lOMoARcPSD|11846729
Case summaries
, lOMoARcPSD|11846729
Safatsa Mgedezi Malinga
- common purpose (most NB) - common purpose
- causal connection not - active association
required
Facts: A crowd of about one hundred If no proof of a previous agreement Culpability is not imputed to the other
people attacked Y, who was in his between the perpetrators, the party, only the ACT is imputed.
house, by pelting the house with following requirements must be met
stones, hurling petrol bombs through to be found guilty based on common
the windows, catching him as he was purpose:
fleeing from his burning house, - Must have been present at
stoning him, pouring petrol over him the scene of the crime (not
and setting him alight. The six a passive spectator)
appellants formed part of the crowd. - Must have been aware of
The court found that their conduct the assault on Y
consisted inter alia of grabbing hold - He must have intended to
of Y, wrestling with him, throwing make common cause with
stones at him, exhorting the crowd to others committing the
kill him, forming part of the crowd assault
which attacked him, making petrol - He must have performed an
bombs, disarming him and setting his act of association with the
house alight. conduct of the others
- He must have had the
intention to kill or to
contribute to the death
It was argued on behalf of the
accused that they could be convicted
only if a causal connection had been
proved between each individual’s
conduct and the death.
The Appelate Division found that
where common purpose to kill had
been proved, each accused should
be convicted of murder without proof
of a causal connection between each
one’s individual conduct and death.
The six appellant’s convictions of
murder were confirmed.
This judgement effectively excludes
the possibility of being convicted as
an accomplice to murder when
acting in a group and being party to a
common purpose to kill.
Motaung Williams Thebus
- Joiner-in - active association (common
- Attempted murder purpose)
- Constitution
Facts: A woman suspected of being Facts: X1 and X2 were members of - Liability for murder on the
a police informer, was assaulted by a the same gang. X1 saw X2 stab B basis of active association
crowd, set alight and battered to with a knife – X1 grabbed B by the with the execution of a
death. Nine attackers were convicted neck. He saw another gang member, common purpose to kill was
of murder on video evidence before X3, charge at B with a broken bottle challenged as being
the court. They appealed against neck. X1 continued to hold B in such unconstitutional
Case summaries
, lOMoARcPSD|11846729
Safatsa Mgedezi Malinga
- common purpose (most NB) - common purpose
- causal connection not - active association
required
Facts: A crowd of about one hundred If no proof of a previous agreement Culpability is not imputed to the other
people attacked Y, who was in his between the perpetrators, the party, only the ACT is imputed.
house, by pelting the house with following requirements must be met
stones, hurling petrol bombs through to be found guilty based on common
the windows, catching him as he was purpose:
fleeing from his burning house, - Must have been present at
stoning him, pouring petrol over him the scene of the crime (not
and setting him alight. The six a passive spectator)
appellants formed part of the crowd. - Must have been aware of
The court found that their conduct the assault on Y
consisted inter alia of grabbing hold - He must have intended to
of Y, wrestling with him, throwing make common cause with
stones at him, exhorting the crowd to others committing the
kill him, forming part of the crowd assault
which attacked him, making petrol - He must have performed an
bombs, disarming him and setting his act of association with the
house alight. conduct of the others
- He must have had the
intention to kill or to
contribute to the death
It was argued on behalf of the
accused that they could be convicted
only if a causal connection had been
proved between each individual’s
conduct and the death.
The Appelate Division found that
where common purpose to kill had
been proved, each accused should
be convicted of murder without proof
of a causal connection between each
one’s individual conduct and death.
The six appellant’s convictions of
murder were confirmed.
This judgement effectively excludes
the possibility of being convicted as
an accomplice to murder when
acting in a group and being party to a
common purpose to kill.
Motaung Williams Thebus
- Joiner-in - active association (common
- Attempted murder purpose)
- Constitution
Facts: A woman suspected of being Facts: X1 and X2 were members of - Liability for murder on the
a police informer, was assaulted by a the same gang. X1 saw X2 stab B basis of active association
crowd, set alight and battered to with a knife – X1 grabbed B by the with the execution of a
death. Nine attackers were convicted neck. He saw another gang member, common purpose to kill was
of murder on video evidence before X3, charge at B with a broken bottle challenged as being
the court. They appealed against neck. X1 continued to hold B in such unconstitutional
