CRW2603
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 27 AUGUST 2026
,CRW2603 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 27 AUGUST 2026
Academic Integrity and Use of Sources
For this assessment, formal referencing is not required, as you are instructed to rely
only on paragraphs 17-22 and 33-50 of the Constitutional Court judgment in S v Thebus
and Another 2003 (6)
SA 505 (CC). However, you are expected to demonstrate your understanding of the
material by expressing the relevant ideas in your own words. Copying and pasting
directly from the case will not attract any marks. Answers must reflect proper
paraphrasing of the case. Submissions that merely replicate the wording of the source,
even if limited to the prescribed sections, will receive no credit
for those portions.
, Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a significant aspect of South African criminal law
that enables more than one person to be held liable for the same crime, even if not
every participant personally committed every act that resulted in the offence. In S v
Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC), the Constitutional Court examined this
doctrine and confirmed its consistency with the Constitution. This discussion explains
what the doctrine entails, why it is recognised, and why the Court concluded it is
constitutionally valid.
The Doctrine of Common Purpose
The doctrine of common purpose regulates the attribution of criminal liability to a person
who acts jointly with others in committing a crime. As explained in paragraph 18, where
two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful
enterprise, each will be responsible for criminal conduct committed by one of their
number that falls within their common design. The essence is that when people act
together to achieve a common purpose, the conduct of each is imputed to the others.
Liability arises in two ways: through a prior agreement, or through active association
and participation in a common criminal design. In paragraph 20, the Court referred to
the requirements from S v Mgedezi: a person must be present at the scene, be aware of
the offence, intend to make common cause, perform some act of association, and have
the requisite intention.
Why the Doctrine Exists
The doctrine serves vital purposes in the criminal justice system. In paragraph 40, the
Court explained that without the doctrine, only actual perpetrators could be convicted,
despite the unlawful and intentional participation of others. Collaborative crimes strike
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 27 AUGUST 2026
,CRW2603 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 27 AUGUST 2026
Academic Integrity and Use of Sources
For this assessment, formal referencing is not required, as you are instructed to rely
only on paragraphs 17-22 and 33-50 of the Constitutional Court judgment in S v Thebus
and Another 2003 (6)
SA 505 (CC). However, you are expected to demonstrate your understanding of the
material by expressing the relevant ideas in your own words. Copying and pasting
directly from the case will not attract any marks. Answers must reflect proper
paraphrasing of the case. Submissions that merely replicate the wording of the source,
even if limited to the prescribed sections, will receive no credit
for those portions.
, Introduction
The doctrine of common purpose is a significant aspect of South African criminal law
that enables more than one person to be held liable for the same crime, even if not
every participant personally committed every act that resulted in the offence. In S v
Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC), the Constitutional Court examined this
doctrine and confirmed its consistency with the Constitution. This discussion explains
what the doctrine entails, why it is recognised, and why the Court concluded it is
constitutionally valid.
The Doctrine of Common Purpose
The doctrine of common purpose regulates the attribution of criminal liability to a person
who acts jointly with others in committing a crime. As explained in paragraph 18, where
two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful
enterprise, each will be responsible for criminal conduct committed by one of their
number that falls within their common design. The essence is that when people act
together to achieve a common purpose, the conduct of each is imputed to the others.
Liability arises in two ways: through a prior agreement, or through active association
and participation in a common criminal design. In paragraph 20, the Court referred to
the requirements from S v Mgedezi: a person must be present at the scene, be aware of
the offence, intend to make common cause, perform some act of association, and have
the requisite intention.
Why the Doctrine Exists
The doctrine serves vital purposes in the criminal justice system. In paragraph 40, the
Court explained that without the doctrine, only actual perpetrators could be convicted,
despite the unlawful and intentional participation of others. Collaborative crimes strike
