S v Mavuso

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1989 (4) SA 800 (T)

S v Mavuso
1989 (4) SA 800 (T)

1989 (4) SA p800

Citation	1989 (4) SA 800 (T)
Court	Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Flemming R en Mynhardt R
Heard	September 20, 1988
Judgment	September 20, 1988

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Strafproses — Akte van beskuldiging en aanklag — Onbehoorlike vermenigvuldiging van aanklagte — Wat uitmaak — Beskuldigde skuldig bevind aan twee aanklagte van strafbare manslag — Twee oorledenes albei insittendes van motor wat beskuldigde besig was om van die pad af te C stoot toe dit getref is deur aankomende motor — Op hersiening het Hof bevind dat dit neerkom op dubbele skuldigbevinding — Beskuldigde was slegs met een strafbare handeling besig, naamlik stoot van motor na verkeerde kant van pad — Dubbele skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel en vervang met een skuldigbevinding aan strafbare manslag ten opsigte van D twee oorledenes.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die beskuldigde is in 'n landdroshof skuldig bevind op twee aanklagte van strafbare manslag ten opsigte van sy vader en sy tante, wat gesterf het terwyl hulle passasiers was in 'n voertuig wat die beskuldigde besig E was om na sy regterkant van die pad te stoot toe dit getref is deur 'n motor wat van voor aangekom het. Op hersiening was die enigste vraag wat ter sprake gekom het, of die feit dat beskuldigde twee maal skuldig bevind is op 'n dubbele skuldigbevinding neergekom het.

Beslis, dat dit by die vasstelling daarvan of 'n beskuldigde met een of meerdere misdrywe besig was, belangrik was om telkens terug te keer na die basiese vraag, naamlik om te oorweeg waarmee die beskuldigde eintlik F doenig was toe hy die relevante gedrag gepleeg het en om te weet nie net waarop die opset in die tegniese sin gerig was nie maar om ook te kyk na die oogmerk waarmee die beskuldigde opgetree het. Die afsonderlikheid al dan nie van die beskuldigde se doenigheid bly in die eerste plek 'n feite-vraag en afleidings het 'n rol te speel.

Dicta in S v Grobler 1966 (1) SA 507 (A) op 526F - G en R v Kuzwayo 1960 (1) SA 340 (A) op 343H - 344B toegepas.

G Beslis, verder, dat aangesien by strafbare manslag die beskuldigde hom nie versoen met die gevolg van sy werkswyse nie, daar in sy gemoed tydens die veroorsakingsproses geen verskil is of een of twee persone sterf nie, en dat die heersende oordeel omtrent billikheid in dié konteks is dat die feit dat meer as een persoon gedood is nie daaraan afdoen nie dat 'n beskuldigde wesenlik een strafbare handeling begaan het nie.

H Beslis, verder, op die feite, dat die beskuldigde met net een ding doenig was, naamlik om sy stukkende voertuig na die verkeerde kant van die pad oor te stoot en dat hy derhalwe slegs aan een aanklag van strafbare manslag skuldig bevind moes gewees het.

Beslis, verder, ten opsigte van die landdros se besorgdheid oor die implikasies van 'n enkele skuldigbevinding sou 'n verdere slagoffer eers na die onskuldigbevinding te sterwe kom, dat die toekomstige I beskikbaarheid van autrefois acquit by 'n vervolging in verband met die dood van 'n verdere slagoffer nie tersake was by die vraag hoe die saak huidiglik hanteer moes word, waar twee selfstandige voltooide misdrywe gekoppel is aan dieselfde nalatigheid en gelyktydig voor dieselfde hof bereg word nie, en dat daar tog wel ruimte vir 'n tweede vervolging is wanneer 'n ander misdryf voltooiing bereik.

Beslis, derhalwe, dat die skuldigbevinding soos deur die landdros aangeteken vervang moes word met 'n enkele skuldigbevinding aan J strafbare manslag ten opsigte van die dood van die twee oorledenes.

1989 (4) SA p801

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

A Criminal procedure — Indictment and charge — Improper splitting of charges — What amounts to — Accused convicted on two counts of culpable homicide — Both deceased passengers in motor vehicle which accused was busy pushing off the road when it was hit by an oncoming car, causing their deaths — Court finding on review that this amounted to a duplication of convictions — Accused had been busy with only one culpable action, viz pushing vehicle to wrong side of road — Two convictions set aside and substituted with one conviction of culpable B homicide in respect of the two deceased.

Headnote : Kopnota

The accused was convicted in a magistrate's court on two counts of culpable homicide, in respect of his father and his aunt, who died whilst they were passengers in a motor vehicle which the accused was busy pushing to the right hand side of the road when it was hit by an oncoming vehicle. On review, the only question in issue was whether C there had been a duplication of convictions.

Held, that in determining whether the accused had been busy with one or several offences, it was important constantly to return to the basic question, namely to consider what the accused was actually doing when he committed the relevant acts and also to ascertain not simply what the intent was aimed at in the technical sense of the word but also to look at the aim with which the accused acted. The separateness (or otherwise) of the accused's actions remained in the first place a factual question D and deductions had a role to play.

Dicta in S v Grobler 1966 (1) SA 507 (A) at 526F - G and R v Kuzwayo 1960 (1) SA 340 (A) at 343H - 344B applied.

Held, further, that, since in the case of culpable homicide the accused does not reconcile himself with the consequences of his actions, there is in his mind during the process of causation no difference whether one or two people are killed, and that current opinion as regards fairness E in this context was that the fact that more than one person was killed did not detract from the fact that an accused was essentially committing one culpable act.

Held, further, on the facts, that the accused in this case had been busy with only one action, namely pushing his broken vehicle to the wrong side of the road, and that he should therefore have been convicted of only one count of culpable homicide.

Held, further, as regards the magistrate's concern as to the F implications of a single conviction should a further victim die only after the finding of not guilty, that the future availability of autrefois acquit, at a prosecution in respect of the death of a further victim, was not relevant to the question of how the case should presently be dealt with where two independent, completed offences were linked to the same negligent act and were heard simultaneously by the same court, and that there was in any event room for a second prosecution should another offence reach completion.

G Held, therefore, that the convictions as recorded by the magistrate had to be set aside and a single conviction in respect of the death of the two deceased substituted.

Case Information H

Hersiening.

Judgment

Flemming R:

Die beskuldigde is skuldig bevind op twee aanklagte van strafbare manslag. Die twee oorledenes was sy vader en sy tante wat passasiers was in 'n voertuig wat die beskuldigde besig was om na sy regterkant van die pad te stoot toe dit getref is deur 'n motor wat van voor aangekom het. Onderhewig aan die vraag wat die landdros laat I besluit het om hersiening van die saak aan te...