CASES SUMMARY
Criminal Law 2
CRW201-X
Participation Williams 1980 (1) SA 60 (T)
Facts While travelling in a train, X1 stabbed Y with a knife. X2, who saw the attack, grabbed Y
around the neck and held him while X3 hit him with a broken bottle. After the fatal wound
was inflicted, X4 helped to pick up the body and move him away but played a passive
role during the previous events. The trial court convicted X1 and X3 of murder and X2
and X4 of being accomplices to murder. X2 and X4 appealed their sentence.
Legal question Can participants be divided into perpetrators and accomplices?
Finding X2’s sentence was found to be correct; X4’s appeal was upheld.
Ratio decidendi X2 was found to have knowingly aided and assisted with the commission of the crime
and, therefore, he is punishable as if he had committed it. It is doubtful if someone can
be an accomplice to murder and the question to be answered is simply: can a person
further the death of the victim without simultaneously causing it? The answer appears to
be no and Snyman is of the opinion that X2 was wrongfully convicted as an accomplice
and qualifies rather as a perpetrator.
X4 didn’t associate himself with the murder and he didn’t promote the commission of the
crime and, therefore, no crime was proved.
Leading case on the doctrine
Participation Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) of common purpose
Facts A crowd of ±100 people attacked Y in his house by bombarding it with stones and petrol
bombs and, when he fled, they stoned him, poured petrol over and set him alight. The
six appellants formed part of the crowd. Their acts consisted of: grabbing hold of,
wrestling with, throwing stones at, exhorting the crowd to kill and forming part of the
crowd which attacked Y, making petrol bombs and setting the house alight.
Legal question Can individuals acting in a group only be convicted of murder if a causal connection can
be proved between each individual's act and Y's death?
Finding The six convictions of murder was confirmed by applying the doctrine of common
purpose and, if a common purpose to kill is proved, the accused may be convicted
without proving a causal connection between every individual's conduct and Y's death.
Ratio decidendi The existence of a common purpose between the participant and others may be proved
by the fact that he actively associated himself with the actions of the other members of
the group and a causal connection between him and Y’s death needn’t be proved.
Participation Lungile 1999 (2) SACR 597 (A)
Facts During a robbery, a policeman arrived on the scene and several shots were fired
between him and X2. At the end of the shootout one of the employees of the shop was
dead, the policeman and X2 were injured, X3 escaped and X1 was captured by a
policeman with the stolen money and jewellery in his possession. They were convicted
of robbery and murder and X2 was also convicted of being unlawfully in possession of an
unlicensed firearm and ammunition. Leave to appeal was granted.
Legal question If X2 flees because he is afraid of being arrested or being injured or aims to make good
his escape, is his withdrawal motivated by a clear intention to withdraw from the common
purpose which he was a part of?
Criminal Law 2
CRW201-X
Participation Williams 1980 (1) SA 60 (T)
Facts While travelling in a train, X1 stabbed Y with a knife. X2, who saw the attack, grabbed Y
around the neck and held him while X3 hit him with a broken bottle. After the fatal wound
was inflicted, X4 helped to pick up the body and move him away but played a passive
role during the previous events. The trial court convicted X1 and X3 of murder and X2
and X4 of being accomplices to murder. X2 and X4 appealed their sentence.
Legal question Can participants be divided into perpetrators and accomplices?
Finding X2’s sentence was found to be correct; X4’s appeal was upheld.
Ratio decidendi X2 was found to have knowingly aided and assisted with the commission of the crime
and, therefore, he is punishable as if he had committed it. It is doubtful if someone can
be an accomplice to murder and the question to be answered is simply: can a person
further the death of the victim without simultaneously causing it? The answer appears to
be no and Snyman is of the opinion that X2 was wrongfully convicted as an accomplice
and qualifies rather as a perpetrator.
X4 didn’t associate himself with the murder and he didn’t promote the commission of the
crime and, therefore, no crime was proved.
Leading case on the doctrine
Participation Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A) of common purpose
Facts A crowd of ±100 people attacked Y in his house by bombarding it with stones and petrol
bombs and, when he fled, they stoned him, poured petrol over and set him alight. The
six appellants formed part of the crowd. Their acts consisted of: grabbing hold of,
wrestling with, throwing stones at, exhorting the crowd to kill and forming part of the
crowd which attacked Y, making petrol bombs and setting the house alight.
Legal question Can individuals acting in a group only be convicted of murder if a causal connection can
be proved between each individual's act and Y's death?
Finding The six convictions of murder was confirmed by applying the doctrine of common
purpose and, if a common purpose to kill is proved, the accused may be convicted
without proving a causal connection between every individual's conduct and Y's death.
Ratio decidendi The existence of a common purpose between the participant and others may be proved
by the fact that he actively associated himself with the actions of the other members of
the group and a causal connection between him and Y’s death needn’t be proved.
Participation Lungile 1999 (2) SACR 597 (A)
Facts During a robbery, a policeman arrived on the scene and several shots were fired
between him and X2. At the end of the shootout one of the employees of the shop was
dead, the policeman and X2 were injured, X3 escaped and X1 was captured by a
policeman with the stolen money and jewellery in his possession. They were convicted
of robbery and murder and X2 was also convicted of being unlawfully in possession of an
unlicensed firearm and ammunition. Leave to appeal was granted.
Legal question If X2 flees because he is afraid of being arrested or being injured or aims to make good
his escape, is his withdrawal motivated by a clear intention to withdraw from the common
purpose which he was a part of?
