Botha v Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2003 (2) SACR 423 (T)

Botha v Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit
2003 (2) SACR 423 (T)

2003 (2) SACR p423

Citation	2003 (2) SACR 423 (T)
Case No	Saaknr 15798/2001
Court	Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Kirk-Cohen R
Heard	November 26, 2002; November 28, 2002
Judgment	December 3, 2002
Counsel	B C van den Heever SC (bygestaan deur D J Venter) namens die eiser.; B Roux SC namens die verweerder.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Arres — Reg met betrekking tot arres — Staande orders van polisie het vereiste minimum standaarde wat redelike polisiebeampte by arres moes handhaaf gestel — Sodanige minimum standaarde behels dat (1) elke gearresteerde dadelik met sy hande agter sy rug geboei moes word; (2) F daar geen diskresie daarmee was nie; (3) elke gearresteerde 'n potensiële gevaar vir polisie en publiek was; (4) gearresteerde op sy gevaarlikste was wanneer hy geboei word en wanneer hy in vangwa geplaas word; (5) om gevaar te bekamp, moet polisiebeampte op patrolliediens sy toerusting, in besonder sy boeie, en polisiebeampte passasier saamneem; en (6) om, waar nodig, polisieversterking aan te G vra — Waar polisiebeampte versuim het om boeie en polisiebeampte passasier saam te neem toe hy uitgeroep is, bevind dat hy skuldig is aan erge pligsversuim — Polisie deliktueel aanspreeklik gehou vir beserings aan lid van publiek veroorsaak as gevolg van sodanige pligsversuim. H

Headnote : Kopnota

Die eiser was ernstig beseer toe hy geskiet was. Die voorval het plaasgevind nadat 'n polisieman, S, alleen gery het om 'n huisbraakklag te ondersoek. Op die toneel het S versuim om bystand te ontbied en voortgegaan om alleen 'n verdagte te konfronteer en te arresteer. S het nie handboeie by hom gehad nie en dus verder versuim om die verdagte te boei. Terwyl S besig was om die verdagte in die I vangwa te laai, het die verdagte hom oorval en sy amptelike vuurwapen afgeneem. Verskeie skote is gevuur waaronder ten minste een skoot die eiser, 'n lid van die publiek, getref het. Die polisie het staande orders wat aan polisiebeamptes voorskryf welke toerusting op patrollie saamgeneem moet word, asook hoe opgetree moes word wanneer 'n klagte ondersoek word en 'n verdagte gearresteer word. Die eiser het J

2003 (2) SACR p424

aksie in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling ingestel ten einde die verweerder aanspreeklik A te hou vir sy skade. Die enigste geskilpunte vir beregting deur die Hof was die volgende: (1) Of daar 'n regsplig op die verweerder en/of S teenoor die eiser gerus het om te voorkom dat die skietvoorval waarin die eiser beseer was plaasgevind het en/of sy versuim om dit te voorkom derhalwe onregmatig was. (2) Of gemelde S nalatig was in een of meer B van die opsigte uiteengesit in die besonderhede van vordering, en of dit redelikerwys voorsienbaar was dat S se optrede/versuim skade vir die eiser sou veroorsaak het. (3) Of die daad of versuim regtens kousaal verbind was met die skade wat die eiser gelei het.

Beslis, dat die polisie se staande orders die vereiste minimum standaarde wat 'n redelike polisiebeampte moes handhaaf, C geboekstaaf het; met ander woorde, die versuim om daaraan te voldoen, veral wat boeie aanbetref en die gebruik daarvan, was in die omstandighede van die huidige saak sodanig dat S nie as 'n redelike lid van die polisie opgetree het nie en dit word onderstreep deur sy versuim om 'n passasier ('n ander polisiebeampte) saam te geneem het. (Op 436j - 437b.)

Beslis, verder, dat S homself skuldig gemaak het aan erge pligsversuim as verantwoordelike polisiebeampte om (1) nie boeie saam D te geneem het nie, en (2) nie sy passasier saam te geneem het nie. Die voorsorgmaatreël en vereiste dat twee lede van die mag aan patrolliediens moes deelneem, was geheel en al verontagsaam. (Op 437f - i.)

Beslis, verder, dat die redelike lid van die polisie een was wat, onder andere, die standaarde gehandhaaf het wat as die vereiste norm daar gestel was. Dit het, onder andere, die volgende behels: (1) E Elke gearresteerde moet dadelik geboei word met sy hande agter sy rug. 'n Man so geboei was so te sê geneutraliseer en het geen gevaar gestel nie. (2) Daar was geen diskresie daarmee nie, veral betreffende 'n persoon soos die gearresteerde in hierdie saak. (3) Elke gearresteerde was 'n potensiële gevaar vir beide die polisie en die F algemene publiek. (4) So 'n persoon was op sy gevaarlikste: wanneer hy geboei word; en ook wanneer hy in 'n vangwa geplaas word. (5) Om gevaar sover moontlik te bekamp, moet 'n polisiebeampte wat op patrolliediens gaan sy toerusting en, in besonder, sy boeie en sy passasier, waar beskikbaar, saamneem. (6) Indien nodig, moet 'n polisiebeampte versterking aanvra waar dit beskikbaar was soos in hierdie geval. (Op 440f - i.) G

Beslis, verder, dat in casu het S in elke opsig onredelik opgetree. (Op 440i.)

Beslis, verder, dat, met verwysing na die doelwitte en rede vir die bestaan van die polisiediens, die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 en die onderskeie toetse soos uiteengesit in regspraak, onregmatigheid, nalatigheid en kousaliteit op die feite bewys was. Die verweerder was dus aanspreeklik vir die eiser se skade. (Op 440a - b en 442d - j.)

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Arrest — Law relating to arrest — Standing orders of police setting minimum H standards to be maintained by reasonable policeman — Such minimum standards comprising that (1) every arrestee to have hands handcuffed behind his back; (2) there is no discretion in regard thereto; (3) every arrestee was potential danger to police and public; (4) arrestee most dangerous when being handcuffed and when being put in police van; (5) to avoid danger policeman on patrol duty to take his I equipment, in particular his handcuffs, and police passenger with him; and (6), where necessary, to request police reinforcements — Where policeman failing to take handcuffs and police passenger with him when called out, held that he was guilty of severe dereliction of duty — Police held delictually liable for injuries caused to member of public as result of such dereliction of duty. J

2003 (2) SACR p425

Headnote : Kopnota

The plaintiff had been seriously injured after being shot. The incident occurred when a policeman, S, went alone to investigate a A charge of housebreaking. On the scene S had failed to call for backup and proceeded alone to confront a suspect and arrest him. S did not have handcuffs with him and accordingly failed to handcuff the suspect. While S was in the process of putting the suspect in the police van, the suspect overpowered him and took his service pistol. Numerous shots were fired and at least one hit the plaintiff, a member of the public. B The police had standing orders which prescribed to police officers what equipment to take on patrol, as well as how to act when investigating a call-out and arresting a suspect. The plaintiff instituted action in a Provincial Division against the defendant for damages. The only points in dispute were: (1) Whether there was a legal duty on defendant and/or S towards the plaintiff to prevent the shooting incident in which the C plaintiff was wounded and/or whether his failure to prevent it was unlawful. (2) Whether S was negligent in one or more of the respects set out in the particulars of claim, and whether it was reasonably foreseeable that S's failure would cause damages for the plaintiff. (3) Whether the act or failure was in law causally connected to the damages suffered by the plaintiff. D

Held, that the police's standing orders documented the required minimum standard at which a reasonable policeman should have conducted himself; in other words, the failure to comply therewith, especially in regard to handcuffs and the use thereof in circumstances such as applied in the present case, was such that S dit not act as a reasonable member of the police and this was further emphasised by his failure to take a colleague with him. (At 436j - 437b.) E

Held, that S was guilty of serious dereliction of duty as policeman in that he (1) did not take handcuffs with him and (2) he did not take a colleague with him. The precaution and requirement that two members of the force had to do patrols together, was totally ignored. (At 437f - i.)

Held, further, that the reasonable member of the police was one who, inter alia, complied with the standard that was set F as the required norm. It entailed, inter alia, the following: (1) Every arrested person should be handcuffed immediately with his hands behind his back. A man so handcuffed was neutralised and did not pose a threat. (2) There was no discretion in regard thereto, especially with reference to a person such as the arrestee in this case. (3) Every arrested person was a potential danger to both the police and the general public. (4) Such a person was most dangerous: when he was being handcuffed; and when he was placed in the police van. G (5) To avoid danger as far as possible, a police officer on patrol should take his equipment, and in particular his handcuffs, and a colleague, where available, with him. (6) If necessary, the police officer should ask for assistance where it was available, as it was in this case. (At 440f - i.) H

Held, further, that in casu S had acted unreasonably in every respect. (At 440i.)

Held, further, that on the facts and with reference to the objects and reasons for the existence of the police service, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 and the respective tests set out in the decided cases, unlawfulness, negligence and causation had been proved. The defendant was liable for the plaintiff's damages. (At 440a - b and 442d - j.) I

Aantekeninge/Annotations:

Cases cited

Gerapporteerde sake/Reported cases

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2001 (1) SA 489 (HHA): dictum op/at 494C - D toegepas/applied J

...