. to threaten to hire somebody to break into someone
else’s house and violate his property rights) to obtain a
benefit. Although the benefit obtained is legitimate, the
illegitimate pressure used to obtain the benefit makes X’s
conduct unlawful.
(3) X may only be convicted of attempted extortion. Extortion

is materially defined crime. This means that there must be
a causal link between the pressure and the acquisition of
the benefit, and that the crime is not completed unless the
perpetrator has received the benefit. Because X has not yet
obtained the “advantage”, they may not be convicted of

the completed crime but only of an attempt to commit

extortion
Y, a married woman who teaches at a university, has a love affair with

one of her students; X. X is an amateur photographer in possession of
photographs which depict Y in various naked positions. Y decides to save
her marriage and ends the affair. X is shattered and threatens to show
the photographs to her husband unless she provides him with the
questions for the examination. Y agrees and provides X with the
questions. Has X committed a crime?
X commits extortion. X acquired a benefit by unlawfully exerting

pressure on Y. Pressure may take the form of threats, as in this
instance. The benefit may be of a patrimonial or nonpatrimonial
nature. The benefit extorted in this instance is the questions in the
examination paper, which is non-patrimonial. Before 1989 there
were conflicting decisions on the question whether or not the
benefit in extortion should be limited to patrimonial benefit. Since
the promulgation of section 1 of the General Law Amendment Act
139 of 1992, any advantage or benefit can be extorted. Note that if
Y had not yet handed over the benefit to X, it would amount only to
attempted extortion.
DRUG OFFENCES:
Z possesses a quantity of mandrax tablets. She goes to her friend X

and asks whether she may leave the mandrax tablets in X’s care while
she (Z) goes overseas, because she is afraid the police may find the
tablets in her (Z’s) house while she is overseas. X agrees. X and Z
place the tablets in a box under the floor boards of X’s house. While Z
is overseas, the police search X’s house and find the mandrax tablets.
X is charged with having unlawfully possessed the tablets. Her
defence is that she never intended to use the tablets herself, but only
allowed Z to store the tablets temporarily in her (X’s) house. Can X be
convicted by having unlawfully possessed the drugs (mandrax
tablets)? Discuss. In your answer you must focus on the concept of
possession in the crime of possession of drugs. (6)

This question deals with the unlawful possession of drugs. X can be

convicted of having possessed the tablets. The fact that she did not
intend to use the tablets herself, but only stored them temporarily
on Z’s behalf, does not afford her a defence. The term “possession is
used in the Act is not confined to possession civillis (possession as
an owner) but includes possession naturalis (possession on behalf of
someone else).
Section 4 of the drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992

provides that it is an offence for any person unlawfully and
intentionally to use or have in his/her possession any dependence
producing substances or any dangerous dependence producing
substances or any undesirable dependence producing substance.
Discuss the act required for this offence.
In other words, discuss the meaning of “to use” and “to have in
possession”.
(7)
The use or possession of drugs Definition
It is an offence for any person unlawfully and intentionally to use or
have in her possession any dependence-producing substance or any
dangerous dependence producing substance or any undesirable
dependenceproducing substance.
The act:
Possession or use:
a. Use
Smoking, inhalation, injection or ingestion of drugs will amount to
use of the drug. It is not clear why the legislature prescribed not
only the possession of, but also the use of drugs, since any instance
of use of a drug involves also its possession and as such amounts to
an offence under the Act. It is probably for this reason that in
practice it seldom happens that X is accused only of using a drug.
b. Possession:
(i) General meaning of “possession”:'

In law, possession consists of two elements, namely

 a physical or corporeal element (referred to as corpus or

detentio)
 a mental element, that is X's intention (the animus)
The physical element - appropriate degree of physical control over
the thing. The precise degree of control required depends upon the
nature of the article and the way in which control is ordinarily
exercised over such a type of article. The control may be actual or
constructive. Constructive control means control through
somebody else, such as a representative or servant. The mental
element (animus) of possession relates to the intention with which
somebody exercises control over an article. In this respect there
may be more than one possibility:
X may exercise control over the article as if she is the owner of the
article. This type of possession is possession in the ordinary
juridical meaning of the term. It is also known as possessio civilis.
This is the narrow meaning of possession. X may exercise control
over the article with the intention of keeping it for somebody else.
This type of possession is known as possessio naturalis. This is the
broader type of possession.
(ii) Meaning of “possession” in the Act:

Section 1 of the Act provides that the word “possess” as used in the
Act includes
 keeping
 storing or
 having in custody or under control or supervision.
This provision is wide enough to cover situations in which a person
has the custody over an article not in order to use it herself, but on
behalf of somebody else, as where she looks after it for somebody
else.
“Includes” means that the meaning ascribed to “possession in this
section (i.e. keeping, storing etc) is not the only meaning that the
word can have in the Act. Apart from the meaning ascribed to the
word in section 1, the word also has another meaning. This other
meaning can be nothing else than possessio civilis described above.
If the state charges X with having possessed a drug, there are two
ways in which the state may prove the element of possession.
The first is by proving that X exercised control over the drug as an
owner that is for herself, as opposed to exercising control over the

drug on behalf of somebody else. This type of possession (i.e.

possession as an owner) is possessio civilis. The second way of
proving possession is by proving that although X did not exercise
control over it as an owner (i.e. to use it for herself), she
nevertheless kept it for or on behalf of somebody else. This type of
possession is possession naturalis.
X, a horticulturist, is in serious financial trouble. Her friend, who

regularly smokes cannabis, convinces her that there is a market for good
quality cannabis. He also tells her that there is a movement towards the
decriminalisation of the possession of cannabis. She decides to take her
chances and grow and sell cannabis to solve her financial difficulties. It
turns out that her cannabis is of an extremely high quality and that she
would have to sell only one harvest to be financially solvent again. When
the cannabis is harvested and ready for distribution, the police find 20
kg cannabis in her garage while she is out looking for a buyer. Has X
committed a crime?
X commits the crime of dealing in drugs. Cannabis qualifies as a

dependence-producing substance. “Deal in” is defined in the Drugs
and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 as including the performance
of any act in connection with the cultivation of drugs. X’s acts
comply with the definition. She grew the cannabis and harvested it.
The fact that it is a large quantity of cannabis is a further indication
that she intended to deal in cannabis.
X cannot rely on any ground of justification. The fact that she
wanted to overcome her financial difficulties does not offer her a
defence. She also fulfils the requirement of intention as she decided
to continue with her plan despite the fact that she knew that the
possession of cannabis has not yet been decriminalised.
POINTING OF A FIREARM
Name and discuss the elements of the crime of pointing of a

firearm in contravention of section 120(6) of the Firearms Control
Act of 2000.

Definition
a) any firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun, whether or not it
is loaded or capable of being discharged, at any other person,
without good reason to do so; or
b)Anything which is likely to lead a person to believe that it is a
firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun at any other person,
without good reason to do so.
Elements of the offence

1) the pointing of
2) a firearm or other article
3) at any person
4) unlawfully and
5) intentionally
The act: “To point … at”

The state need not prove any of the following:
1. that X fired a shot;
2. that the firearm or article was loaded; or
3. That the firearm or article was of such a nature that it could
be discharged, in other words, that it was capable of firing a
shot. It is simply the pointing of the firearm
The expression “point at” is capable of being interpreted in more

than one way:
 Firstly, it may be interpreted narrowly, as meaning the
pointing of the firearm at Y in such a way that, if discharged,
the bullet would hit Y (this interpretation was adopted in Van
Zyl.
 Secondly, it may be interpreted broadly, as meaning the
directing of the firearm towards Y in such a way that, if it
were discharged, the bullet would either strike Y or pass in her
immediate vicinity.
A firearm, et cetera:
The effect of the words “or anything which is likely to lead to a
person to believe that it is a firearm etc” in the definition of this

offence is that X may commit the offence even if she points a toy
pistol at Y, provided the toy pistol is such that it is likely to lead to
a person to believe that it is a real pistol.
“Any other person”

The firearm must be pointed at a person, so for example pointing at
an animal cannot lead to a conviction.
Unlawfulness:
The words “without good reason to do so” in the definition are wide
enough to incorporate the grounds of justification. For example, she
points a firearm at another while acting in private defence, or if X is
a police officer lawfully affecting an arrest.
Intention:
Intention is not expressly required. It is highly unlikely that the
legislature intended to create a strict liability offence.
It is also unlikely that it could have intended mere negligence to be
a sufficient form of culpability. The words “point at” prima facie
denote intentional behaviour.
It is submitted that the form of culpability required for a conviction
under the subsection is intention.
This means that X must know that:

1. What she is handling is an object described in the act.
2. She is pointing the weapon at another person – thus if she
thinks that she is pointing it at an animal she lacks intention.
3. There is no “good reason” for her conduct and that it is
unlawful, that is, not covered by a ground of justification. Mere
negligence is not sufficient. It is submitted that, according to
general principles, intention in the form of dolus eventualis is
sufficient.
Section 120(6) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 provides that

it is an offence to point a firearm at any person unlawfully and
intentionally. Discuss the requirement of an act (“to _______at”) in
this offence. (5)

To point a firearm is defined as:

a) any firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun, whether or not it
is loaded or capable of being discharged, at any other person,
without good reason to do so; or
b)Anything which is likely to lead a person to believe that it is a
firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun at any other person,
without good reason to do so.
The act: “To point … at”

The state need not prove any of the following:
1. that X fired a shot;
2. that the firearm or article was loaded; or
3. That the firearm or article was of such a nature that it could
be discharged, in other words, that it was capable of firing a
shot.
The expression “point at” is capable of being interpreted in more

than one way:
Firstly, it may be interpreted narrowly, as meaning the pointing
of the firearm at Y in such a way that, if discharged, the bullet
would hit Y (this interpretation was adopted in Van Zyl.
Secondly, it may be interpreted broadly, as meaning the directing
of the firearm towards Y in such a way that, if it were discharged,
the bullet would either strike Y or pass in her immediate vicinity.
RAPE:
(a) X’s wife, Y, is very unwilling to allow him to have sexual

intercourse with her. In an attempt to persuade her to consent to
intercourse, X tells her that if she allows him to have intercourse
with him, he will buy her a fur coat. On the ground of
representation by X, Y consents, and the two of them have sexual
intercourse. Thereafter x refuses to buy Y a fur coat. Y is furious
and goes to the police, where she lays a charge of rape against X.
Discuss the question whether X has committed the crime. (5)

The question deals more specifically with the requirement for the
crime complainant should not have consented to intercourse, and
hereunder the question t which extent a mistake by the
complainant relating to the true facts surrounding the intercourse
affects the validity of consent given by intercourse.
Fraud (by X) which vitiates consent (in other words, which renders
consent invalid) s fraud relating to the identity of the man or the
nature if the act. Misrepresentation of any other circumstance does
not affect the validity of the consent. This is the reason why, in the
facts of this case, the misrepresentation or fraud by X does not
vitiate the consent given by Y. Y’s consent to intercourse is
therefore deemed by law to be valid, with the result that X is not
guilty of rape.
The fact that X and Y were married s irrelevant, because it is not
possible for a husband to commit this crime with his wife.
X, a male prisoner, coerces y, another male prisoner, to subject

himself to sexual intercourse per anum by X. In other words X has
anal intercourse with Y. Y is not a willing party to the act. With
reference to the latest case law, discuss the question which crime if
any, X commits. (4)
X has committed indecent assault. The Act repeals the common-law

crime of indecent assault and replaces it with new statutory
offences of sexual assault, compelled sexual assault as well as
compelled self-sexual assault. These various offences relate to the
non-consensual sexual violation of another person either by the
perpetrator himself or herself, or by another person who is
compelled by the perpetrator to perform the prohibited act. The
compelled person may also be the complainant himself or herself.
A person (X) who unlawfully and intentionally sexually violates a

complainant (Y) without the consent of Y; is guilty of the offence of
sexual assault.
A person (X) who unlawfully and intentionally inspires the belief in a
complainant (Y) that Y will be sexually violated; is guilty of the
offence of sexual assault.
The elements of the crime are the following:
(a) an act of sexual violation of another person

(b) without the consent of the latter person

(c) unlawfulness and
(d) intention; or
Merely state in one sentence of which crime (if any) X may be

convicted of in the following instances:
(i) X, a thirty-year-old school teacher, has sexual intercourse with

one of her students, a fifteen year old boy, with his consent.
(ii) X, a twenty-year-old male, has sexual intercourse with a
thirteenyear-old prostitute with her consent. X has never been
charged with any sexual crimes.
(iii) X, a thirty-year-old male, meets Y, a twenty-five year old female,
for the first time in a bar. He wants to have sexual intercourse
with her but he knows she will not give her consent. He puts
three sleeping tablets in Y’s alcoholic drink. Y falls asleep. X
takes her (Y) to his car and has sexual intercourse with her
while she is asleep.
(iv) X and Y have a quarrel. X becomes very angry, draws a knife
and tells Y that he is going to stab him in the chest. Y believes
that X will carry out his threat. He (Y) is afraid and runs away.
(4)
(i) X may be convicted of a contravention of section 14(3) of

the Sexual Offences Act.
(ii) X cannot be convicted of any crime.
(iii) X may be convicted of rape.
(iv) X may be convicted of assault.
Rape is committed only if the women has not consented to

intercourse. Sometimes, if a man has intercourse with a women,
there is no express refusal to intercourse by the women, but the
law nevertheless accepts that there has been no valid consent
which was ostensibly been given, is not deemed by the law to be
valid consent. Name these six instances. (6)
(i) by fear induced by violence or threats.

(ii) where someone has intercourse with a sleeping woman.

(iii) when a woman is in a state of intoxication, or whose senses

are benumbed as a result of drug-taking or hypnosis.
(iv) if as a result of a mental defect she is so devoid of reason that
she is incapable of giving consent.
(v) when it is obtained by fraud regarding the identity of the man
or the nature of the act she ‘agrees’ to.
(vi) if a girl is irrebuttably presumed to be incapable of consenting
because she is under 12 years of age.
X’s wife Y is very unwilling to allow him to have sexual intercourse

with her. In an attempt to persuade her to consent to have
intercourse with him, X promises Y that he will buy her a new
pair of designer jeans if she consents to intercourse. On the
ground of this representation by X, Y con sent to intercourse, and
the two of them have sexual intercourse. Thereafter, however, X
refuses to buy Y a pair of designer jeans. Y is furious and goes
to the police and lays a charge of rape against X. Discuss the
question whether X has committed a crime. (5)
This question deals with rape. In this set of facts consent was
obtained by fraud. This type of consent, in certain circumstance,
deemed by law to be invalid. Fraud which vitiates (invalidates)
consent is fraud in respect of the identity of the man (where the
woman is led to believe that the man is her husband) or in respect
of the nature of the act to which she “agrees” (when is persuaded
that the act is not sexual intercourse, but some medical operation).
Misrepresentation of any other circumstances does not affect the
validity of consent. Consent is deemed to be valid where the woman
is misled, not about the nature of the act of sexual intercourse, but
about the results which will follow on such intercourse. In this
question, X is not guilty of rape since the woman’s consent is
deemed by the law to be valid consent. The fact that they were
married is irrelevant since it is possible in South Africa law for a
husband to rape his wife.
Y, a thirty-year old woman, desperately wants to have a child with her

husband, Z. she has tried all kinds of fertility products but cannot fall

pregnant. Y consults a gynaecologist, Dr X, who tells her that by having

sex with him (X) will improve her fertility. Because X is a doctor, Y
believes him and has sexual intercourse with him. However her fertility is
not cured. Y is furious and lays a charge of rape against X. Discuss the
question whether X may be convicted of rape. (6)
Circumstances in respect of which Y does not voluntarily or without

coercion agree to an act of sexual penetration include the following:
Where Y submits or is subjected to such a sexual act as a result of

(a) the use of force or intimidation by X against Y or Z (a third
person ) or W (another person) or against the property of Y, Z or
W or a threat of harm by X against Y, Z or W or against the
property of Y, Z or W.
(b) where there is an abuse of power or authority by X to the extent
that Y is inhibited from indicating his or her unwillingness or
resistance to the sexual act, or unwillingness to participate in
such a sexual act;
(c) where the sexual act is committed under false pretences or by
fraudulent means, including where Y is led to believe by X that
(i) Y is committing such a sexual act with a particular person who is
in fact a different person; or
(ii) such a sexual act is something other than that act; or
(d) where Y is incapable in law of appreciating the nature of the
sexual act, including where Y is, at the time of the commission of
such sexual act:
(i) asleep;
(ii) unconscious;
(iii) in an altered state of consciousness, including under the
influence of any medicine, drug, alcohol or other substance, to
the extent that Y's consciousness or judgment is adversely
affected; (iv) a child under the age of 12 years; or (v) a person
who is mentally disabled.
For consent to succeed as a defence it must have been given

consciously and voluntarily, either expressly or tacitly, by a person
who has the mental ability to understand what he or she is
consenting to, and the consent must be based on a true knowledge
of the material facts relating to the act.

X, a male prisoner, coerces Y, another male prisoner, to subject

himself to sexual intercourse per annum by X. In other words, X has
anal intercourse with Y. Y is not a willing party to the act. With
reference to the latest case law, discuss the question which crime (if
any) X commits. (6)
X may be convicted of indecent assault. Indecent assault is an act

which consists at least in the touching of another’s body, unlawfully
with the intention, which includes an intention to act indecently.
You had to discuss the Constitutional Court decision in National
Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice. Before
this case was decided, the conduct described in the set of fact was
punishable as the common-law crime of sodomy. However, the crime
of sodomy (which targeted nonconsensual and intercourse) was
declared unconstitutional in the abovementioned case on various
grounds; inter alia that the existence of the crime is incompatible
with the right to equality; the right to dignity and the right to
privacy. However, as pointed out by the court, nonconsensual anal
intercourse may still be punished as indecent assault or assault with
the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
MURDER:
Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997

provides for certain mandatory minimum sentences. Merely name
the circumstances in which a court is bound in terms of section
51, to sentence a person found guilty of murder to imprisonment.
(6)
In Dodo (CC) the unconstitutionality of section 51 was rejected and

the courts are now bound to convict a person found guilty of murder
to imprisonment for life, in the following circumstances:
1. If the murder was planned or premeditated
2. If Y, the person murdered, was a law enforcement officer

3. If Y was given evidence in a trial for a serious offence (as

described in the criminal procedure act)
4. If X, the murderer, in the course of committing rape
5. If X committed the murder in the course of committing a
robbery with aggravating circumstances
6. If the murder was committed by a group of persons acting in
the execution of a common purpose
ASSAULT:
In the crime of assault the act may take two different forms,
namely firstly the application, and secondly the inspiring of fear in
the victim that force is immediately to be applied to him or her. Discuss
only the second form in which the crime can be committed.
(4)
Definition: A person commits assault if he/she unlawfully and

intentionally
1) Applies force, directly or indirectly, to the person of another,
or
2) Inspires a belief in another person that force is immediately to
be applied to her.
Ways in which the crime can be committed:

First it may consist in the application of force, Secondly it may
consist in inspiring fear in Y, and more particularly a belief in Y,
that a force is immediately to be applied to him. This is subdivided
into direct and indirect application of force.
Inspiring fear of immediate force

This is an unusual way of committing of the crime – it departs from
the lay persons’ conception of what constitutes assault. To hold
someone liable for assault in this form the following rules must
apply:
1) The threat must be one of violence to the person of Y. thus a
threat by X to damage Y’s property is not sufficient.

2) The threat must be one of immediate violence. Thus a threat

by X to cause Y some physical harm in the future would not be
sufficient.
3) The threat must be one of unlawful violence. If X is entitled by
law to threaten Y with violence should Y not behave in a
certain
manner (such as to leave X’s house), she does not commit
assault. Thus X may always threaten Y to use force to defend
herself or her property.
4) Y (the complainant) must subjectively believe that X intends
to carry out her threat and that she is able to do so. The
essence of this type of assault is the intentional inculcation of
fear into Y. If Y does not in fact fear the threat, no assault is
committed.
Discuss the requirement of intention in the crime of assault. (10)
Intention:
1) The intention may take form of either direct or indirect
intention or dolus eventualis. An example of an assault in
which X had intention in the form of dolus eventualis is the
following: X throws a stone at birds. There are many children
about. She foresees the possibility of something going wrong
and reconciles with this fact and throws the stone and misses
the bird, hitting a child.
2) In cases of assault which take place by means of the inspiring
of fear (as opposed to the application of fear) X must know
that her conduct will inspire fear in Y. this mean that X must
believe that her threats will inspire fear in Y.
3) According to the ordinary principles relating to intention, X’s
intention must incorporate knowledge of unlawfulness. This
mean that X must know that her conduct is not covered by a
general ground of justification. Thus if X believes that she is
entitled to act in private defence because she fears an
imminent unlawful attack by Y upon herself, whereas she is in
fact not entitled to private defence because Y does not intend
to attack her, she lacks the necessary intention to assault.

4) According to Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A), intoxication may

lead to X’s lacking the intention to assault, in which case X
must not be found guilty.
5) It seems doubtful whether our courts would be prepared to
recognise provocation as a ground for excluding the intention
requirement for ordinary assault. (They do recognise that
provocation may exclude the “special intention” requirement
for the qualified assaults, such as assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm.)
Inspiring fear or a belief in Y that force is immediately to be applied

to her also constitutes an act of assault. Discuss the crime of
assault in the form of inspiring fear or a belief in Y that force is
immediately to be applied to her.
Name without any discussion the different ways in which assault
may be committed. (5)
Definition: A person commits assault if he/she unlawfully and

intentionally:
1) Applies force, directly or indirectly, to the person of another,
or
2) Inspires a belief in another person that force is immediately to
be applied to her.
Ways in which the crime can be committed:

First it may consist in the application of force, Secondly it may
consist in inspiring fear in Y, and more particularly a belief in Y,
that a force is immediately to be applied to him. This is subdivided
into direct and indirect application of force.
DEFAMATION:
Merely name without any discussion, the elements of criminal

defamation. (4)
The elements of the crime

are: 1) The publication
2) Of defamatory matter
3) Which is serious, and

4) Unlawful, and
5) Intentional
TOPIC – CRIMEN INIURIA:
Define the crime crimen iniuria. (2)
Definition: The unlawful, intentional and serious infringement of

the dignity or privacy of another.

1. The infringement
2. Of another’s dignity or privacy
3. Which is serious
4. Unlawfulness
5. Intentional
Discuss the requirement for crimen iniuria that the violation of dignity
or privacy must be serious. Your answer must include a discussion of
the
factors that may play a role in deciding whether the behaviour was
serious. (10)
Violation of dignity or privacy must be serious
In order to constitute crimen iniuria, the violation must be serious

and not of a trifling nature.
Although vague it is nevertheless necessary. If every swear word or

scornful remark could easily result in a criminal prosecution, the
courts would be inundated. In Walton, “in the ordinary hurly burly
of everyday life a man must be expected to endure minor or trivial
insults to his dignity.
Whether the words or behaviour is serious enough to qualify,

depends on the circumstance of each case. Factors such as the
following may play a role in deciding whether the behaviour was
serious.

1) Ages of the parties, the younger the person the more

serious the crime can be viewed.
2) Gender of the parties, the law will always try to protect the
more sensitive female.
3) Nature of the act, some acts are notoriously more serious
than others such as indecent exposure and “peeping toms”.
4) Relationship between the parties, the insult is more serious
when it comes from a stranger than from a boyfriend in a
domestic dispute.
5) Persistence of the conduct, this can be the border between
nonpunishable conduct and crimen iniuria, to stare at a
woman is not as injurious as to follow her around and keep
staring.
6) Publicity, the degree of impairment of dignity may be
greater where X’s words are heard by many people.
7) Sexual Impropriety, If X makes unwanted overtures towards
Y which contain an element of sexual impropriety, the
conduct will be viewed in a more serious light than when
the overtures do not contain such an element.
8) Y’s public standing, although the dignity of al people is
protected by the crime, a person of greater public standing
or public office may have more to lose. Or if a police officer
is sworn at while performing his duty it may be taken more
seriously than a person randomly swearing at another.
KIDNAPPING:
Discuss the crime of Kidnapping. (5)
Definition: unlawfully and intentionally depriving a person of his

freedom of movement and/or if such a person is a child, the
custodians of their control over the child.
The elements of the crime are:

1) The deprivation
2) Of freedom of movement (or parental
control) 3) Unlawfully, and 4)
Intentionally.

The crime is against a person’s freedom of movement.

The interest protected is the liberty of another.
A person cannot commit kidnapping in respect of his own child.
Merely name the interests protected by the crime of kidnapping. (2)
The interests protected by the crime of kidnapping is the freedom of

movement of person or, if the person is a child, the control of the
parent or guardian over the child.
THEFT:
(a) X takes his car to a garage to be serviced. He signs an agreement

between him and the garage, which stipulates that he will only be
entitled to get his car back after he has paid the costs of servicing
the car. When he returns in the afternoon to fetch his car, he
discovers the costs of the service are very high. X does not have
enough money to pay the account. Accordingly the garage refuses
to give the car back to X. the garage also retains the key of the car.
That night X sneaks stealthily to the backyard of the garage, where
his motor is parked, manages to open the door of the car, and
tampers with the electrical wiring beneath the steering column of
the car in order to start the engine. His intention is to drive away
with the car. While X is still busy trying to get the car going, a
police official discovers him and arrests him. X is charged with
theft of the car. At his trial his attorney advances the following
three grounds why X should not be convicted of theft.
(i) X cannot be convicted of theft because one cannot steal

ones own property.
(ii) X cannot be convicted of theft because at the time he was

arrested, he had not yet succeeded in excluding the

lawful possessor of the car (i.e. the garage) from the

possession of the car.
(iii) Because there was undisputed evidence by X that his

plan was to sell his car the very day he succeeded in
retrieving it and not to appropriate the proceeds of the
sale for himself but to give it away to a charitable
organisation, he lacked the intention to steal.
Discuss the question whether each of the three arguments of X’s attorney
is correct. It is not necessary to give a definition of theft in your answer.
(8)
X’s attorney’s first argument is incorrect. It is indeed possible to

“steal one’s own property.” The form of theft is known as arrogation
of possession. The facts in this question are derived in part from
those in the case of Roberts.
X’s attorney’s second argument is correct. A person commits the

completed crime of theft if two things happen; firstly, X must
deprive the lawful owner, or person in possession of the property, of
the property and then secondly X must exercise the rights of an
owner in respect of the property. In this set of facts X acted as if he
was entitled to the property but at the time of his arrest he had not
yet succeeded in actually depriving the person entitled to the
property of it. This means the negative component of the concept of
appropriation has not been complied with. This component would
have been complied with only if X had been succeeded in getting
the car started and driving away with it. X is accordingly guilty of
attempted theft of the car, but not yet the completed theft of it.
X’s attorney’s third argument is incorrect. This argument is based

upon the supposition that a person can be guilty of theft only if he
or she had the intention of deriving some gain or benefits for him-
or herself from the acquisition to handling of the property. Proof of
such and intention is, in fact, not required for a conviction of theft.

Theft can only be committed in respect of certain types of property.

Discuss the requirements with which property must comply in order
to qualify as
property capable of being stolen.
(8)
1. The property must be movable. An example of immovable

property is a farm. Therefore, one cannot steal a part of a farm
by moving its beacons or fences. If part of an immovable
property is separated from the whole, it qualifies as something
that can be stolen; examples in this respect are mealie-cobs
separated from a mealieplant.
2. The property must be corporeal. This means that it must be an
independent part of corporeal nature. In principle, one must
be able to see or touch it. One cannot therefore steal an idea.
The rule that only corporeal property is capable of being
stolen should, however, be viewed circumspectly. This
requirement has already been considerably watered down in
our law. There are however two exceptions:
1) An owner may steal her own property from somebody
else who is in lawful possession of it (such as a pledge).
(This form of theft is known as arrogation of possession).
Yet, in reality it is not the property that is stolen. While
it is true that here the act is directed at a corporeal
thing, what is infringed is the possessor’s right of
retention, which is a right and therefore something
incorporeal.
2) In the case of certain types of conduct recognised by the
courts as theft, namely the theft of money through the
“manipulation” of cheques, banking accounts, et cetera,
and the object stolen is not the crime, as it is not a
corporeal thing rather something called “credit” or an
“abstract sum of money”.
3. The property must be available in commerce. (In commercio).
Property is available in commerce if it is capable of being sold,
exchanged or pledged, or generally of being privately owned.
The following types of property are not capable of forming part
of commercial dealings and are therefore not susceptible to
theft:

(a) Res communes, property belonging to everyone like the air.

(b) Res derelictae, property abandoned by its owners with the
intention of getting rid of it. This does not included money
someone drops as they had no intention to get rid of it.
(c) Res nullius, property belonging to no-one but can be
subject of private ownership such as wild animals. However
animals in a zoo for instance can be stolen.
4. The property must belong to someone else. One can therefore

not steal one’s own property. The exception to the rule is the
unlawful arrogation of the possession of a thing. (Furtum
possessionis).
Define theft. (3)
Definition: theft is the unlawful, intentional appropriation of

movable, corporeal property which:
1) Belongs to, and in the possession of another
2) Belongs to another, but is in the perpetrators possession,
3) Belongs to the perpetrator, but is in another’s possession and
such other person has the right to possess it which legally
prevails against the perpetrator’s own right of possession
There must be intention to misappropriate and permanently to

deprive the person entitled to the possession of the property.
X’s lawn-mower is out of order. He takes his neighbour Y’s lawn

mower without his (Y’s) consent. X mows his lawn with Y’s lawn-
mower. He plans to put it back while Y is at work. In the meantime he
stores the lawn-mower on the porch at the back of his (X’s) house.
During the night, the lawn-mower is stolen from X’s premises. X is
charged with theft. At the trial his attorney argues that X cannot be
convicted of theft because he did not have the intention to
appropriate. Explain whether this argument is correct. (6)
This question focuses on the culpability requirement of the crime of

theft. You must consider whether X’s defence, namely that he
cannot be convicted of the crime because he did not have intention

to appropriate is a valid defence. Firstly you must explain the

meaning of the concept “an intention to appropriate”. The concept
rests on two states of mind: (1) an intention to exercise the rights of
an owner in respect of the property, as well as (2) an intention to
exclude the owner permanently from exercising the rights over his
property. Secondly, you had to explain that X did not have the state
of mind described in (2) by using the lawnmower, X exercised the
rights of an owner over the property. However, he did not intend to
exclude the owner from exercising his rights over the property
permanently. X can accordingly not be convicted of theft because
he lacked the intention. The relevant authority is Sibiya 1955 (4)
SA 274 (A). However you could also argue that, by leaving the
lawnmower outside on the porch, X had foreseen the possibility that
it might be stolen and reconciled himself with this possibility. By
not storing it in a safe place, X acted indifferently with regard to Y’s
property and did not care whether would find it again. Therefore X
adopted an intention that was the opposite of the intention of
returning the lawnmower to Y, namely dolus eventualis to deprive Y
of his property permanently.
Name the three different forms of theft, and give a brief description
of
each.
(3)
1) The removal of property. Here X removes someone else’s

property. Without consent.
2) Embezzlement. X appropriates another’s property which she
already has in her possession.
3) Arrogation of possession. X removes her own property which
is in the lawful possession of another (such as a pledge) and
appropriates it.
In general, property is capable of being stolen only if it is corporeal.

Discuss this requirement as well as the exceptions to this
requirement.
(3)
The property must be corporeal. This means that it must be an

independent part of corporeal nature. In principle, one must be able

to see or touch it. One cannot therefore steal an idea. The rule that
only corporeal property is capable of being stolen should, however,
be viewed circumspectly. This requirement has already been
considerably watered down in our law. There are however two
exceptions:
1) An owner may steal her own property from somebody
else who is in lawful possession of it (such as a pledge).
(This form of theft is known as arrogation of possession).
Yet, in reality it is not the property that is stolen. While
it is true that here the act is directed at a corporeal
thing, what is infringed is the possessor’s right of
retention, which is a right and therefore something
incorporeal.
2) In the case of certain types of conduct recognised by the
courts as theft, namely the theft of money through the
“manipulation” of cheques, banking accounts, et cetera,
and the object stolen is not the crime, as it is not a
corporeal thing rather something called “credit” or an
“abstract sum of money”.
Y wants to go on holiday to Baghdad in Iraq for a few weeks. Before

he departs, he requests X, his neighbour, to look after his
house and pets while he is away. X agrees and visits Y’s house
everyday while Y is away. Y has a very expensive rear-projector
television set in his bedroom. X desires the television set but cannot
afford to buy one for himself. X takes Y’s television set to his house
and watches it. X intends to return the television set before Y
returns. Y and his wife decide to cut their holiday short after the
United States invasion of Iraq. Y arrives home with his wife
earlier than expected and finds that his television set is missing. He
discovers the television set in X’s house. Y is furious and lays a
charge of theft at the police station. In the light of relevant case
law, discuss whether X may be convicted of the theft of the
television set.
(6)
This deals with the crime of theft. The crux of the question deals
with the requirement of the intention to steal. You have to
explain that the intention required is the intention to
appropriate. The two components of the concept of appropriation

are: (i) an intention to exercise the rights of an owner in respect

of the property, and (ii) an intention to exclude the owner from
exercising their rights over their property. In other words to
deprive them of their property.
It is very important to mention that the intention to appropriate
includes an intention to permanently to deprive the owner of
their property. The important case which must be referred to is
Sibiya. In this case it was decided that the, if an accused intends
to return the property to the owner. They do not commit theft.
Generally speaking, theft can be committed only in respect of a

certain type of property. Name the requirements the requirements
property must
comply with in order to be capable of being stolen. Also name the
exceptions to these requirements. (6)
You merely had to name and not discuss the requirements that the
property must comply with in order to be capable of being stolen.
You also had to name the exceptions to these requirements which
are as follows:
 The property must be movable
 It must be corporeal, but there are two exceptions to
this requirement, namely where arrogation of possession
occurs (a possessor’s incorporeal right of retention is
infringed by the owner) when there is theft of money
through manipulation of cheques, banking accounts
funds, et cetera (where the object stolen is an
incorporeal thing, i.e. credit)
 It must be available in commerce
 It must belong to somebody else, except in cases of
X sees Y’s car parked outside Y’s house with the keys inside the
car. He calls his friend Z, and the two of them take a joyride with
the car, intending to return the car. The car is involved in an
accident. X and Z are frightened and abandon the car. The car is

stolen by an unidentified person and is never found again. X and Z

are charged with theft. Discuss the question whether X and Z may
be convicted of theft. (8)
By taking Y’s car without his consent, X performed an unlawful act

of appropriation. The required intention for theft is the intention to
appropriate the property. The intention to appropriate has two
components:
(i) A positive component, namely the intention to exercise the
rights of the owner over the property.
(ii) A negative component, namely the intention to permanently
exclude the owner from exercising his rights over the property.
If X removed Y’s car intending to use it temporarily but before he
returns the car, it collides with some object and X abandons it
without notifying Y of the situation, he may be guilty of theft. X
abandons the car without any intention of notifying Y or returning
the car. He foresees the possibility that Y may lose the car and
behaves recklessly towards this possibility. This amounts to
intention in the form of dolus eventualis to deprive Y permanently
of his car. The relevant case law is either the Laforte or Sibiya
decision. X may therefore be convicted of theft.
Can a person commit theft in respect of property belonging to

himself?
Discuss in detail.
(8)
The property must belong to someone else. One can therefore not
steal one’s own property. The exception to the rule is the unlawful
arrogation of the possession of a thing. (Furtum possessionis).
Arrogation of possession (furtum possessionis)

Today furtum usus is no longer regarded ad a crime, furtum
possessionis is. In the case the owner steals her own thing by
removing it from the possession of a person who has the right to
possess it which legally prevails over the owner’s right of
possession. The pledge and somebody who has the right of retention

are examples of persons who enjoy such a preferential right of

possession.
The crime of theft may be committed in a variety of ways. Briefly

explain (in one sentence) the following ways in which the crime
may be committed:
(i) Removal of property

(ii) Embezzlement
(iii) The unlawful arrogation of possession
(3)
(Answered above)
X, a well-known socialite, borrows her friend’s (Y’s) diamond brooch to

wear to a charity ball. At the ball an impromptu raffle is held. X offers the
brooch as a prize. She also buys a raffle ticket. Z wins the brooch. Y
wants her brooch back but X tells her that Z won it in the raffle. Does X
commit any crime?
X commits the crime of theft in the form of embezzlement. X

commits an act of appropriation in respect of property that she
already has in her possession. X has the brooch in her possession
when she offers it as a prize. She complies with the negative
component of the act of appropriation. By offering the brooch as a
prize in the raffle, she also complies with the positive component
of the act. She exercises the rights of an owner in respect of the
brooch.
She has excluded Y from control of her property. X also has the
intention to appropriate Y’s property. X has the intention to
exercise the rights of an owner in respect of the property as well as
the intention to deprive Y of the property.
The fact that she buys a raffle ticket does not negate her intention
to deprive Y of her property. The chances are slim that she will win
the brooch back. She cannot argue that she had the intention to
retrieve the brooch and return it to Y, because she knew or at least

foresaw that her chances of retrieving the brooch were relatively

small. X therefore commits theft in the form of embezzlement.
ROBBERY:
Can X be convicted of robbery in the following circumstances?

Start by writing down “yes” (X can be convicted) or “no” (X cannot
be convicted) and then substantiate your answer. Refer to case law
where applicable.
(i) X unlawfully and intentionally threatens to hit Y with a stick

unless y hands over his cellular phone. X does not apply force
to the body of Y.
Y hands over the phone as a result of the threats.
(ii) Y goes on a hiking expedition along the coast. X appears out of
nowhere and unlawfully and intentionally threatens to throw
Y’s keys into the sea unless she hands over her backpack. Y
hands over her backpack as a result of the threats.
(iii) X, a gang leader, unlawfully and intentionally threatens to kill Y
unless Y gives him the name of a certain police informant. Y
gives X the name as a result of the threats.
(iv) Y receives a tip-off that a certain X is planning to rob his shop.
Y reports this to the police. The police set a trap for X. X shows
up at the shop, and warns Y that unless he hands over all the
money in the till, he will be shot. In accordance with the pre-
arranged plan he made with the police which was aimed at
securing X’s arrest, Y hands over the money.
(v) With a quick, unexpected manouver, X snatches Y’s handbag,
which she is clutching under her arm, and runs away with it
without Y offering or being able to offer resistance.
(12)
(i) YES – threat of violence

(ii) NO – extortion, no threat of violence
(iii) YES – threat of violence
(iv) YES – threat of violence

(v) YES – Sithole, it is robbery
X grabs Y’s handbag in a sudden and unexpected way, and runs with
it?
Does X commit robbery? Discuss. (7)
Definition: Robbery consists of in theft of property by unlawfully

and intentionally using
1. Violence to take the property from another or
2. Threats of violence to induce the other person to take the
property
The “bag-snatching” cases:

Does X commit robbery if with a quick unexpected manoeuvre he
snatches Y’s bag and runs away without Y being able to offer any
resistance she falls to the ground and her bag is stolen?
In Sithole, the Natal court held that the handbag snatcher does in
fact commit robbery. The reason for this is force is used to remove
the handbag which the court believes is sufficient enough for a
robbery. Especially if Y does offer resistance as there will be a
greater chance of violence.
Discuss briefly whether X can be convicted of robbery in the following

circumstances. In your answer you must first state whether your answer
is “yes” or “no” and thereafter, in one sentence, substantiate your
answer.
(i) Y stops his motor car at a red robot. X who pretends to sell
watches at the robot, points a gun at Y and tells him he (X) will
kill Y if he does not hand over his cell phone and wallet. Y
speeds off without handing over the objects to X.
(ii) Y stops at a red robot. X jumps into the back of the car and
puts a gun against Y’s head. He tells Y to take him to the
nearest ATM machine; to hand over his ATM card and to give
him (X) the pin number of his (Y’s) account. Y follows X’s
instructions and drops him off at the nearest ATM machine. Y
fears for his life and drives away. X withdraws money from Y’s
account in his absence. (6)

(i) No. robbery requires theft of property by means of violence

or a threat of violence. Because the wallet had not yet been
handed over to X, he can only be convicted of attempted
robbery.
(ii) Yes. It is not required that the property be on the victim’s
person or in his/her presence. The relevant authority is Ex
Parte Minister van Justisie: in re S v Seekoei.
FRAUD:
Discuss the requirement of a misrepresentation in fraud. (4)
Definition: Fraud is the unlawful and intentional making of a

misrepresentation which causes actual prejudice or which is
potentially prejudicial.
The Misrepresentation:
The first requirement of fraud is that there must be a
misrepresentation. This is the conduct requirement of the crime.
There must be a deception by means of a falsehood. X must, in
other words represent to Y that a fact or set of facts exists when in
fact it doesn’t.
1) Form that misrepresentation may take: generally it takes the
form of writing or speech, conduct other than writing or
speech may be sufficient, such as the nod of a head signifying
consent.
2) The misrepresentation may be either tacit or implied.
3) The misrepresentation may be made by either a commission
(positive act) or an omission. Most cases the
misrepresentation is made by means of a commisio. A mere
omission by X to disclose a fact may amount to the making of
a misrepresentation, if there is a legal duty on X to disclose
the fact. The legal duty may arise –
a) Specifically by statute. E.g., in terms of section 137(a) of
the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936, an insolvent person is
obliged to disclose the fact that she is insolvent to any

person from whom she receives credit amounting to

more than R20.
b) From considerations other than the terms of a statute,
such as where a court is of the opinion that X should
have acted positively to remove a misconception which
would, in the natural course of events, have existed in
Y’s mind.
4) It has sometimes been stated (e.g. in Larkins) that a mere
false promise as to the future cannot be equated to a
misrepresentation. From this it follows that the
misrepresentation must refer to an existing state of affairs or
to some past event, but not to some future event. A person
writing out a cheque and handing it over as payment generally
implies they have the money to cover the cheque.
X writes letters to a number of wealthy people to make financial to

contributions to an orphanage in a very poor neighbourhood. X
provides an account number for the purpose specified. A few people
react to the request and pay money into the account. It turns out X is
a con man who obtains money for himself under the pretext that he
raises money for deserving causes. Discuss whether X may be
convicted of:
(i) Fraud
(ii)Theft by false pretences.
(9)
This question focuses on the requirements for the crime of fraud as
well as the requirements for the theft by false pretences.
(i) You have to give a definition of the crime of fraud. Fraud is

the unlawful and intentional making of a misrepresentation
which causes actual prejudice or which is potentially
prejudicial. X made a misrepresentation to the people. He
represented to them
that of facts existed that in truth did not exist. The
misrepresentation was made expressly and by means of a
positive act. Although only potential prejudice is required
for the crime of fraud, X’s misrepresentation resulted in

actual prejudice. The victims suffer financial loss by paying

money into the bank account.
You then have to consider whether X had the required intention to

commit the crime. The state of mind required for the crime of fraud
is to defraud. X knew the facts that he represented to the people
were untrue and he knew that people might suffer actual or
potential prejudice as a result of his misrepresentation. Moreover,
his intention was to induce the people to embark on a course of
action prejudicial to themselves. X may accordingly be convicted of
fraud.
(ii) X also commits theft by false pretences, which is a form of

theft, as well as a form of fraud. A person commits this
crime if he unlawfully and intentionally obtains movable,
corporeal property belonging to another, with the consent
from the person whom he
obtains it, such consent being given as a result of a
misrepresentation by the person committing the offence,
and appropriates it. The victims consent is not regarded as
valid consent because it is induced by fraud. X obtained
credit from the people by means of a fraudulent
misrepresentation. From the facts it also appears that he
appropriated it.
In the crime of fraud, the misrepresentation can be made by either

a commisio (positive act) or an ommisio (omission to act) Discuss.
(5)
The Misrepresentation:

fact it doesn’t.


consent.
c) Specifically by statute. E.g., in terms of section 137(a) of
more than R20.
d) From considerations other than the terms of a statute,
Y’s mind.
Discuss the intention required for the crime of fraud (5)
X’s intent must relate to all the requirements of the crime. This
means apart from the intention relating to unlawfulness (i.e.
awareness of unlawfulness) X’s intent must cover the following:
a) The intent relating to the requirement of misrepresentation
means that X must know or at least foresee the possibility,
that the representation she is making is untrue.
b) The intent relating to the requirement of prejudice means

that X must know, or at least foresee the possibility, that Y

or some other party may suffer actual or potential prejudice

as a result of the misrepresentation.
There is a distinction between an intention to deceive

and an intention to defraud.
• The intention to deceive means an intention to
make somebody believe that something, that is
false.
• The intention to defraud means the intention to
induce somebody to embark on a course which is
prejudicial to her.
Discuss the requirement of prejudice in the crime of fraud. (9)
The misrepresentation must cause actual prejudice or be potentially

prejudicial. Mere lying is not fraud. The lie must bring about some
sort of harm. The harm is called Prejudice.
Actual prejudice is not required.

Mere potential prejudice is sufficient to warrant a conviction. Nor is
it required that. The prejudice need not only be of a patrimonial
nature.
Prejudice may be either actual or potential
Even if the prosecution has not proved that the misrepresentation

resulted in actual prejudice, X may still be convicted if there was
potential prejudicial misrepresentation.
X insures all her belongings with an insurance company. She then

claims for certain items saying that they had been stolen when in
actual fact they had not. The insurance company finds out that X
has lied and doesn’t pay, even though no monetary loss has
occurred the insurance company can still sue X for the potential
prejudice they have suffered.
What is the meaning of “potential prejudice”?

1) Potential prejudice means that the misrepresentation looked

at objectively, involved some risk of prejudice, or that it was
likely to cause prejudice.
2) “Likely to prejudice” does not mean that there should be a
probability of prejudice, but only that there should be
possibility of prejudice.
3) On the other hand, the possibility should not be too remote or
fanciful.
4) The prejudice need not be suffered by the representee (the
party whom the misrepresentation is directed); prejudice to a
third party, or even to the state or the community in general,
is sufficient.
5) It is irrelevant that Y, the victim, was not misled by the
misrepresentation; it is the representation’s potential which is
crucial. Thus it doesn’t matter if X’s scheme is successful or
whether Y reacts to the misrepresentation.
6) Since potential prejudice is sufficient, it is unnecessary to
require a causal connection between the misrepresentation
and the prejudice. Even where there is no causal connection,
there may still be fraud, provided that no one can say that the
misrepresentation holds the potential for prejudice.
X, a businessman, decides to insure the contents of his house with

“Bettersure”, an insurance company for the amount of R200 000.
One evening, X decides to store all the items with his friend Y. the
next day X falsely submits an insurance claim at “Bettersure” to
the effect that his house was robbed the previous evening and that
all the items therein are stolen. Y finds out about X’s criminal
activities and informs “Bettersure” about it. The insurance
company refuses to pay X’s claim.
Discuss whether X may be convicted of fraud.
(7)
This question deals with the element of prejudice, specifically

potential prejudice with regards to fraud. In this case, the insurance
company runs the risk of suffering potential prejudice if they adhere
to X’s claim. What does potential prejudice mean?

• Potential prejudice means that the misrepresentation looked at

objectively, involved some risk of prejudice, or that it was likely to
prejudice.
• “Likely to prejudice” does not mean that there should be a
probability of prejudice, but only that there should be a possibility
of prejudice.
• The possibility should not be too remote or fanciful.
• The prejudice need not be suffered by the representee – prejudice
by a 3rd party is sufficient.
• It is not relevant that the victim was not misled by the
misrepresentation.
• No causal connection between the misrepresentation and the
prejudice is required. Here we awarded a maximum of 4 marks for
supplying information regarding potential prejudice.
X can therefore be convicted of fraud due to the fact that he had
the intention to defraud which could have been potentially
prejudicial to the insurance company.
Define the crime of forgery and uttering. (3)
Forgery definition: unlawfully and intentionally making a false

document to the actual/potential prejudice of another.
Elements:
1. making a document
2. which is false
3. prejudice
4. unlawfulness and
5. Intention, which includes intention to defraud.
Uttering definition: unlawfully and intentionally passing off a false

document as to the actual or potential prejudice of another.
Y wants to buy a car. He goes to a second hand car dealer (X) who
shows him a 1994 model ford car which, according to the dealer is
in excellent condition. The speedometer on the car shows that it
has only done 50 000 kilometres. Y buys the car. After three
weeks the car’s engine seizes. Y takes it to a mechanic who
informs him that it is more likely that the car has done 300 000

kilometre. He tells Y that somebody had most probably

tampered with the speedometer. Y goes to the police and lays a
charge of fraud against X, the car dealer. Discuss the elements of
crime that the state must prove in order for X to be convicted of
fraud. (8)
Elements of the crime

1) Misrepresentation
2) Which causes or may cause prejudice, and which is
3) Unlawful and
4) intentional
The Misrepresentation

fact it doesn’t.
consent.
e) Specifically by statute. E.g., in terms of section 137(a) of
more than R20.
f) From considerations other than the terms of a statute,


Y’s mind.
The Prejudice
The misrepresentation must cause actual prejudice or be potentially

prejudicial. Mere lying is not fraud. The lie must bring about some
sort of harm. The harm is called Prejudice. Actual prejudice is not
required, mere potential prejudice is sufficient to warrant a
conviction. Nor is it required that the prejudice need not only be of
a patrimonial nature.
Prejudice may proprietary if it has to do with a person’s

property or material possessions. In other instances of
prejudice the prejudice is non-proprietary in nature, for
example:
1) Writing an examination for another
2) Submitting a forged driving license to a prosecutor during
the trial of a traffic offence
3) Making a false entry into a register reflecting the sale of
liquor – due to the state control on the sale of liquor. 4)
Laying a false charge with the police.
Unlawfulness
Compulsion or obedience to orders may operate as grounds of

justification. The fact that Y is aware of the falsehood is no defence,
as we saw above. As any fraudulent misrepresentation is obviously
unlawful, unlawfulness does not play an important role in this
crime.

Intent
X’s intent must relate to all the requirements of the crime. This
means apart from the intention relating to unlawfulness (i.e.
awareness of unlawfulness) X’s intent must cover the following:
a) The intent relating to the requirement of misrepresentation
means that X must know or at least foresee the possibility,
that the representation she is making is untrue.
b) The intent relating to the requirement of prejudice means

that X must know, or at least foresee the possibility, that Y
may suffer actual or potential prejudice as a result of the
misrepresentation or falsehood.
There is a distinction between an intention to deceive

and an intention to defraud.
• The intention to deceive means an intention to
make somebody believe that something, that is
false.
• The intention to defraud means the intention to
induce somebody to embark on a course which is
prejudicial to her.
MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY:
Define the crime of malicious injury to property. (3)
Definition: Malicious injury to property consists in unlawful and

intentionally
1. Damaging property belonging to another person or
2. Damaging one’s own insured property with the intention of
claiming the value of the property from the insurer.
HOUSEBREAKING:
Discuss the intention requirement in the crime of housebreaking with

intent to commit a crime.
(5)

Definition: Housebreaking with intent to commit a crime consists in

unlawfully and intentionally breaking into and entering a building or
structure, with the intention of committing some crime in it.
Intention
Two components:
1. X must have the intention of unlawfully breaking into and
entering the house or structure.
2. X must also have the intention of committing some other
crime inside, such as robbery for example.
Housebreaking without such an intention may, depending on

the circumstances, be punishable as malicious injury to
property.
Name and explain the two components of the intention required for the
crime of housebreaking. (3)
Two components:
1. X must have the intention of unlawfully breaking into and
entering the house or structure. Such intention will be absent
if, for example, she believes that she is breaking into her own
house, or that she is committing the act of housebreaking to
save someone inside or with the owners consent.
2. X must also have the intention of committing some other
crime inside, such as robbery for example.
Housebreaking without such an intention may, depending on

the circumstances, be punishable as malicious injury to
property.
Indicate with a mere “yes” or “no” whether the following acts qualify as
an act of “breaking” as required for the crime of housebreaking with the
intern to commit a crime.
(i) X unlocks a door without causing any damage.

(ii) X pushes open a partially closed door.

(iii) X stretches his/her hand through an open window in order to

steal a radio.
(iv) X opens a door which is unlocked.
(v) X walks through an open door but breaks a window in order to
exit the building. (5)
(i) Yes
(ii) Yes
(iii) No
(iv) Yes
(v) No
Discuss the element of ‘breaking’ in respect of the crime of

housebreaking with the intent to commit a crime.
(6)
All that is required for an act to amount to a breaking is the removal

or displacement of an obstacle which bars entry to the building and
which forms part of the building itself.
The following acts do not amount to a “breaking in”:
• walking through an open door into a building
• climbing through an open window into a building
• stretching one’s arm through an open hole in wall of a building
The most obvious act which qualifies as breaking in is physically

breaking a door, window wall or roof. The following also qualifies as
breaking:
• merely pushing open a closed (even though not locked) door or
window
• merely pushing open a partially closed door or window.
It is not a requirement for liability for this crime that actual damage
be inflicted to the building or structure.
Indicate whether the following statements with regard to fraud are

correct or incorrect:
(a) The misrepresentation can be either express or implied.

(b) The misrepresentation may be made by a positive act only.

(c) If X misrepresents to her insurance company that her insured
camera has been stolen and the company reimburses her for the
camera, the company will have suffered actual prejudice if the
allegation that the camera had been stolen was false.
(d) “Likely to prejudice “does not mean that there should merely be a
possibility of prejudice; it means that there must be a probability
of prejudice.
(e) The prejudice must be suffered by the representee only.
(f) Laying a false charge with, or making a false statement to, the
police is an example of the causing of non-patrimonial prejudice.
(a) Correct.
(b) Incorrect.
(c) Correct.
(d) Incorrect.
(e) Incorrect.
(f) Correct.
FILL-IN SECTION:

Write down the missing phrases.

(i) The crime crimen iniuria is committed by infringing a person’s
dignity or___________
(ii) Forgery is a form of the crime of ___________________
(iii) Theft by false pretence can be regarded both as a form of
__________ and as a form of __________
(iv) Malicious damage to property consists of the unlawfully and
intentionally damaging property belonging to another person, or
damaging ________________
(v) In Sithole 1981 (1) SA 1186 (N) the court held that the handbag
snatcher commits the crime of __________
(vi) X commits theft in the form of _________ if she appropriates Y’s
property which is already in her (X’s) possession.
(vii) The intention required for housebreaking comprises an
intention of _______ as well as an intention of
___________________.
(10)
(i) privacy
(ii) fraud
(iii) theft; fraud
(iv) ones own insured property with the intention of claiming the
value of the property from the insurer.
(v) robbery
(vi) embezzlement
(vii) intention of unlawfully breaking into and entering the building
structure and the intention of committing some other crime
inside the building or structure.
Fill in the missing word or words to complete the following phrases.
(i) In the case of criminal defamation, violations of a person’s

________ or ________ are made punishable.
(ii) The elements of kidnapping are the ______ of ____________ which
takes place unlawfully and intentionally.
(iii) If X plants a listening-in device in Y’s house and listens to Y’s
private conversations. X commits the crime of _____________.

(iv) Incest is the unlawful and intentional sexual intercourse

between male and female persons who are prohibited from
marrying each other because they are related within the
prohibited degrees of __________, ______________ or
_____________. (Note there are three places where words are
missing.)
(v) For the crime of fraud to be committed, an intention to ________
is required as opposed to mere intention to ______________.
(10)
(i) Good name; reputation
(ii) Deprivation; bodily freedom
(iii) Crimen iniuria
(iv) Affinity, consanguination; blood
(v) Defraud; deceive
Fill in the missing words:
(i) Child stealing is merely a form of the crime of _____________

(ii) Arson cannot be committed in respect of _________ property.
(iii) Apart from contravening section 14(1)(a) of the Sexual offences
Act 23 of 1957, a male who has sexual intercourse with a girl
under the age of twelve also commits the crime of ____________.
(iv) To spy on someone who is undressing amounts to the crime of
_________.
(4)
(i) Kidnapping
(ii) Movable
(iii) Rape
(iv) Crimen iniuria
Fill in the missing words or phrases:
(i) The act required for the crime of theft consists in an act
of_________________________________________________________.
(ii) Theft can be committed in a variety of ways. It is possible to
distinguish between the following three different forms of theft:
_____________________________________________________________________
______
_____________________________________________________________________
______

____________________________________________________________________
_______
(iii) Theft is a continuing crime. That means the commission of the
crime continues for as long as the stolen property remains in
the
_____________ of the thief
(iv) Theft of money in the form of credit amounts to theft of
_______________ property.
(v) The misrepresentation in fraud must refer to some existing
state of affairs or to some past event but not to some
_______________.
(vi) The prejudice required for the crime of fraud may either be
________________prejudice or ___________________ prejudice.
(vii) Malicious injury to property consists in unlawfully and
intentionally damaging property belonging to ____________ or
damaging one’s own insured property with the intention of
_______________________.
(viii) Arson can only be committed in respect of
______________________ property.
(12)
(i) Appropriation
(ii) Removal of property; embezzlement and arrogation of
possession
(iii) possession
(iv) Incorporeal
(v) future event
(vi) actual or potential prejudice
(vii) somebody else…claiming the value of property of the insurer
(viii) immovable
IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC CRIMES:
Merely state, without a discussion, the legal interest protected by each of

the following crimes:
(i) Public violence

(ii) Criminal defamation

(iii) Kidnapping
(iv) Abduction (4)
(i) Public peace and order

(ii) Reputation of a person
(iii) Freedom of movement of a person.
(iv) Rights of a parent to consent to marriage of their minor
children as well as to exercise control over where they stay.
Name the crimes that X commits in the following instances:
(i) X threatens Y that he will tell Y’s husband that she (Y) is having
an affair with him (X) unless she gives him R20 000. Y is afraid
and gives X the money.
(ii) X, a prison warden tells Z, a prisoner, that he will help him
escape if he (Z) pays him R5 000 once he is out of prison.
(iii) X, a policeman, forces Y, a suspect, to drink his (Y’s) own urine.
(iv) X lays a false criminal charge against Y at a police station.
(v) X tells Y that he will stab her with a knife if she does not hand
over her purse. Y, who is terrified, runs away without handing
over the purse.
(vi) X breaks a window of a house with the intention to enter the
house and steal inside but is apprehended before actually
entering the house.
(vii) X exposes his private parts to Y (a 30-year-old woman) in the
street without Y’s consent.
(viii) X keeps cocaine in his house, not to use for himself but to give
to his friends when he entertains them.
(10)
(i) Extortion
(ii) Corruption
(iii) Assault
(iv) Defeating/obstructing the course of justice
(v) Robbery
(vi) Breaking and entering
(vii) Crimen Iniuria

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Stuvia 833724 Crw2602 Exam Pack

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stuvia 833724 Crw2602 Exam Pack

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRW2602 EXAM PACK

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

PART A (MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS)

IMPORTANT NOTICE. THE QUESTIONS IN THIS PART HAVE TO BE ANSWERED ON THE

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(a) Forgery is a form of fraud.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

THIS PART CONSISTS OF THREE QUESTIONS, NUMBERED, 1, 2 AND 3. YOU MUST

(a) Define the crime of public violence. (5)

(i) Fully define the crime of theft. (5)

(c) Discuss ONE of the following cases:

(i) S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (E)

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(a) Name the six elements of the offence of extortion. (6)

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

3 Feedback and self assessment

The following abbreviations are used:

PART A (MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS)

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 1.2.2 (iv).

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.5.4 (1).

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 3.6.3.2(b).

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 9.1.8.

(a) This statement is correct. See SG 10 Summary (8).

Important advice for answering problem-type questions:

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(ii) Theft by means of embezzlement / removal of property.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(ii) Scandalising the court.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(a) The elements of the crime of extortion are:

(d)(i) Crimen iniuria protects a person’s dignity and privacy.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

PART A (MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS)

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(c) Public violence can be committed by an individual acting alone.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) All the statements are correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.

Downloaded by: abihenderson02 | abihenderson02@gmail.com

(1) Only statement (a) is correct.