LCR4805
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 2026
, LCR4805 ASSIGNMENT 2 2026
DUE SEPTEMBER 2026
1(a) We live in an “information age,” and the question that often arises is whether
information can be stolen. Refer to the common law definition of “theft” and
critically discuss whether the law in South Africa has adapted to keep up with
technological advancements. Discuss comparatively by referring to the positions
in other jurisdictions and include case law, legislation, and academic
commentary where applicable.
The common-law definition of theft in South African law (derived from Roman-Dutch
principles) requires the unlawful and intentional appropriation of a corporeal thing
belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it
(contrectatio, animus furandi, and unlawfulness). Traditional formulations emphasised
physical, tangible objects capable of possession and ownership. The central legal
question is not physical possibility but whether the principles of theft accommodate
intangible information (data, electronic records, or pure information) as the object of
theft.
South African courts have progressively dematerialised the object of theft in limited
contexts. Cases such as R v Manuel 1953 (4) SA 523 (A), S v Graham 1975 (3) SA 569
(A) and S v Harper 1981 (2) SA 638 (D) confirm that abstract sums of money (credits in
bank accounts) can be stolen once dematerialised from specific coins or notes.
Greenberg JA in Manuel noted that under modern banking the question of ownership of
specific coins no longer arises.
ASSIGNMENT 2
DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 2026
, LCR4805 ASSIGNMENT 2 2026
DUE SEPTEMBER 2026
1(a) We live in an “information age,” and the question that often arises is whether
information can be stolen. Refer to the common law definition of “theft” and
critically discuss whether the law in South Africa has adapted to keep up with
technological advancements. Discuss comparatively by referring to the positions
in other jurisdictions and include case law, legislation, and academic
commentary where applicable.
The common-law definition of theft in South African law (derived from Roman-Dutch
principles) requires the unlawful and intentional appropriation of a corporeal thing
belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it
(contrectatio, animus furandi, and unlawfulness). Traditional formulations emphasised
physical, tangible objects capable of possession and ownership. The central legal
question is not physical possibility but whether the principles of theft accommodate
intangible information (data, electronic records, or pure information) as the object of
theft.
South African courts have progressively dematerialised the object of theft in limited
contexts. Cases such as R v Manuel 1953 (4) SA 523 (A), S v Graham 1975 (3) SA 569
(A) and S v Harper 1981 (2) SA 638 (D) confirm that abstract sums of money (credits in
bank accounts) can be stolen once dematerialised from specific coins or notes.
Greenberg JA in Manuel noted that under modern banking the question of ownership of
specific coins no longer arises.
