Criminal Law
5 elements of the crime: conduct, causation, unlawfulness, criminal capacity and
fault
State needs to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed 1)
voluntary conduct which is unlawful, and that this conduct is accompanied by 2)
criminal capacity and 3) fault for the accused to be punished.
CONDUCT
- Act in a way which is prohibited by law as a crime.
- Definition of prescription states what conduct is prohibited as a crime.
- What X does must be in contravention of the definition of the crime.
- Criminal law only concerns itself with conduct that is criminalised.
- Must be common law or statutory provision that makes it a crime for the
accused to act in that way and at that time (first step)
- What type of conduct is irrelevant? Conduct needs to be human conduct, not
done by animals and objects etc.
- No animal criminals, cases where humans use animals to commit a crime?
- Juristic person (company) can also be held liable.
- Mere thoughts of murder? X has been thinking of ways to kill Y. No criminal
liability for X until conduct or action has actually happened.
- Once X has done or said something more than mere thoughts you can punish
someone even if harm has not been caused. Incitement = uttering words.
- Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.
To sum up:
Element of crime, conduct= accused is a human being, who does something which
has been criminalised by law, whose actions amount to more than mere thoughts
and desires – must have reached the stage of acting on thought, even if this
amounts to words.
,Voluntary conduct
- POD: only voluntary conduct is punishable
- What is voluntary conduct? When what the accused does is subject to their
conscious will. Accused has free will of what they want their body to do or not
to do.
- The accused must be physically capable of acting on this decision. Body
movements controlled by mind.
- Choose freely to act in a certain way.
- If accused cannot control conduct using their will = actions involuntary
- Event happens to accused.
- No criminal liability for involuntary conduct
- State must prove accused acted voluntarily.
- May rely on defence of involuntary conduct or automatism.
- 2 types of automatism based on the cause of the involuntary conduct
concerned:
1. Pathological automatism – something caused by a disease = mental illnesses
can have this effect. Also called ‘insane automatism’
2. Anything other than mental illness that renders an accused conduct
involuntary
- Non-pathological automatism.
- Subdivided into instances:
1. Conscious non-pathological automatism:
Vis absoluta – absolute force
Reflex actions or instinctive reactions
Severe provocation
2. Unconscious non-pathological automatism
Severe intoxication – pretty much passed out
Sleep – while sleepwalking – somnambulism Van Rensburg (fell asleep
at wheel after blood tests as he had low blood sugar, doctors did not
warn him of these side effects)
, Unconsciousness
Epileptic fit
Why do we distinguish between involuntary conducts? 2 important practical
differences between pathological automatism and non-pathological automatism:
1. If accused relying on mental illness resulting in involuntary conduct: accused
bears the onus of proof, on balance of probabilities, that they suffered from
mental illness that resulted in involuntary conduct. Will be entitled to an
acquittal.
If conduct a result of anything else: the usual onus of proof applies. The state
must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actions were voluntary
and therefore what they did amounted to conduct in eyes of the law.
2. Practical consequences of an acquittal. If persuade court you suffer from
mental illness which results in pathological automatism, you are not free to go.
You can be detained indefinitely in psychiatric hospital or prison as a state
presidents’ patient.
An accused who is acquitted on basis on non-pathological automatism is not
guilty and there are no more criminal law related incidences of their criminal
law conduct.
Antecedent (prior) liability
- No criminal liability for involuntary conduct / automatism
- Not a defence in all instances
- You can’t become deliberately severely intoxicated to commit a crime and
then rely on that defence: actio in libera causa principle
- ‘cause was in his power’
- Requires proof of:
1. prior voluntary and blameworthy conduct – become drunk to commit a
crime (intention).
2. This prior conduct must be causally linked to the unlawful consequence –
drinking was causally connected to the assault.
, 3. The accused must have the necessary fault in the form of intention or
negligence at time of prior conduct – person wanted to assault y and could
foresee the possibility of assaulting y if drunk.
It is therefore irrelevant that X acted involuntary at the time of the crime. His liability
is based on his prior conduct – his decision to drink (the blameworthy decision)
Applied to cases that do not involve antecedent intentional conduct: no objection to
extend this principle to cases of prior legal intention (dolus eventualis).
e.g drinking and getting behind the wheel.
e.g driving when you know you could blackout due to mental illness.
Do not directly intend to cause an accident but can foresee it is sufficient for this
principle.
Grobbelaar case:
G ensured workers in the mine got back up safely.
18 people in the lift coming up.
In the trip, G fell asleep.
Did not stop the lift when it should have been stopped, lift collided at the top.
16 people died.
Can G be held liable for failing to stop the lift?
Why did he not stop it? Was asleep.
Non-pathological automatism, sleep is a defence. Mind is not in control of
body.
But antecedent liability rules say: there must be prior voluntary conduct that is
linked to the involuntary unlawful consequence.
Involuntary unlawful consequence = falling asleep and not stopping the lift.
But he did not do anything to stop him from falling asleep even in a dangerous
situation where he knew people’s lives were at stake = dereliction of duty =
prior voluntary conduct.
He was negligent and a reasonable person would have stayed awake in this
dangerous situation.
5 elements of the crime: conduct, causation, unlawfulness, criminal capacity and
fault
State needs to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed 1)
voluntary conduct which is unlawful, and that this conduct is accompanied by 2)
criminal capacity and 3) fault for the accused to be punished.
CONDUCT
- Act in a way which is prohibited by law as a crime.
- Definition of prescription states what conduct is prohibited as a crime.
- What X does must be in contravention of the definition of the crime.
- Criminal law only concerns itself with conduct that is criminalised.
- Must be common law or statutory provision that makes it a crime for the
accused to act in that way and at that time (first step)
- What type of conduct is irrelevant? Conduct needs to be human conduct, not
done by animals and objects etc.
- No animal criminals, cases where humans use animals to commit a crime?
- Juristic person (company) can also be held liable.
- Mere thoughts of murder? X has been thinking of ways to kill Y. No criminal
liability for X until conduct or action has actually happened.
- Once X has done or said something more than mere thoughts you can punish
someone even if harm has not been caused. Incitement = uttering words.
- Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.
To sum up:
Element of crime, conduct= accused is a human being, who does something which
has been criminalised by law, whose actions amount to more than mere thoughts
and desires – must have reached the stage of acting on thought, even if this
amounts to words.
,Voluntary conduct
- POD: only voluntary conduct is punishable
- What is voluntary conduct? When what the accused does is subject to their
conscious will. Accused has free will of what they want their body to do or not
to do.
- The accused must be physically capable of acting on this decision. Body
movements controlled by mind.
- Choose freely to act in a certain way.
- If accused cannot control conduct using their will = actions involuntary
- Event happens to accused.
- No criminal liability for involuntary conduct
- State must prove accused acted voluntarily.
- May rely on defence of involuntary conduct or automatism.
- 2 types of automatism based on the cause of the involuntary conduct
concerned:
1. Pathological automatism – something caused by a disease = mental illnesses
can have this effect. Also called ‘insane automatism’
2. Anything other than mental illness that renders an accused conduct
involuntary
- Non-pathological automatism.
- Subdivided into instances:
1. Conscious non-pathological automatism:
Vis absoluta – absolute force
Reflex actions or instinctive reactions
Severe provocation
2. Unconscious non-pathological automatism
Severe intoxication – pretty much passed out
Sleep – while sleepwalking – somnambulism Van Rensburg (fell asleep
at wheel after blood tests as he had low blood sugar, doctors did not
warn him of these side effects)
, Unconsciousness
Epileptic fit
Why do we distinguish between involuntary conducts? 2 important practical
differences between pathological automatism and non-pathological automatism:
1. If accused relying on mental illness resulting in involuntary conduct: accused
bears the onus of proof, on balance of probabilities, that they suffered from
mental illness that resulted in involuntary conduct. Will be entitled to an
acquittal.
If conduct a result of anything else: the usual onus of proof applies. The state
must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actions were voluntary
and therefore what they did amounted to conduct in eyes of the law.
2. Practical consequences of an acquittal. If persuade court you suffer from
mental illness which results in pathological automatism, you are not free to go.
You can be detained indefinitely in psychiatric hospital or prison as a state
presidents’ patient.
An accused who is acquitted on basis on non-pathological automatism is not
guilty and there are no more criminal law related incidences of their criminal
law conduct.
Antecedent (prior) liability
- No criminal liability for involuntary conduct / automatism
- Not a defence in all instances
- You can’t become deliberately severely intoxicated to commit a crime and
then rely on that defence: actio in libera causa principle
- ‘cause was in his power’
- Requires proof of:
1. prior voluntary and blameworthy conduct – become drunk to commit a
crime (intention).
2. This prior conduct must be causally linked to the unlawful consequence –
drinking was causally connected to the assault.
, 3. The accused must have the necessary fault in the form of intention or
negligence at time of prior conduct – person wanted to assault y and could
foresee the possibility of assaulting y if drunk.
It is therefore irrelevant that X acted involuntary at the time of the crime. His liability
is based on his prior conduct – his decision to drink (the blameworthy decision)
Applied to cases that do not involve antecedent intentional conduct: no objection to
extend this principle to cases of prior legal intention (dolus eventualis).
e.g drinking and getting behind the wheel.
e.g driving when you know you could blackout due to mental illness.
Do not directly intend to cause an accident but can foresee it is sufficient for this
principle.
Grobbelaar case:
G ensured workers in the mine got back up safely.
18 people in the lift coming up.
In the trip, G fell asleep.
Did not stop the lift when it should have been stopped, lift collided at the top.
16 people died.
Can G be held liable for failing to stop the lift?
Why did he not stop it? Was asleep.
Non-pathological automatism, sleep is a defence. Mind is not in control of
body.
But antecedent liability rules say: there must be prior voluntary conduct that is
linked to the involuntary unlawful consequence.
Involuntary unlawful consequence = falling asleep and not stopping the lift.
But he did not do anything to stop him from falling asleep even in a dangerous
situation where he knew people’s lives were at stake = dereliction of duty =
prior voluntary conduct.
He was negligent and a reasonable person would have stayed awake in this
dangerous situation.
