Comment: Death on the roads and dolus eventualis – S v Humphreys 2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA)

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Pages: 75-85
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Author: Shannon Hoctor

Death on the roads and

dolus eventualis – S v Humphreys

2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA)

SHANNON HOCTOR

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pieterm aritzburg

1. Introduction

Despite precedent sanctioning this approach (S v Van Zyl 1969 (1)

SA 553 (A) at 557B-C), there has until recently b een considerable

prosecutorial reluctance to charge those who have caused death on

the roads with murder. However, in two recent High Court cases, S

v Qeqe [2011] 3 All SA 570 (ECG) and S v Humphreys 2012 JDR 0277

(WCC), murder convictions were obtained where the accused drove

with disregard for the lives of others on the road, and by their ac tions

caused the death of child pedestr ians and the death of child ren who

were passengers in the accused’s vehicle, respectively. Central to these

convictions was the concept of dolus eventualis, t he form of intention

which does not ref‌lect the aim and object of the accu sed (this is direct

intention or dolus directus) but rather where the accused ‘foresees

the possibility of the circ umstance existing or consequence ensu ing

and proceeds with his or her conduct’ ( JM Burchell South African

Criminal Law and Procedure Vol I: General Pr inciples of Criminal

Law 4ed (2011) 363). The latter case of Humphreys was however taken

on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the question of dolus

eventualis in the context of de ath on the roads was reconsidered.

2. Fac ts

The charges of murder and attempted murder arose from a n incident

when the appellant, a minibus tax i-driver, drove his taxi over a railway

crossing near Blackheath, Cape Town. The taxi, which was tran sporting

children to school, was hit by a train, resu lting in ten of the fourteen

passengers in the vehicle being fatally wounded, whilst t he remaining

four children were seriously injured. The appellant a lso sustained

injuries in the collision. The appella nt was accordingly charged with

ten counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder, and

was convicted on all counts in the Western Cape High Cour t, and

sentenced to an effective period of twenty years’ impri sonment. Both

the convictions and the sentence were challenged on appeal.

75

(2013) 26 SACJ 75

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd