CRW2603
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2026
Unique number:
Due date: August 2026
Doctrine of Common Purpose
1. Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a legal tool used in serious crimes like murder
and rape. In S v Thebus and Another, the Constitutional Court considered whether
this common-law doctrine is compatible with constitutional rights to dignity, freedom
and a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.1 Paragraph 17 identifies this
constitutional issue, and the judgment confirms that the doctrine may operate within
constitutional limits.
, Doctrine of Common Purpose
1. Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a legal tool used in serious crimes like murder
and rape. In S v Thebus and Another, the Constitutional Court considered whether
this common-law doctrine is compatible with constitutional rights to dignity, freedom
and a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.1 Paragraph 17 identifies this
constitutional issue, and the judgment confirms that the doctrine may operate within
constitutional limits.
2. The Doctrine of Common Purpose
Paragraph 18 explains that common purpose regulates criminal liability where
people undertake the commission of a crime jointly.2 Conduct committed by one
participant within the shared criminal design may be attributed to others who share
that purpose. Paragraph 19 recognises two forms.3 Common purpose may arise
from a prior agreement, whether express or implied, or from active association and
participation in a common criminal design with the required blameworthy state of
mind. In consequence crimes such as murder, paragraph 22 confirms that the State
need not prove a causal link between every participant’s conduct and final unlawful
result.4
3. Why the Doctrine Exists
The Court explained in paragraph 34 that the doctrine exists to criminalise collective
criminal conduct and meet the social need to control crime committed through joint
enterprises.5 Group crimes can make individual causation difficult to prove because
several people may act together while only one directly causes the final result.
Requiring separate causal proof against every participant could make prosecution of
collaborative crime ineffective. Paragraph 40 adds that group misconduct can strike
1
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 17.
2
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 18.
3
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 19.
4
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 22.
5
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 34.
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2026
Unique number:
Due date: August 2026
Doctrine of Common Purpose
1. Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a legal tool used in serious crimes like murder
and rape. In S v Thebus and Another, the Constitutional Court considered whether
this common-law doctrine is compatible with constitutional rights to dignity, freedom
and a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.1 Paragraph 17 identifies this
constitutional issue, and the judgment confirms that the doctrine may operate within
constitutional limits.
, Doctrine of Common Purpose
1. Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a legal tool used in serious crimes like murder
and rape. In S v Thebus and Another, the Constitutional Court considered whether
this common-law doctrine is compatible with constitutional rights to dignity, freedom
and a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.1 Paragraph 17 identifies this
constitutional issue, and the judgment confirms that the doctrine may operate within
constitutional limits.
2. The Doctrine of Common Purpose
Paragraph 18 explains that common purpose regulates criminal liability where
people undertake the commission of a crime jointly.2 Conduct committed by one
participant within the shared criminal design may be attributed to others who share
that purpose. Paragraph 19 recognises two forms.3 Common purpose may arise
from a prior agreement, whether express or implied, or from active association and
participation in a common criminal design with the required blameworthy state of
mind. In consequence crimes such as murder, paragraph 22 confirms that the State
need not prove a causal link between every participant’s conduct and final unlawful
result.4
3. Why the Doctrine Exists
The Court explained in paragraph 34 that the doctrine exists to criminalise collective
criminal conduct and meet the social need to control crime committed through joint
enterprises.5 Group crimes can make individual causation difficult to prove because
several people may act together while only one directly causes the final result.
Requiring separate causal proof against every participant could make prosecution of
collaborative crime ineffective. Paragraph 40 adds that group misconduct can strike
1
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 17.
2
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 18.
3
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 19.
4
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 22.
5
S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) para 34.
