Topic 3.1 Flashcards
(10 cards)
What are the two principles of fault?
- It must extended to each and every element of the crime
- Must be contemporaneous (existing at or occurring in the same period of time) with the conduct
What does the principle It must extended to each and every element of the crime mean?
It must extended to each and every element of the crime- needs to exist/extend for each defentitional aspects of the crime. The accused must meet each aspect of the crime.
What does it mean that it must be contemporaneous (existing at or occurring in the same period of time) with the conduct?
Must be contemporaneous (existing at or occurring in the same period of time) with the conduct - Fault must exists at the time of the act/actus rea. The actus rea and mens rea must exists at the same time. Intention must extend to every definitional element of the crime
What are the facts in R v Churchill?
R v Churchill deals with abduction of a unmarried young women under the age of 21 years old who was taken out of the care of her legal gauridan against the legal guardians without the guardians constent with the intention to have sexual intercourse. He argued that he didnt know she was under 21 years old, so it was not intentional.
What was held in R v Churchill?
It was held that the case should be set aside as his intention did not extend to each and every element of this crime.
What are the facts in R v Wallendorf?
R v Wallendorf 1920, the accused assaulted the police officer while he as trying to arrest a third party, where the police officer was not in uniform. So the accused was unaware theat he was a police officer and belived he was helping the third party from being assaulted, he was charged with the statuory offence of obstructing the police in the couse of their duties. The question was wether there was an intention to obstruct the police.
What was held in R v Wallendorf?
It was held that even though under the principle approach he would be found not intentional, because vasarie doctrine was around he was held guilty wit intention. This is as his mens rea to obstruct inferred as he intended to assault the person
What are the facts in R v Matsepe?
R v Matsepe 1931, the accused was a truck driver and a child had jumped on to the back of the truck without his knowledge. The accused drive negligently and crashed the truck into a tree, the child was injured and died. The question was whether he could be held liable to the neglignece killing of the child. Under the principle approach he would not be found intentional or the reasonable man test, however under the vasarie approach as he was engaged in the negligent driving he should be held liable for the death of the child.
What are the facts in S v Van der Mescht?
S v Van der Mescht 1962 where melting amalgam to extract gold, and as a result it released a gas they were both unaware of which killed the victim and four children who were in the house at the time. The question was weather the accused should be held liable, the first court held that a reasonable man should have seen the outcome and further according to the varsiarie doctrine as he melted the amalgam without a permit he should be held liable for the killings. The AD set aside these claims as it wasnt held beyond a reasonable doubt a reaonable man would not have seen this. In the obiter it was held that the varisa doctrine should further not be applicable
What are the facts in S v Bernardus?
S v Bernardus 1965, the accused killed the victim by throwing a walking stick at the victim, they were a far apart but the stick struck the victim killing him. The trial court convicted him and held him liable for culpable homicide under the varsiarie doctrine. The question under the AD court was whether a person can be held liable for culpable homiceide where the accusd assults another person but could not have reasonably foreseen the persons death. The court held that according to the general principles there was no intention or foresight. The question was held negative, as the person must ave foreseen a real possibility of the death, they however can be held liable for assult
