TOPIC 2: CRIMINAL CONDUCT
A. B 1994 (2) SACR 237 (E) [Protective relationship]
PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
X was a woman, Y was X’s boyfriend and was E was X’s son
X and E stayed with Y
Y abused E over time and X was aware of it and did nothing
E died
X and Y were found guilty
X had a legal duty to protect E because of the parent-child relationship and
because she was aware of it.
B. BEYERS 1968 (3) SA 70 (A) [Court Order]
X arranged with a trade union
X gained an interdict, issued by civil court
Could not be charged
C. CARMICHELE V MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 2001 (4) SA 938
(C) [Ex lege duty]
Ito the development of human rights
Carmichele was assaulted, claimed damages for injuries sufffered. Claim was that
police failed to protect her
The accused has a history of violent crimes: rape etc.
HC and SCA rejected claim of assault because there was no duty in common law
from police
In CC, accepted that there was no duty.
But viewed that common law did not correspond to section 39(2) and s173 of the
Constitution.
CC that both sections forces the common law to be developed and both HC and
SCA had to relook at the claim
HC found that there was a ex lege duty on the officer and prosecutor but both
failed to do so.
Claim was then successful.
Establishes that there is civil liability on the part of the state if they fail to do that.
D. CLASSEN 1979 (4) SA 460 (ZS)
3 individuals : X was the owner, Y was a teenage girl and X was the passenger. Y
collided with V and he died
X was charged of culpable homicide allowing Y to drive
Had a legal duty to guide her while driving
Held criminal liable ito omission liability
E. EUSTACE 1948 (3) SA 859 (T): [Control of a dangerous object or animal]
Had a vicious dog that attacked people regularly.
On one occasion, the dog attacked a 10 year old girl and she died.
X was held liable because he had a legal duty to control the dog.
A. B 1994 (2) SACR 237 (E) [Protective relationship]
PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
X was a woman, Y was X’s boyfriend and was E was X’s son
X and E stayed with Y
Y abused E over time and X was aware of it and did nothing
E died
X and Y were found guilty
X had a legal duty to protect E because of the parent-child relationship and
because she was aware of it.
B. BEYERS 1968 (3) SA 70 (A) [Court Order]
X arranged with a trade union
X gained an interdict, issued by civil court
Could not be charged
C. CARMICHELE V MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 2001 (4) SA 938
(C) [Ex lege duty]
Ito the development of human rights
Carmichele was assaulted, claimed damages for injuries sufffered. Claim was that
police failed to protect her
The accused has a history of violent crimes: rape etc.
HC and SCA rejected claim of assault because there was no duty in common law
from police
In CC, accepted that there was no duty.
But viewed that common law did not correspond to section 39(2) and s173 of the
Constitution.
CC that both sections forces the common law to be developed and both HC and
SCA had to relook at the claim
HC found that there was a ex lege duty on the officer and prosecutor but both
failed to do so.
Claim was then successful.
Establishes that there is civil liability on the part of the state if they fail to do that.
D. CLASSEN 1979 (4) SA 460 (ZS)
3 individuals : X was the owner, Y was a teenage girl and X was the passenger. Y
collided with V and he died
X was charged of culpable homicide allowing Y to drive
Had a legal duty to guide her while driving
Held criminal liable ito omission liability
E. EUSTACE 1948 (3) SA 859 (T): [Control of a dangerous object or animal]
Had a vicious dog that attacked people regularly.
On one occasion, the dog attacked a 10 year old girl and she died.
X was held liable because he had a legal duty to control the dog.
