Crim super summarised cases:
Unlawfulness................................................................................................................................................ 1
a. Private self-defence.........................................................................................................................................1
b. Putative Self-defence.......................................................................................................................................2
c. Necessity / Compulsion....................................................................................................................................3
d. Consent............................................................................................................................................................4
Capacity........................................................................................................................................................ 5
a. Provocation & Emotional Stress......................................................................................................................5
b. Diminished capacity:.......................................................................................................................................6
c. Intoxication:.....................................................................................................................................................6
Mens Rea...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Sentencing & Punishment............................................................................................................................. 7
Hudson: Doing Justice to difference....................................................................................................................7
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing:......................................................................................................................9
Edwin Cameron: Imprisoning the Nation: Minimum Sentences in South Africa.................................................9
SS Terblanche: High Price of Act 105 of 1997.....................................................................................................9
Unlawfulness
a. Private self-defence
1. Stephen:
- Must first issue a warning, giving assailant time to flee or say they are unarmed
- Criticism: places burden on victim
- Counter: only applies where lethal force is intended to ensure that people don’t
tacitly use lethal force
- Modern day application: Sign that says “Warning, watch out for the electric
fence”
2. Van Wyk
- Steyn (Majority): YES, you can set up a mechanism like this, outside a house/shop
defending your property, provided you give a warning (expressed in writing). The
importance to right to property is significant enough to justify the response.
, - Rumpff: Warning must be on the specific window & in relevant languages of the
area (English, Afrikaans AND Xhosa) or pictures/signage
- Modern day application: electric bolt image on electric fence
3. Dougherty
- The reasonable man (objective test) would not have fired multiple shots at an
unarmed intruder. He would have aimed a non-fatal shot to get the attacker
down.
4. Engelbrecht
- DV can be invoked as a form of self-defence, however it seems difficult to prove
- Premeditation is an important consideration for future cases (Proportionality
enquiry)
- Attack: DV doesn’t necessarily need to be physical (verbal, psychological, etc)
- Imminent: DV can be expected /foreseen- ‘pattern of abuse’- pre-meditating for
this purpose cannot be faulted)
- Necessity- depends on circumstances of case
- Proportionality: DV- other reasonable alternatives (what this case turned on)
5. S v Botha
- Necessary to avert the attack: Yes
- Reasonable response to the attack: No- must have foreseen the possibility that
by directing the knife towards to deceased upper body this may injure/kill the
deceased
- Conviction changed to culpable homicide instead of murder
b. Putative Self-defence
1. De Olivera:
- Subjective: persons state of mind- did they really think their life was actually in
danger & they were entitled to act in self-defence
Unlawfulness................................................................................................................................................ 1
a. Private self-defence.........................................................................................................................................1
b. Putative Self-defence.......................................................................................................................................2
c. Necessity / Compulsion....................................................................................................................................3
d. Consent............................................................................................................................................................4
Capacity........................................................................................................................................................ 5
a. Provocation & Emotional Stress......................................................................................................................5
b. Diminished capacity:.......................................................................................................................................6
c. Intoxication:.....................................................................................................................................................6
Mens Rea...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Sentencing & Punishment............................................................................................................................. 7
Hudson: Doing Justice to difference....................................................................................................................7
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing:......................................................................................................................9
Edwin Cameron: Imprisoning the Nation: Minimum Sentences in South Africa.................................................9
SS Terblanche: High Price of Act 105 of 1997.....................................................................................................9
Unlawfulness
a. Private self-defence
1. Stephen:
- Must first issue a warning, giving assailant time to flee or say they are unarmed
- Criticism: places burden on victim
- Counter: only applies where lethal force is intended to ensure that people don’t
tacitly use lethal force
- Modern day application: Sign that says “Warning, watch out for the electric
fence”
2. Van Wyk
- Steyn (Majority): YES, you can set up a mechanism like this, outside a house/shop
defending your property, provided you give a warning (expressed in writing). The
importance to right to property is significant enough to justify the response.
, - Rumpff: Warning must be on the specific window & in relevant languages of the
area (English, Afrikaans AND Xhosa) or pictures/signage
- Modern day application: electric bolt image on electric fence
3. Dougherty
- The reasonable man (objective test) would not have fired multiple shots at an
unarmed intruder. He would have aimed a non-fatal shot to get the attacker
down.
4. Engelbrecht
- DV can be invoked as a form of self-defence, however it seems difficult to prove
- Premeditation is an important consideration for future cases (Proportionality
enquiry)
- Attack: DV doesn’t necessarily need to be physical (verbal, psychological, etc)
- Imminent: DV can be expected /foreseen- ‘pattern of abuse’- pre-meditating for
this purpose cannot be faulted)
- Necessity- depends on circumstances of case
- Proportionality: DV- other reasonable alternatives (what this case turned on)
5. S v Botha
- Necessary to avert the attack: Yes
- Reasonable response to the attack: No- must have foreseen the possibility that
by directing the knife towards to deceased upper body this may injure/kill the
deceased
- Conviction changed to culpable homicide instead of murder
b. Putative Self-defence
1. De Olivera:
- Subjective: persons state of mind- did they really think their life was actually in
danger & they were entitled to act in self-defence
