Recent Case: Specific crimes
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Date | 28 August 2019 |
| Author | Ronald Louw |
| Pages | 102-105 |
| Published date | 28 August 2019 |
| Citation | (1997) 10 SACJ 102 |
RECENT CASES • VONNISSE
Specific crimes
RONALD LOUW
University of Natal, Durban
Corruption
In
S v Xaba
1996 (2) SACR 259 (N) the appellants, two policemen, had been
convicted of a contravention of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992. The trial court
found that the complainant, who was the driver of a motor vehicle at the time
of the offence, had stopped his vehicle at a stop sign. Nevertheless, the
appellants, on duty at the time, approached him and implied he would be
charged and arrested for failing to stop. Thereafter they suggested he would be
allowed to go provided he pay them a small amount of money. This he did, but
upon later reflection reported that matter to the police station.
On appeal, the appellants argued that as the trial court had found that the
complainant had stopped his vehicle, the appellants had neither the power
nor duty to arrest the complainant. Accordingly it was argued that the
appellants had not acted in terms of the Corruption Act and therefore their
conviction should be set aside.
The Act prohibits, inter alia, the giving or offering of any benefit, not legally
due, in relation to any power or duty by the offender. Furthermore the Act
repealed the common law offence of bribery and the Prevention of Corruption
Act 6 of 1958. The question the court had to answer was whether the phrase in
the Act 'in relation to such power or duty' should be interpreted broadly to
include an unjustifiable exercise of a power or duty, or restrictively to limit the
offence to occasions only when the power or duty had been exercised
justifiably.
In considering the question the court referred to
R v Chorle
which held that the common law offence of bribery is committed even where
the official concerned did not have the power to agree to do what he did.
With respect to the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, the court held
that the present Act widened the ambit of those who might be prosecuted in
terms thereof. Accordingly the court held that it would be inconceivable
that the legislature would intend to relieve from criminal liability in the new
102
(1997) 10 SACJ 102
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial