MODULE AND CODE : CRIMINAL LAW (CRW2601)

ASSIGNMENT : 1 SEMESTER 1 (2020)

(i) X committed an act that could give rise to liability, he committed an act in such a way that
his carelessness amounted to the culpable breach of a duty, he failed to do something that
a reasonable man (i.e. an average responsible citizen) would do, or doing something that a
reasonable man would not do. He failed to act positive, by protecting his son Z. He left the
firearm that was not placed on safety mode, on the study table knowing exactly that he has
a young son who is incapable to act. Where a person accepts responsibility for the control
of a dangerous or potentially dangerous object, a duty arises to control it properly.
Fernandez 1966 (2) SA 259 (A), X kept a baboon, but didn’t1fix its cage, so it got out and bit a
child, who later died. X was convicted of culpable homicide.

(i) X’s act can be regarded as a conditio sine qua non of Y’s death because if X had not left a
loaded firearm negligently, and which was not on a safe mode Y would have not died or
shot by Z. Therefore, there was factual causation.
X’s act was not the legal cause of Y’s death. If we apply the theory of adequate causation, it
is easy to conclude that in this situation X’s act was not the legal cause of Y’s death, because
all that X did was he left a loaded firearm on the study table, and that is not an act that,
according to human experience in the normal course of events, has the tendency to kill Y.
This act or an event does not qualify as a novus actus because X previously knew or foresaw
that an event like this might occur, living a loaded firearm not on a safe mode in the
2
presence of the young children who does not have a capacity to act would definitely result
death or an injury to someone.
In terms of the Mokgethi decision, we may argue that X’s act was not the legal cause of Y’s
death. Z’s act of shooting Y was unreasonable and created such an unnecessary life-ending
3 close link between X and the death
situation that legally speaking, there is not a sufficiently
4 of Y, because X had no intention of killing or Y’s death.
 RESULTS
Total = 6 / 10 (60%)
 COMMENTS
1 Dear Student, good, but you need to state that the duty to act stems from a legal duty which in turn
stems from the legal convictions of society. The reasonable man reference forms part of negligence
(culpability) and not conduct.
2 The novus actus is actually the opposite of the adequate causation, meaning if there is NOT a new
intervening factor, there must be an adequate link. There is too close a link between X's omissio and
Z's shooting to state that it qualifies as a new intervening event.
3 You did not discuss legal causation in sufficient detail. Be guided by the number of marks awarded to
the question and plan your answer carefully. Legal causation is determined by policy considerations.
The question is whether it would be reasonable, fair and just to regard X's omission as the legal cause
of Y's death. In Mokgethi, the Appellate Division held that in deciding what a reasonable and fair
conclusion is, a court may make use of one or more of the specific theories of legal causation but it
would be wrong for the court to regard only one specific theory as the correct one to be applied in
every situation. You were therefore required to discuss whether you deem it fair, reasonable and just to
hold X liable in these circumstances of leaving a firearm unattended in the presence of small children
(e.g. will it in the normal cause of events have the tendency to cause such children to play with the
firearm, what was the most operative factor and whether you deem Z's actions a novus actus).

4 Good effort, but you did not provide sufficient detail to earn really high marks as per my comments
above. Always give the full definition of the crime/element/defence that you discuss. Identify the
applicable legal principles as identified by the courts. Apply the legal principles to the facts. For more
guidance with regards to this assignment, please read the Tutorial Letter. Good luck with the exam!
Kind regards, Sarita Lubbe