What is a perpatrator?
Perpetrators - they personally satisfy the definitional elements of crime in full or are found liable in terms of common purpose by imputation or through agency (qui facit per alium facit per se- He who acts through another, does the act himself).
What is an accomplice?
Accomplices - associate with the commission of the crime or knowingly assist in furthering the commission of the crime (Jackelson)
What is an Accessories after the fact?
Accessories after the fact - they are involved in a crime after its completion.
What is the golden rule according to Whiting?
In determining the principles of participation, you would consider this in the order (Whiting)
- Perpetrator’s liability first using the ordinary principles of liability
- Perpetrator’s liability in terms of common purpose
- Then accomplice liability (only if the first two fails)
Does there always have to be a perpatrator of a crime?
Parry held that for there to be accomplice liability, there must at least be a notional personal
perpetrator, even if that perpetrator isn’t convicted.
Can you be an accomplice to your own crime?
In Wannenburg, it was held that you cannot be an accomplice to your own crime and therefore you cannot be an accomplice without prima facia proof of a notional perpetrator. It needs to be explicitly stated whether you are being charged with being a perpetrator or an accomplice
Can an ommision give rise to accomplice liabilty?
Shikuri held that an omission (failure to act) can give rise to accomplice liability as the failure to tell the perpetrator to act. However, not reporting a crime or witnessing a crime doesn’t make you an accomplice
Who is an accomplice according to Jackelson?
Jackelson held that an accomplice is a person who knowingly aids and assists in the commission of a crime and is punishable just as if they had committed it. A person can be an accomplice to a crime even if they could not commit as a personal perpetrator, but they furthered the crime.
What does Msomi hold about person perpatrators?
The court in Msomi should have found that if the accused brought back the victim knowing that she would be raped, he caused it to occur and as such, is actually a personal perpetrator
Define common purpose
Common purpose refers to two or more people who explicitly agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise. In such cases, each person will be responsible for the specific criminal conduct committed by one of their associates. The actus rea element will be imputed; however, fault must still be proven individually.
What does Du Randt hold about prior agreement?
Du Randt held that to determine prior agreement, mandante is determined through dolus eventualis (what was foreseeable to the parties to the prior agreement), and the continuous action can extend the mandate of the prior agreement.
What does Nhlapo hold about prior agreement?
Nhlapo held that the mandate (or scope of the mandate) can change implicitly through conduct during the commission of the crime (if the accused is present), in other words, the accused can implicitly broaden the scope of the mandate through their own conduct. The presence of a deadly weapon creates a foresight of its use if the plans are foiled.
What does Nzo hold about prior agreement?
Nzo case held that the mandate can be extended to all the foreseen consequences of a group’s conduct if the operations of the group (the unlawful activity) are known (foreseen) by other co-participants. You can be found guilty if you were a party to another crime and foresaw the possibility of another crime during its commission.
What does Nkwenja hold about prior agreement?
Nkwenja holds that for the purposes of establishing the extent of the mandate, fault (dolus eventualis) is assessed (determined) at the time that the mandate was entered into. Thus on the question of whether the unlawful consequence fell within the scope of the mandate is determined at the time that the agreement was entered into but, if the accused is present on the scene, there is some scope for the accused to alter the mandate through his actions or his conduct.
What does dewnath hold about prior agreement?
In the Dewnath case, the court held that mere approval of the commission is not sufficient to prove prior agreement, although morally reprehensible, and that there needs to be explicit agreement
What is active association?
Active association is where two or more people have an objective and work together to fulfil an act despite the lack of a prior agreement (Dladla)
What does Safatsa hold about active association?
Safatsa holds that the conduct of each individual must be looked at to determine whether they were “actively associating, and once established, causation is imputed
What are the 5 requirments of active association according to Mgedezi ?
- The accused must be present when the unlawful action takes place
- The accused must be aware that the unlawful action will lead to the unlawful consequence (you must foresee that the acts will bring about death)
- The accused must intend to make common cause with the group in bringing about the unlawful consequence (dolus eventualis) (an act must show support)
- The accused manifests his intention to make common cause by himself performing some act of association, which shows his common cause (activity)
- The accused must intend for the actual unlawful consequence that results to occur (There must be an intention to commit the offence)
What does Thebus stateabout commmon purpose?
Thebus, confirms that the doctrine of CP withstands constitutional scrutiny and still forms part of our law despite its encroachment into the principle of legality.
What was held in Beahan?
Beahan held that, in regard to the prior agreement, the role of the accused must determine the kind of withdrawal necessary. If the accused merely conspired, then withdrawal is effective if clearly and unambiguously communicated to the others of the intent to withdraw. If the accused participated in a more substantial manner, then an effort to nullify or frustrate the effect of his role or the common purpose more broadly is required. (This must be unequivocal and timely evidence of your withdrawal)
What was held in Nzo?
Nzo holds that the accused voluntarily does something (act) to show that he no longer intends to be part of the common purpose (changed intention). The intention considers whether the dissociation is voluntary (of his own accord) or is forced to do so (such as he is caught or apprehended).
What was held in Singo?
In Singo active association disassociation will occur when the accused there is clear and unambiguous intention to withdraw from such purpose. Through: (1) desists from the active association (stops the act) and (2) abandons his intention to make common cause. The crucial question if both are met is whether the accused manages to disassociate before the final blow is dealt
What was held in Le Roux
Le Roux, held that you cannot acquit as a group, as if one person gets acquitted it dosent mean everyone gets acquitted. Each persons evidence must be exaimined to find out if they meet the Mgdezi requirements.
What was held in Musingadi?
Musingadi case held that prior agreement = conspiracy to commit a crime. In this case, its possible at the time of common purpose, they did not plan to kill anyone due to no weapons being carried, but during the course of the crime / your own conduct can give an implicit mandate, meaning you foresaw death. Omissions also count because they didn’t stop her from dying. When you are dissociating, frustrate your contribution, coupled with your intention (mental dissociation). The greater the accused’s participation and the commission of the crime has already progressed, then much effort will be required of an accused to constitute an effective dissociation; he may even be required to take steps to prevent the commission or completion of the crime. Withdrawal must be effective, meaning each perpetrator must receive this communication
