1
CRW2601 2021 SUMMARY CASES
Case Name Basic outline Relevance
S v Masiya 2007 (CC) Accused of rape 9yr. via Principal of legality ius
anus. Common-law did not praevium & ius strictum
see it as rape. Magistrate rules:
court found accused guilty act should be recognised
of rape. He appealed. High as a crime at the time of
Court found in favour of its commission (s
Magistrate court ruling. He 35(3)(1))
&
appealed. CC found that the
courts should interpret
common-law definition
the definitions of crime
needs to be extended to
strictly no express
incl. it. Masiya was found
provision, but can be
not guilty of rape but guilty
inferred from the general
of indecent assault.
right to afair trial
guaranteed in s 35(3)
Director of Public Accused of sexually assault Principal of legality
Prosecutions, Western Cape by touching breast and Nullum crimen sine lege &
v Prins 2012(SCA) private parts. He objected nulla poene rule:
saying that the Act does not
provide for a penalty for the No crime without law & no
offence created in s5(1). punishment without law
Wording in the Act is clear.
Magistrate court upheld the
decision. Director of Public
Prosecutions appealed to
High Court of Western Cape.
High Court concluded that in
the absence of a penalty in
the Act, the charged failed
to disclose an offence.
Appeal was dismissed.
1|Page
,2
R v Dlamini 1955 The accused was half awake Requirement of an act
out of a nightmare and he Psychogenic automatism
stabbed the deceased 3 (Sane Automatism)
times. Price J held that the Momentarily acted like a
case had many unusual robot
features. The only eye
witness account differed
from that of the accused.
The accused was also good
friends with the deceased
father. There was no
motive for accused to kill
the deceased. Accused
was acting mechanically –
under the influence of a
nightmare – not guilty of
murder – no proof of
negligence – not guilty of
culpable homicide.
2|Page
, 3
S v Henry 1999 Husband and wife are Requirement of an act
divorced. Have 3 daughters. Psychogenic automatism
Live with mother. Father – (Sane Automatism)
the appellant – has certain Momentarily acted like a
time he may see them. One robot
of the daughters spend the
weekend with the accused.
At the end of the weekend
daughter phone mother to
ask if she can stay with the
appellant till morning.
mother said no. the
appellant drove to his
exwife’s house with a
firearm in the car. Appellant
and wife quarrelled and wife
tried to push appellant
away. At this moment the
appellant became enraged –
according to evidence he
heard a zinging noise in his
ears and shouting going on
in his head. Appellant shot
his ex-wife and her mother
firing 3 times at both of
them killing them. Was
charged with inter alia – 2
counts of murder. His
defence held the sane
automatism. Court rejected
the defence and he was
charged. He appealed to the
SCA.
Scott JA held that if the
appellants actions was
involuntary must be weighed
up and considered in light of
the circumstances specially
against the
3|Page
CRW2601 2021 SUMMARY CASES
Case Name Basic outline Relevance
S v Masiya 2007 (CC) Accused of rape 9yr. via Principal of legality ius
anus. Common-law did not praevium & ius strictum
see it as rape. Magistrate rules:
court found accused guilty act should be recognised
of rape. He appealed. High as a crime at the time of
Court found in favour of its commission (s
Magistrate court ruling. He 35(3)(1))
&
appealed. CC found that the
courts should interpret
common-law definition
the definitions of crime
needs to be extended to
strictly no express
incl. it. Masiya was found
provision, but can be
not guilty of rape but guilty
inferred from the general
of indecent assault.
right to afair trial
guaranteed in s 35(3)
Director of Public Accused of sexually assault Principal of legality
Prosecutions, Western Cape by touching breast and Nullum crimen sine lege &
v Prins 2012(SCA) private parts. He objected nulla poene rule:
saying that the Act does not
provide for a penalty for the No crime without law & no
offence created in s5(1). punishment without law
Wording in the Act is clear.
Magistrate court upheld the
decision. Director of Public
Prosecutions appealed to
High Court of Western Cape.
High Court concluded that in
the absence of a penalty in
the Act, the charged failed
to disclose an offence.
Appeal was dismissed.
1|Page
,2
R v Dlamini 1955 The accused was half awake Requirement of an act
out of a nightmare and he Psychogenic automatism
stabbed the deceased 3 (Sane Automatism)
times. Price J held that the Momentarily acted like a
case had many unusual robot
features. The only eye
witness account differed
from that of the accused.
The accused was also good
friends with the deceased
father. There was no
motive for accused to kill
the deceased. Accused
was acting mechanically –
under the influence of a
nightmare – not guilty of
murder – no proof of
negligence – not guilty of
culpable homicide.
2|Page
, 3
S v Henry 1999 Husband and wife are Requirement of an act
divorced. Have 3 daughters. Psychogenic automatism
Live with mother. Father – (Sane Automatism)
the appellant – has certain Momentarily acted like a
time he may see them. One robot
of the daughters spend the
weekend with the accused.
At the end of the weekend
daughter phone mother to
ask if she can stay with the
appellant till morning.
mother said no. the
appellant drove to his
exwife’s house with a
firearm in the car. Appellant
and wife quarrelled and wife
tried to push appellant
away. At this moment the
appellant became enraged –
according to evidence he
heard a zinging noise in his
ears and shouting going on
in his head. Appellant shot
his ex-wife and her mother
firing 3 times at both of
them killing them. Was
charged with inter alia – 2
counts of murder. His
defence held the sane
automatism. Court rejected
the defence and he was
charged. He appealed to the
SCA.
Scott JA held that if the
appellants actions was
involuntary must be weighed
up and considered in light of
the circumstances specially
against the
3|Page
