crim principles

The test as to whether an accused has the particular intent required for a charge is a subjective test: the court must enquire whether the accused in fact had that intent

MKHIZE

The principle of legality prohibits retroactive laws, and so the court cannot punish acts not considered criminal at the time of the act

MSHUMPA

The principle of legality means the court cannot create criminal offences - the nature and range of punishment must be founded in existing common law or statute

FREDERIKSEN

The principle of legality as expressed in the maxim nullum crimen sine lege requires that conduct must be clearly criminalised at the time of commission before liability may follow

TSOAELI

If acting mechanically, without intention, volition, or motive, that conduct is not voluntary

DHLAMINI

Where a person acts in a mechanical fashion, such as blacking out, they act in state of automatism and do not act voluntarily

VAN RENSBURG

Effective custody and control of a dangerous animal (even without proving ownership) imposes a legal duty to ensure it does not pose a threat to the public

FERNANDEZ

Omission can also be voluntary conduct

HOSIOSKY

NO PRINCIPLE: State of affair crimes are formally defined, do not require causation, and so denying causation is invalid

MEYER

NO PRINCIPLE: State of affair crimes are formally defined, do not require causation, and so denying causation is invalid

DHOR

Customary rights may preclude unlawfulness

GONGQOSE

If conduct does not comply with the definitional elements of a crime or statute, the conduct is lawful

MOKHALI

The necessity requirement of private defence entails giving adequate warning

VAN WYK

An accused who has embroiled suffering from domestic violence must exhaust all available alternative means before taking the law into their own hands

ENGELBRECHT

The law does not require you to turn your back on an attack if fleeing would mean the attack would continue

MOTHOANA

For private defence to be reasonable, one must proportionally defend oneself (exhaust all non-lethal methods while attacking)

BOTHA

Retaliatory conduct in response to insult or provocation must be commensurate with the need to restrain the offending behaviour

NDLANGISA

An accused from whom property is stolen is entitled to retrieve it in self-defence because theft is a continuous crime

MOGOHLWANE

The reasonable person (in terms of necessity) has no duty to sacrifice their life for the protection of another

GOLIATH

If you are in control of a situation, you are at fault - and cannot raise the necessity defence

KIBI

Where an accused's defence is one of compulsion, the onus lies on the State to show that a reasonable man would have resisted the compulsion

MTEWTWA

We should not conflate acquiescence with submission, and the following factors turn the former into the latter: sexual grooming, inequality of a sexual relationship with a minor, running a gift-reward system with a minor

SM

Consent must be for a specific act (consent to one part is not a consent to all parts)

COKO

Consent precludes the conviction of assault

NJIKELANA

If a person inflicts a fatal injury after which a secondary fatal injury is later inflicted, that secondary fatal injury will constitute novus actus interveniens which then breaks the causal chain

DANIELS

The factual cause will be the legal cause if, relying on policy consideration, there is a sufficiently close connection between the perpetrator's action and the unlawful result. Adequate and proximate cause may count as factors, along with severity of the injury, circumstances of the victim, reasonableness of the victims failure, time lapse between the injury and the death

MOKGETHI

An intrinsically dangerous wound will lead to liability as the cause, irrespective of whether the wound is treatable, and if there is negligence or substandard medical treatment - as substandard medical treatment is not abnormal or extraordinary and thus does not break the chain of causation

TEMBANI

A loss of temper will never be sufficient to exculpate criminal capacity, unless the accused is acting in a state of automatism

EADIE

In instances of sane automatism there must be no evidence of premeditation

RM

If you lack knowledge of the law as an ordinary individual, then you lack fault

DE BLOM

Lack of knowledge of law excludes mens rea

POTWANE

If you are an expert, the base level of knowledge you are presumed to have is higher than the ordinary person, and thus you cannot claim lack of knowledge as easily

MARTIN

The base requirement for fault is subjective

BEZUIDENHOUT

Kruger v Coetzee test for negligence imported: 1) Would the reasonable person have foreseen the unlawful consequence occurring as a result of their actions? 2) Would they have taken steps to avoid it?

MARETELE

If an accused subjectively thinks that an unlawful consequence will not ensue from their actions, then they did not reconcile themselves with the possibility that it would ensue

HUMPHREYS

In the context of putative defence, mistake as to the identity of the victim does not dislodge dolus eventualis

PISTORIUS

When determining whether a murder was premeditated, ask whether the accused rationally considered the timing or method of the killing, that is, prepared a scheme in advance for achieving his goal of killing

TAUNYANE

Negligence lies on a spectrum, ranging from an elementary form of mere mistake lie a momentary lapse of judgement (where consequences are undesired and unforeseen), to intentional acts that cause death. To decide where an accused falls, ask: would a reasonable person have foreseen the unlawful outcome?

NAIDOO

When you are exerting control over another person, if they deviate materially, you are not accountable for their actions

KOZA

Intoxication may in certain instances exclude intention

CHRETIAN

The test for putative private defence is whether the accused honestly believed that their life was in danger

DE OLIVEIRA

If an accused honestly but erroneously believed their conduct was justified, dolus is excluded as there is a lack of consciousness of wrongfulness (though culpa may remain)

DOUGHERTY

An accused that commits a crime that occurs in a materially different way than foreseen excludes their fault base

GOOSEN

Test for putative private defence is subjective

TUTA

Aberratio ictus (genuine yet mistaken belief the accused is in danger) can in certain instances exclude intention in the residuum sense

MTSHIZA

If you don't have capacity for one crime, you don't have capacity for all crimes

RAMDASS

The common purpose doctrine is consistent with the Constitution as it is an effective tool for crime control

THEBUS

An accused acting with a common purpose, who lacks mens rea (intention) cannot be convicted of murder even if they meet the requirements of common purpose (for want of mens rea)

When applying the common purpose doctrine, each accused must be assessed individually to ascertain that: 1) there is someone with causation; 2) the other accused meet the other requirements of criminal liability (excluding causation); 3) each accused had the requisite mens rea for the crime.

Proving common purpose has nothing to do with proving mens rea - it extends liability ex lege only to causation or conduct (mens rea must still be proven to be held liable for the crime itself)

MGEDEZI

For common purpose by active association, there must be manifestation of association by some physical action

PHETOE

Common purpose by prior agreement is not a general conversation - a decision of when, where and when must be reached

NOOROODIEN

To hold a person liable as an accomplice: 1) there is a principal perp/co-perp; 2) the accused had the intention to promote/assist the crime; 3) causal link between conduct and execution of the crime

WILLIAMS

A Joiner-In is a non-participant that has not previously agreed to kill, but inflicts a wound that does not hasten or prevent an inevitable death, and thus death lacks causation to deem them a participant

TSOTETSI

What is attributable to an accused by agreement is inferred from conduct before, during, and after the incident, and by what acts fall within the agreed course of conduct

TILAYI

Mere presence does not constitute participation, even with unexpressed approval

BARNES

Notice must be given when acting in self-defence

VAN WYK

Property is a legally protected interest for which self-defence may be used

VAN WYK

Submission isn't consenting

SM

Reasonable neglect by the victim can be sufficient to break the chain of causation between the non-fatal injury and death

MOKGETHI

If you are questioned by the police and withhold information, you may be an accessory

NOOROODIEN

Accomplices must actually help further the perpetrator to commit the offence, by providing means, information, or oppurtunity/access

NOOROODIEN

To show participation, show the harm was foreseeable and that the accused failed to intervene*

BARNES

Failing to report a crime when it's intended to assist the perpetrator in escaping conviction can lead to liability as an accessory after the fact. *

BARNES

An accused will not be held liable as a participant if they could not foresee the conduct occurring

BARNES