65166957 N Sukdeo CRW2602 697338 Due:19/08/2022
1. Public Violence
The facts of this case clearly point towards public violence as it meets all the elements.
Three thousand rioters gathered at the stadium with weapons to prevent those with tickets
from entering the stadium. The act shows elements of unlawfulness and intent.
The act was unlawful and intentional- it was the result of angry and dangerous people who
acted with a common purpose of disturbing the public peace and order. The riot assumed
serious proportions as the stadium was a public place holding families and children- and
considering the sheer number of rioters and numbers of those with tickets. X along with the
other rioters arrived prepared with axes, sticks and stones and was aware of the serious
nature of their actions. X along with the other rioters displayed violence, damage to
property and death threats.
therefore, X is guilty of acting in concert with the other rioters and disturbing the public
peace and order.
2. Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm
The element that X meets in terms of this offence is inspiring belief in another person that
force is to be immediately applied with the specific intent to do grievous bodily harm.
By pointing his axe at Y, threatening to decapitate her/him and considering the violent
nature of the riot- it would lead to the reasonable belief of Y that Xs threat is of a serious
nature. It also indicates intent to do grievous bodily harm. It is immaterial whether grievous
bodily harm is inflicted or not when discerning liability.
Factors relating to X's intent would be his weapon- an axe, the threat itself- decapitation
and pointing the axe at Y. a reasonable person assumes that an axe and decapitation is
reasonably related thus further enforcing the seriousness of Xs threat to Y.
X’s intention to do harm itself is questioned, thus Dolus Eventualis is enough- a person can
be convicted of murder if they foresaw the possibility of their actions resulting in the death
of someone but continued regardless.
References
1. Specific Crimes, study guide for CRW2602, UNISA, 2019, pg 9-11 & 120-122, accessed
on 11 August 2022.
2. Criminal law simplified, P.H.S van Zyl, 1982,
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA02500329_3806
1. Public Violence
The facts of this case clearly point towards public violence as it meets all the elements.
Three thousand rioters gathered at the stadium with weapons to prevent those with tickets
from entering the stadium. The act shows elements of unlawfulness and intent.
The act was unlawful and intentional- it was the result of angry and dangerous people who
acted with a common purpose of disturbing the public peace and order. The riot assumed
serious proportions as the stadium was a public place holding families and children- and
considering the sheer number of rioters and numbers of those with tickets. X along with the
other rioters arrived prepared with axes, sticks and stones and was aware of the serious
nature of their actions. X along with the other rioters displayed violence, damage to
property and death threats.
therefore, X is guilty of acting in concert with the other rioters and disturbing the public
peace and order.
2. Assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm
The element that X meets in terms of this offence is inspiring belief in another person that
force is to be immediately applied with the specific intent to do grievous bodily harm.
By pointing his axe at Y, threatening to decapitate her/him and considering the violent
nature of the riot- it would lead to the reasonable belief of Y that Xs threat is of a serious
nature. It also indicates intent to do grievous bodily harm. It is immaterial whether grievous
bodily harm is inflicted or not when discerning liability.
Factors relating to X's intent would be his weapon- an axe, the threat itself- decapitation
and pointing the axe at Y. a reasonable person assumes that an axe and decapitation is
reasonably related thus further enforcing the seriousness of Xs threat to Y.
X’s intention to do harm itself is questioned, thus Dolus Eventualis is enough- a person can
be convicted of murder if they foresaw the possibility of their actions resulting in the death
of someone but continued regardless.
References
1. Specific Crimes, study guide for CRW2602, UNISA, 2019, pg 9-11 & 120-122, accessed
on 11 August 2022.
2. Criminal law simplified, P.H.S van Zyl, 1982,
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA02500329_3806
