Participation notes
(Week 4)
Table of Contents
Participation notes.............................................................................................................1
Notes from class:..........................................................................................................................1
What are the problems pertaining to the prosecution of Group offenders?.................................2
What are the differences between the various forms of Group Participation in the perpetration
of offences?..................................................................................................................................3
Do the varying forms of Group participation attract different forms of criminal liability and/or
punishment?................................................................................................................................5
What is a Deemed Participant in the commission of a crime?......................................................5
What are the requirements of the doctrine of Common purpose?...............................................6
Under what circumstances can a deemed perpetrator dissociate from participating in the
commission of a crime?................................................................................................................7
Notes from class:
- Non-participants conduct or causation was more remote than participants
, - Accomplice: is a person/accused whose conduct assists the main perpetrator.
Doesn’t commit the crime in their own right. (Williams)
- Perpetrator: ordinary= individual accused person
- Perpetrator: deemed by common purpose= ex lege through operation of law. Didn’t
do it like an ordinary perpetrator but the law says you gave to prevent group actions.
By mandate= pay someone to do something By active association= list of
requirements
What are the problems pertaining to the prosecution of Group
offenders?
Moseneke J: ‘The phenomenon of serious crimes committed by collective individuals, acting
in concert, remains a significant societal scourge. In consequence crimes such as murder,
robbery, malicious damage to property and arson, it is often difficult to prove that the act of
each person or of a particular person in the group contributed causally to the criminal
result. Such a causal prerequisite for liability would render nugatory and ineffectual the
object of the criminal norm of common purpose and make prosecution of collaborative
criminal enterprises intractable and ineffectual.’ (Thebus-34)
Joubert JA: ‘[a]n accomplice is not a perpetrator or co-perpetrator, since he lacks the actus
reus of the perpetrator.’ (Williams-63)
Evidential problems addressed through criminal law doctrine (rules).
(a) Proof of Conduct
- Example – Thebus: Thebus denied being present at the scene and that he was visiting
his second wife in Fish Hoek (Alibi defence) (Thebus-11)
- Example – Mgedezi: Mgedezi denied being at the compound during the evening of
18 February 1986. He said he spent the night with Colbert Mtjelwa (Mgedezi-710G)
- Example – Sefatsa: Sefatsa denied being on Nhlapo street (Sharpville) during the
evening of 3 September 1984 (Sefatsa-872)
(b) Proof of Causation
(Week 4)
Table of Contents
Participation notes.............................................................................................................1
Notes from class:..........................................................................................................................1
What are the problems pertaining to the prosecution of Group offenders?.................................2
What are the differences between the various forms of Group Participation in the perpetration
of offences?..................................................................................................................................3
Do the varying forms of Group participation attract different forms of criminal liability and/or
punishment?................................................................................................................................5
What is a Deemed Participant in the commission of a crime?......................................................5
What are the requirements of the doctrine of Common purpose?...............................................6
Under what circumstances can a deemed perpetrator dissociate from participating in the
commission of a crime?................................................................................................................7
Notes from class:
- Non-participants conduct or causation was more remote than participants
, - Accomplice: is a person/accused whose conduct assists the main perpetrator.
Doesn’t commit the crime in their own right. (Williams)
- Perpetrator: ordinary= individual accused person
- Perpetrator: deemed by common purpose= ex lege through operation of law. Didn’t
do it like an ordinary perpetrator but the law says you gave to prevent group actions.
By mandate= pay someone to do something By active association= list of
requirements
What are the problems pertaining to the prosecution of Group
offenders?
Moseneke J: ‘The phenomenon of serious crimes committed by collective individuals, acting
in concert, remains a significant societal scourge. In consequence crimes such as murder,
robbery, malicious damage to property and arson, it is often difficult to prove that the act of
each person or of a particular person in the group contributed causally to the criminal
result. Such a causal prerequisite for liability would render nugatory and ineffectual the
object of the criminal norm of common purpose and make prosecution of collaborative
criminal enterprises intractable and ineffectual.’ (Thebus-34)
Joubert JA: ‘[a]n accomplice is not a perpetrator or co-perpetrator, since he lacks the actus
reus of the perpetrator.’ (Williams-63)
Evidential problems addressed through criminal law doctrine (rules).
(a) Proof of Conduct
- Example – Thebus: Thebus denied being present at the scene and that he was visiting
his second wife in Fish Hoek (Alibi defence) (Thebus-11)
- Example – Mgedezi: Mgedezi denied being at the compound during the evening of
18 February 1986. He said he spent the night with Colbert Mtjelwa (Mgedezi-710G)
- Example – Sefatsa: Sefatsa denied being on Nhlapo street (Sharpville) during the
evening of 3 September 1984 (Sefatsa-872)
(b) Proof of Causation
