Recent Case: General principles of liability

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 24 May 2019
• Date: 24 May 2019
• Citation: (2001) 14 SACJ 90
• Author: Managay Reddi
• Pages: 90-91

RECENT CASES • VONNISSE

General principles of liability

MANAGAY REDDI

University of Durban

-

Westville

Sane automatism

The appellant in

S v McDonald

2000 (2) SACR 493 (N) had unsuccessfully

raised the defence of sane automatism on a charge of murder and attempted

murder in the regional magistrate's court. He was convicted on both counts

and sentenced to 15 and 5 years' imprisonment respectively.

The facts were as follows: The appellant was divorced from his wife and

there appeared to be conflict between them in respect of the appellant's

rights to visit his children. On the day in question, the appellant had driven

from Gauteng, to his ex-wife's home in Durban to be with his children. After

a frustrating, stressful and anxious attempt to exercise his visitation rights, the

appellant shot and killed his ex-wife's lover and attempted to kill his ex-

wife's brother.

In his defence, the appellant claimed to have no recollection of what was

said to him by the deceased, nor any recollection of the shooting itself. Both

the state and the defence led unanimous pathological evidence, which

indicated that the appellant's condition at the relevant time could be

attributable only to non-pathological factors. The evidence supported the

proposition that the actions of a person acting in a state of automatism should

not be goal-directed and that such a person should lack an awareness of the

environment.

The court accepted the evidence of the expert witnesses, that for sane

automatism to avail a person there had to be a 'trigger' of extraordinary

significance. Such a trigger, which provoked a person into an automatic state,

had to be unrelated to organic factors and had to be of an extreme or severe

nature. As the court was unable, from the evidence to discern any cognisable

indication of what could have constituted the trigger necessary for the state,

which the appellant relied upon, it rejected the appellant's defence. The

court found that the appellant's behaviour had been conscious and

inconsistent with a state of automatism or episodic behavioural dyscontrol

90

(2001) 14 SACJ 90

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd