Rex v Scheepers

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Innes CJ, Solomon JA and CG Maasdorp JA
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1915
• Citation: 1915 AD 337
• Hearing Date: 04 May 1915
• Court: Appellate Division

Innes, C.J.:

The relationship of teacher and pupil justifies the infliction of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment where necessary for purposes of correction and discipline. The limits within which the right to inflict such punishment is confined, so far as schools in this Province are concerned, will be found in Ordinance No. 9 of 1913. The sub-section dealing with the matter is in the following terms: -

"Corporal punishment shall be administered only in cases of habitual and gross neglect of duty, disobedience, obstinacy or vice. Such punishment shall be inflicted only by or in the presence of the Principal or Vice-principal, after careful enquiry, and not in the presence of the pupils. It shall not be cruelly administered."

Now, before dealing with what the subjection does contain, I should like to express my view upon something which it does not contain. To my mind, it is in the highest degree undesirable that corporal punishment should be sanctioned when administered by male teachers upon female pupils. I think it would be well if it were laid down that such punishment, so far as girls are concerned, should be carried out only by women teachers of a certain standing. An illustration of the desirability of such a stipulation is afforded by the circumstances attending this very case. For the mother of the little girl, in the first instance, objected to the indignity, to which she considered her daughter had been submitted more than to the physical severity of the chastisement. However, we must consider the sub-section as it stands. In regard to the offences for which corporal punishment may be, given, the Master is the beat judge of whether they have been committed; he makes his investigation on the spot, and immediately after the occurrence, and if he bona fide considers that a particular offence has been brought home to the pupil, a Court of law would refuse to interfere, on that point. But the sub-section provides

Innes, C.J.

that the punishment must not be "cruelly administered." Now, "cruelly" is a word which in this connection must largely speak for itself. It is difficult to define it; but I think that manifest excess or immoderation is strong evidence of cruelty within the meaning of the Statute. In enquiring into the element of cruelty, we must have regard to the nature of the offence, the age and condition of the child, the amount of punishment inflicted, and the nature of the instrument used. Other conditions may sometimes call for attention, but these are sufficient in a case like the present. The facts are fairly clear. This child had been told to go home and fetch a book; and it is alleged that she was heard to declare that she would not come back. This was reported by her class mistress to the appellant, who was Principal of the school: he took the statements of certain boys, who said they had overheard her, and he satisfied himself that she had told a lie. He then endeavoured to induce her to acknowledge the fact, in order that le might read her, as he says, the moral lesson. She obstinately refused. He then took her head under his arm, pressed her against his knee, hooked his right foot round here and administered five strokes with a strap fastened to a stick. The strokes were in the region of...