,LCR4805 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) 2025-
DUE 2025; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
QUESTION 1
We live in an “information age” and the question which 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. (20)
Answer
1. Introduction
The twenty-first century is commonly referred to as the information age because of
the central role that data and knowledge play in modern economies, governance,
and everyday life. Information has become a valuable commodity, often regarded
as the “new oil” of the digital economy, and its misappropriation can cause
significant economic and reputational harm. As individuals, companies, and
governments increasingly rely on digital systems to store and transfer information,
the question arises whether the legal framework in South Africa adequately
protects such intangible assets against unlawful appropriation.
Traditionally, South African common law on theft was crafted in an era when
property was primarily physical and tangible. Theft was therefore understood as
the unlawful appropriation of a movable, corporeal object belonging to another,
with the intent to deprive the owner permanently. This formulation worked well in
a world where ownership was tied to things like livestock, money, and goods.
However, the emergence of intangible assets such as digital information, trade
secrets, electronic files, and intellectual property presents a fundamental challenge
to the classical definition. The law must now grapple with the question of whether
, copying, accessing, or misusing information—without physically removing a
tangible object—can fall within the ambit of theft.
This issue is not unique to South Africa. Legal systems worldwide have had to
confront whether information can be stolen and, if so, how best to regulate it. Some
jurisdictions, such as the United States, have introduced statutory measures to
criminalise the theft of trade secrets and data, while others, like the United
Kingdom, maintain a stricter adherence to the traditional requirement that property
must be tangible to constitute theft. Against this comparative background, the
South African position must be critically evaluated to determine whether it has
adapted sufficiently to meet the realities of the digital age.
2. Common law definition of theft in South Africa
Under South African common law, theft is defined as the unlawful appropriation
of movable, corporeal property belonging to another, with the intent to deprive the
owner permanently (Snyman, 2014). Each element of this definition carries strict
requirements. Firstly, the property must be movable, meaning it can be physically
removed or displaced from the possession of the owner. Secondly, it must be
corporeal or tangible, which excludes intangible assets such as ideas, goodwill, or
information. Thirdly, the property must belong to another—ownership or
possessory rights must rest with someone other than the accused. Lastly, there
must be intention to deprive permanently, which distinguishes theft from
temporary borrowing or unlawful use.
This classical formulation reflects the historical context in which the crime
developed. Theft in Roman-Dutch law and later South African law was concerned
primarily with the unlawful removal of physical objects such as livestock, goods,
and money. The courts have consistently stressed the need for tangibility, making
it difficult to extend the concept of theft to intangible items.
The application of these elements to the modern digital environment presents
significant challenges. Information and data, unlike corporeal objects, are
intangible and can be copied without depriving the owner of possession. For
example, if an employee downloads confidential company data without
authorisation, the original files remain intact on the company’s systems. This
creates a fundamental conflict with the requirement that theft must involve
deprivation of tangible property. As a result, South African common law theft
DUE 2025; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
QUESTION 1
We live in an “information age” and the question which 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. (20)
Answer
1. Introduction
The twenty-first century is commonly referred to as the information age because of
the central role that data and knowledge play in modern economies, governance,
and everyday life. Information has become a valuable commodity, often regarded
as the “new oil” of the digital economy, and its misappropriation can cause
significant economic and reputational harm. As individuals, companies, and
governments increasingly rely on digital systems to store and transfer information,
the question arises whether the legal framework in South Africa adequately
protects such intangible assets against unlawful appropriation.
Traditionally, South African common law on theft was crafted in an era when
property was primarily physical and tangible. Theft was therefore understood as
the unlawful appropriation of a movable, corporeal object belonging to another,
with the intent to deprive the owner permanently. This formulation worked well in
a world where ownership was tied to things like livestock, money, and goods.
However, the emergence of intangible assets such as digital information, trade
secrets, electronic files, and intellectual property presents a fundamental challenge
to the classical definition. The law must now grapple with the question of whether
, copying, accessing, or misusing information—without physically removing a
tangible object—can fall within the ambit of theft.
This issue is not unique to South Africa. Legal systems worldwide have had to
confront whether information can be stolen and, if so, how best to regulate it. Some
jurisdictions, such as the United States, have introduced statutory measures to
criminalise the theft of trade secrets and data, while others, like the United
Kingdom, maintain a stricter adherence to the traditional requirement that property
must be tangible to constitute theft. Against this comparative background, the
South African position must be critically evaluated to determine whether it has
adapted sufficiently to meet the realities of the digital age.
2. Common law definition of theft in South Africa
Under South African common law, theft is defined as the unlawful appropriation
of movable, corporeal property belonging to another, with the intent to deprive the
owner permanently (Snyman, 2014). Each element of this definition carries strict
requirements. Firstly, the property must be movable, meaning it can be physically
removed or displaced from the possession of the owner. Secondly, it must be
corporeal or tangible, which excludes intangible assets such as ideas, goodwill, or
information. Thirdly, the property must belong to another—ownership or
possessory rights must rest with someone other than the accused. Lastly, there
must be intention to deprive permanently, which distinguishes theft from
temporary borrowing or unlawful use.
This classical formulation reflects the historical context in which the crime
developed. Theft in Roman-Dutch law and later South African law was concerned
primarily with the unlawful removal of physical objects such as livestock, goods,
and money. The courts have consistently stressed the need for tangibility, making
it difficult to extend the concept of theft to intangible items.
The application of these elements to the modern digital environment presents
significant challenges. Information and data, unlike corporeal objects, are
intangible and can be copied without depriving the owner of possession. For
example, if an employee downloads confidential company data without
authorisation, the original files remain intact on the company’s systems. This
creates a fundamental conflict with the requirement that theft must involve
deprivation of tangible property. As a result, South African common law theft
