Preview 8 out of 10 Flashcards
If X buys dagga for his own use and Y acts merely as interpreter to the transaction, Y can
qualify as an accomplice.
If X buys dagga for his own use and Y acts merely as interpreter to the transaction, Y can
qualify a...
Correct
In Thebus 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC) it was held that the only way in which a common
purpose can be established is if there is proof of a prior agreement between two or more
participants.
In Thebus 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC) it was held that the only way in which a common
purpose can be esta...
Incorrect
The liability of an accessory after the fact, and an accomplice, is accessory in character.
The liability of an accessory after the fact, and an accomplice, is accessory in character.
Correct

A joiner-in is a person who actively associates herself with a common purpose to kill
another, (Y), before the lethal wound is inflicted on Y.
A joiner-in is a person who actively associates herself with a common purpose to kill
another, (Y), ...
Incorrect
Define the doctrine of common purpose and discuss its application in the case of Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
Define the doctrine of common purpose and discuss its application in the case of Safatsa 1988 (1) SA...
Definition:
If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime
• act together in order to achieve that purpose,
• the acts of each of them in the execution of such a purpose are imputed to the others.
S v Safatsa:➢ 
Facts:
• Crowd of 100 people attacked Y.
• Stoned him, poured petrol over him, set him alight
• The six appellants formed part of crowd, court found their acts consisted of: grabbing, wrestling,
throwing stones at Y – Exhorting crowd to kill him and forming part of crowd.
➢ Legal question:
• Can individuals acting in group only be convicted of murder if causal connection can be proved
between each individual's act and Y's death?
➢ Court's finding (Answer to legal question): • No, If common purpose to kill is proved (as in this
case), the accused may be convicted without proving a causal connection between every
individual's conduct and Y's death
➢ Reason(s) for finding (Ratio Decidendi):
• A person may be convicted in terms of the Doctrine of common purpose if proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that he ACTIVELY ASSOCIATED with the execution of the common purpose (As in
this case)
➢ Judgment: Appellate Division upheld six's conviction of murder by applying Doctrine of common
purpose.
• the fact that it was argued on behalf of the accused that proof of a causal connection
between each individual accused’s act and Y’s death had to be established, and had
not been so established on the facts
• the court’s ruling that where a common purpose to kill had been proved, it was not
necessary that the State prove the existence of a causal link between each accused’s
act and Y’s death
• the court’s ruling that if there is no clear evidence that the participants had agreed
beforehand to commit the crime together (ie no evidence of prior agreement), the
existence of a common purpose between a participant and the others may be proved
by the fact that he/she had actively associated him/herself with the actions of the
other members of the group
Define the doctrine of common purpose
Define the doctrine of common purpose
If a number of people have a common purpose to commit a crime and in the execution of this purpose, act
together, the act of each of them in the execution of this purpose is imputed to the others.
A shoots Y. Y falls to the ground and is mortally wounded. B (who has not previously agreed with A to kill Y)
appears on the scene and stabs Y with a knife. The stab wound does not hasten Y’s death. Y dies as a result of
the bullet wound. A needs help to dispose of the body. For this purpose, A calls in the help of C, who had
agreed before the killing to assist A in disposing of the body, and D, a friend of C’s who had no prior agreement
with A. Briefly discuss the criminal liability of B, C and D.
A shoots Y. Y falls to the ground and is mortally wounded. B (who has not previously agreed with A t...
B is guilty of attempted murder. B can be referred to as a “joinerin” since he associated himself with others’
common purpose at a stage when Y’s lethal wound had already been inflicted, although Y was then still alive.
In Motaung – murder cases active association only leads to liability if the act
of association took place whilst Y was still alive and at a stage before the lethal wound had been inflicted by
the perpetrator(s)
C may be a perpetrator or an accomplice. This will depend on the circumstances. If his conduct, culpability and
personal qualities accord with the definition of murder, he will be a co-perpetrator. Otherwise, he may be an
accomplice for he furthered the commission of the crime. The facts in casu do not reveal whether C’s act of
agreeing with A to dispose of the body in fact causally
contributed to the commission of the crime by A, and therefore, to Y’s death. In Maserow, If X agreed
beforehand to render assistance; may be perpetrator/accomplice depending if circumstances, conduct,
culpability, personal qualities comply with definition of crime (Maserow)
D is an accessory after the fact. A person is an accessory after the fact to the commission of a crime if, after the
commission of the crime, he unlawfully and intentionally engages in conduct intended to enable the perpetrator of or accomplice to the crime to evade liability for the crime, or to facilitate such a person’s
evasion of liability. Helping a perpetrator to dispose of the body of a person he has killed is an example of
conduct that makes a person an accessory after the
fact. In Mavhungu – Z murdered Y; X Z removed parts from Y's body; Disposed of body on top of mountain;
X did not take part in murder but was convicted as being an accessory after the fact in respect of murder
X1, X2 and X3 are members of a criminal gang. Their main activity is to break into
residential homes with the purpose of stealing valuable items. They usually watch
the houses that they intend to break into in order to establish at what time the owner
is not at home. One evening, X1, X2 and X3 take three guns and travel by car to
the house of Z. Because they have been watching Z’s house over a period of time,
they know that he goes out between seven and eight o'clock every evening. They
climb over the electronic gate of Z’s property at exactly fifteen minutes past seven.
X1 inserts a screw driver in the lock of the backdoor of Z’s house and breaks it
open. He and his mates (X2 and X3) enter the house. The alarm suddenly goes off.
They start running away but as they approach the gate, Z (the owner of the house)
enters with his car through the gate. X2 starts to panic and fires a shot at Z. Z is
killed instantly. X1, X2 and X3 are all charged with murder.
You are the state prosecutor. Discuss the relevant legal principles and case law
which you will rely upon in order to prove that X1, X2 and X3 are all guilty of the
crime of murder.
X1, X2 and X3 are members of a criminal gang. Their main activity is to break into
residential homes...
The legal principles applied in terms of the doctrine of common purpose are relevant to
this particular set of facts.
definition of the doctrine of common purpose:
If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in order to achieve that
purpose, the acts of each of them in the execution of such a purpose are imputed to the others. Therefore,
when the doctrine is applied, a causal link between each participant’s act and the prohibited result is not
required. The existence of a common purpose may be proved on the basis of a prior agreement, or active
association and participation in a common criminal design. The state
must, however, prove that each participant had the necessary intention to commit the crime of murder.
S v Safatsa: Crowd of 100 people attacked Y. Stoned him, poured petrol over him, set him alight
The six appellants formed part of crowd, court found their acts consisted of: grabbing, wrestling, throwing
stones at Y – Exhorting crowd to kill him and forming part of crowd.
Legal question:Can individuals acting in group only be convicted of murder if causal connection can be proved
between each individual's act and Y's death?
Court's finding: No, If common purpose to kill is proved (as in this case), the accused may be convicted without
proving a causal connection between every individual's conduct and Y's death
Reason(s): A person may be convicted in terms of the Doctrine of common purpose if proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that he ACTIVELY ASSOCIATED with the execution of the common purpose (As in this case)
Judgment: Appellate Division upheld six's conviction of murder by applying Doctrine of common purpose
In Mgedezi: held – where no proof of a previous agreement between perpetrators, an accused who's act is not
causally connected to Y's death can only be convicted through Doctrine if he had:
1) been present at crime scene
2) been aware of the assault on Y
3) intended to make common cause with those committing the assault
4) manifested his sharing of a common purpose by personally performing
some act of association with the conduct of the others
5) intention to kill Y or contribute to his death
➔ Rules ensure a passive spectator won't be liable under the doctrine for mere presence at scene
in Thebus
● Challenged in the CC on the grounds of unjusTfiably limiTng:
1) Right to dignity (s10 of constitution)
2) Right to freedom and security of person (s12(1)(a))
3) Right of an accused person to a fair trial (s35(3))
● CC rejected argument – declared constitutional principle of requiring active association instead of causation
as basis of liability in collaborative criminal enterprises (as found in common-law). Reasons were:
• Doctrine serves vital purpose in criminal justice
• It's main goal is to criminalise collective criminal conduct thus controlling crime committed in joint
enterprises
• Proving particular/each person in group contributed causally to prohibited result in consequence crimes(like
murder), difficult – insisting on causal connection would make prosecuting joint criminal enterprises
ineffectual.
• Effective prosecution of crime is legitimate, pressing social issue
According to the facts, there was a prior agreement among the three participants to commit housebreaking.
Moreover, each participant performed an act of association with the execution of the housebreaking. X2 fired
the shot at Z which caused his death. The state nevertheless has to prove that X2 had the intention to kill Z
before he can be convicted of the crime of murder.
As far as X1 and X3 are concerned, the state has to prove that they had foreseen the possibility that the acts of
any of the participants might result in a person’s death, and that they had reconciled themselves to such a
possibility.
An important fact in support of proof of the existence of dolus eventualis on the part of X1 and X3 is that they
also had guns with them when they embarked upon the housebreaking. The state can therefore argue that
each participant had the necessary dolus eventualis to be convicted of the crime of murder.
In Molimi the SCA held that conduct by a member of a group of persons which differs from the conduct
envisaged in their initial mandate (common purpose) may not be imputed to the other members, unless each
of the latter knew (dolus directus) that such conduct would be committed and reconciled themselves to that
possibility (dolus eventualis)