R v van Vuuren and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: van der Riet J and Graham AJ
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1961
• Citation: 1961 (3) SA 305 (E)
• Hearing Date: 29 May 1961
• Court: Eastern Cape Division

van der Riet, J.:

The appellants were convicted upon a charge of assault, cautioned and discharged, and against this conviction they appeal on the grounds that the evidence did not support the conviction, and that in fact no assault was committed.

Van der Riet J

It would appear that at a prize-giving of the Hankey School the complainant, who is a teacher at the school, felt aggrieved because his name had been omitted by the chairman of the school committee in his speech of thanks to the staff generally. As a result of this the A complainant initiated a discussion with the chairman. This eventually deteriorated into a most reprehensible scene in which the complainant appears to have lost control of himself and behaved in a shameful manner, using language in public and in the presence of children which deserves the gravest censure.

The complainant undoubtedly courted such rough handling as he received, B as the sentence shows, and the only question for decision is whether this rough handling was justified or was unlawful and amounted to an assault.

This scene was witnessed by a number of persons, and needless to say in the turmoil their versions differ greatly. In this conflict the magistrate chose the version of the only trained observer present, C Sergeant Wolmarans of the SA Police. The sergeant is apparently a friend of both appellants, and therefore his evidence for the State should be unbiassed. He stated that after the altercation in the hall the complainant came out onto the stoep, whereupon the first appellant said: 'Ek gaan jou klap,' and the complainant replied: 'Waarom klap jy D nie?' which remark he thereafter kept on repeating, until 'Besk. No. 1 gryp hom toe aan sy regter arm en ruk hom van die trappe af en klaer het teen mnr. J. le Roux gesteier'.

It was suggested that before the first appellant laid hands on the complainant the latter had in some way threatened him, but this was E denied by Sgt. Wolmarans who said that 'klaer was kwaai en opgewonde maar nie dreigend nie'.

Thereafter on his way to the car the complainant encountered the second appellant, and further words passed between these two and the second appellant's wife. To the latter the complainant used some unbelievably F foul language, as a result of which the witness says:'Besk. No. 2 het toe na klaer geloop en hom aan sy arm gevat en gesê 'Jy moet onthou wat jy sê',' whereupon the witness walked between them and intervened.

The...