Criminal Law: General Aspects

CODE OF COURSE: SEMESTER CODE: ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: STUDENT NUMBER: CRW2601 02 02 7844654

ASSIGNMENT DUE DATE: 19 September 2011

NAME: ADDRESS:

C. H. Olivier P.O. Box 1694 RIVONIA 2128

POSTAL CODE:

ASSIGNMENT 02 SECOND SEMESTER

QUESTION X decides to rob a caf. He enters the caf, points a gun at the caf owner, Y, and instructs him to hand over the cash in the till and then to lie on his stomach on the ground. Y follows all the orders, but, while lying down, he presses a panic button which alerts a security guard, Z, in the vicinity. Before X leaves the shop, the security guard, Z, arrives at the scene. X jumps on top of Y and aims his gun at Ys head. Y breaks loose and the security guard (Z) immediately fires a shot at X. Unfortunately, the bullet hits and kills Y, the caf owner, instead of X, the robber. Y dies as a result of the gunshot wound. X (the robber) is charged with murder in respect of Ys death. Xs legal representative argues that X did not have the intention to murder Y, because he had made a mistake relating to the chain of causation. With reference to case law, discuss the merits of this defence. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION MAY NOT EXCEED 300 WORDS (MORE OR LESS ONE (1) PAGE). (Answer follows on page 3)

-2-

Defence: Mistake relating to the chain of causation The requirements for the defence of mistake relating to the chain of causation only occur in the context of material defined crimes. It is foreseen that the result will be brought about in a certain manner, the result ensues, but in a different manner as foreseen by the perpetrator. In S v Goosen (1989) the Supreme Court of Appeal, through Van Heerden JA, held that there was a substantial difference between the actual and foreseen manner in which death was caused. The perpetrator did not foresee that the death of the victim caused the way it happened and Xs mistake negated intention to murder. What indeed happened is that Y was killed by a shot from the gun of Z, a security guard, coming to the help of Y. X did plan to commit robbery with a firearm and thus did foresee a possible resistance and physical struggle for firearm. In the struggle Z shot at X. However the shot struck Y who then subsequently died. If we apply the judgement of S v Lungile & Another (1999) by the same court, the actions of Z, the security guard, may come down to the defence of private defence, because he came to the help of Y, and the Zs actions will be deemed not unlawful as private defence is justified by law. The death of Y brought about by the unlawful act of X is not abnormal, unforeseeable or independent of act of X, it was foreseeable that Z could enter scene and that a battle could ensue and that an innocent party could be injured or killed in the crossfire. In this case Zs act does not constitute novus actus interveniens, and X will be held responsible for Ys death.

-3-