S v Mbatha en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

S v Mbatha en Andere
1987 (2) SA 272 (A)

1987 (2) SA p272

Citation	1987 (2) SA 272 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Jansen AR, Joubert AR, Boshoff Wn AR en Nestadt Wn AR
Heard	November 13, 1986
Judgment	November 27, 1986

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Strafprosesreg — Getuienis — Erkennings en bekentenisse — Bekentenissef — Toelaatbaarheid van — Afneem van bekentenisse deur ondersoekbeampte in hoedanigheid van vrederegter — Geen juridiese grondslag bestaan waarvolgens H sodanige praktyk as onreëlmatigheid bestempel kan word nie — Offisier verbonde aan ondersoekeenheid regtens bevoeg om bekentenisse af te neem en howe kan hom dit nie ontneem nie — Howe beskik nie oor bevoegdheid om toelaatbaarheidsvereistes vir bekentenisse deur offisiere as vrederegter afgeneem te stel wat nie deur art 217(1)(a) van Wet I 51 van 1977 voorgeskryf is nie.

Strafreg — Persone, aanspreeklikheid van — Gemeenskaplike oogmerk — Ons reg stel nie subjektiewe kennis aan kant van socius criminis by aanklag van moord dat dader se vuurwapen gelaai is of sy mes skerp is as voorvereiste vir dolus eventualis nie — Feit dat socius criminis nie subjektief J kennis gedra het van omstandigheid dat wapen gelaai was nie, kan wel relevant wees by oorweging van

1987 (2) SA p273

vraag of socius criminis moontlikheid subjektief voorsien het A dat aanwending van wapen tot dood van slagoffer kan lei, as een van fasette van dolus eventualis — Sodanige ondersoek bloot feitekwessie en nie regsreël nie wat relevant is by oorweging van voorsienbaarheid as faset van dolus eventualis.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die kritiek wat in die saak van S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) B op 743C - G uitgespreek is op die gebruik dat 'n polisie-offisier verbonde aan 'n ondersoekeenheid bekentenisse afneem ten opsigte van misdade, die ondersoek waarvan onder sy bevel plaasvind, gaan te ver. Daar bestaan geen juridiese grondslag om sodanige praktyk as 'n onreëlmatigheid te bestempel nie. Die Wetgewer ontsê nie 'n offisier wat aan 'n ondersoekeenheid verbonde is die bevoegdheid om bekentenisse af te neem nie en die Howe kan hom dit ook nie ontneem nie. Die C Howe het geen bevoegdheid om toelaatbaarheidsvereistes vir bekentenisse deur offisiere as vrederegters afgeneem te stel wat nie deur art 217(1)(a) van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 voorgeskryf is nie.

Ons reg stel subjektiewe kennis aan die kant van die socius criminis (by 'n aanklag van roof en moord) dat die dader se vuurwapen gelaai is of dat sy mes skerp is nie as voorvereiste vir dolus eventualis as opsetsvorm nie. Die feit dat so 'n socius criminis nie subjektief kennis gedra het van die D omstandigheid dat die dader se vuurwapen gelaai is nie of dat sy mes nie skerp is nie kan wel relevant wees by oorweging van die vraag of die socius criminis die moontlikheid subjektief voorsien het dat die dader se aanwending van die vuurwapen in die pleeg van die roof op die dood van die slagoffer mag uitloop, as een van die fasette van dolus eventualis as opsetsvorm. Dit is bloot 'n feite-kwessie en nie 'n regsreël nie wat relevant is by die oorweging van voorsienbaarheid as 'n faset van dolus eventualis. E

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Evidence — Admissions and confessions — Confessions — Admissibility of — Taking of confessions by investigating officer in capacity of justice of the peace — No legal basis upon which such practice can be labelled as an irregularity — Officer attached to investigating unit legally entitled to take confessions and Courts cannot deny him this — Courts not entitled to lay down requirements of admissibility for confessions taken by F officers as justices of the peace not provided for by s 217(1)(a) of Act 51 of 1977.

Criminal law — Persons, liability of — Common purpose — Our law does not require subjective knowledge by socius criminis on a charge of murder that perpetrator's firearm was loaded or that his knife was sharp as prerequisite for dolus eventualis — Fact that socius criminis had no subjective knowledge of circumstance that firearm was loaded maybe G relevant to the consideration of the question whether socius criminis had subjectively foreseen possibility that application of weapon could lead to death of victim, as one of facets of dolus eventualis — Such enquiry a mere factual issue and not legal rule relevant to consideration of foreseeability as facet of dolus eventualis.

Headnote : Kopnota

The criticism in the case of S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) at 743C - G directed at the practice of a police officer attached H to an investigating unit taking down confessions in respect of crimes, the investigation whereof takes place under his command, goes too far. There exists no legal basis for labelling such practice as an irregularity. The Legislature does not deny an officer attached to an investigating unit the right to take down confessions and the Courts can also not deny him this. The Courts are not entitled to lay down requirements for admissibility of confessions taken down by officers as justices of the peace which are not prescribed by s 217(1)(a) I of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

Our law does not require subjective knowledge on the part of the socius criminis (in regard to a charge of robbery and murder) that the perpetrator's firearm was loaded or that his knife was sharp as a prerequisite for dolus eventualis. The fact that such a socius criminis did not have subjective knowledge of the fact that the perpetrator's firearm was loaded or that his knife was sharp could well be relevant to the consideration of the question whether the socius criminis J subjectively foresaw the

1987 (2) SA p274

possibility that the perpetrator's application of the weapon in the commission of the robbery might lead to the death of the A victim, as one of the facets of dolus eventualis as a form of intent. This is merely a factual issue and not a legal rule relevant to the consideration of foreseeability as a facet of dolus eventualis.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n belissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike B Afdeling (McCreath R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Joubert AR.

C J Munks op versoek van die Hof namens appellante 1, 2, 3, 6 en 7 het na die volgende gesag verwys: R v Garnsworthy and Others 1923 WLD 17 at 19; R v Barlin 1926 AD 459 at 465 - 6; R v Jonas and Others 1928 CPD 520 at 526; R v Becker 1929 AD 167 C at 171; R v Gumede and Another 1942 AD 398 at 433; R v Nthlangisa and Another 1946 AD 1101 at 1105 - 6; R v Kuzwayo 1949 (3) SA 761 (A) at 768; R v Mkhize 1953 (2) SA 324 (A) at 336A - C; R v Jacobs 1954 (2) SA 320 (A) at 327A; R v Hercules 1954 (3) SA 826 (A) at 830H - 831A; R v Nsele 1955 (2) SA 145 (A) at 148A - F and 151A - F; R v Balla 1955 (3) SA 274 (A) at 275C - D; R v Selebano and Another 1957 (1) SA 384 (O) at D 388A - C; R v Mlambo 1957 (4) SA 727 (A) at 738B - E; R v Masinyana 1958 (1) SA 616 (A) at 621A - D; R v Ndoyana and Another 1958 (2) SA 562 (E) at 563D - F; R v Samson 1959 (1) SA 893 (C) at 893F - G; R v Tebetha 1959 (2) SA 337 (A) at 346D - F; R v Kgolane and Others 1960 (1) PH H110; S v Malinga and Others 1963 (1) SA 692 (A) at 694F - 695C; S v Mini 1963 (3) SA 188 (A) E at 192; S v Nkombani 1963 (4) SA 877 (A) at 896C - D; S v Babada 1964 (1) SA 26 (A) at 27E; S v Majozi and Others 1964 (1) SA 68 (N) at 74A - F; S v Dikgale 1965 (1) SA 209 (A) at 214E; S v Lebone 1965 (2) SA 837 (A) at 843A - C and 843A - D; S v Mkwanazi and Others 1966 (1) SA 736 (A) at 746F - 747C; R v Mharadzo 1966 (2) SA 702 (RA) at 703H - 704B; S v Mahlala and Others 1967 (2) SA 401 (W) at 404A - C; F S v Sigwahla 1967 (4) SA 566 (A) at 570B - F and 571A - 572B; S v Sebeko 1968 (1) SA 495 (A) at 497B - F; S v Nell 1968 (2) SA 576 (A) at 580C; S v Van den Bergh 1968 (3) SA 250 (A) at 252B - C; S v De Bruyn en Andere 1968 (4) SA 498 (A) at 500D - H, 505D - G and 509H - 510A; S v Mofokeng and Another 1968 (4) SA 852 (W) at 857B - E and 858C - N; S v Radebe and G Another 1968 (4) SA 410 (A) at 416D, 418D - H, 419A - B; S v Madladla 1969 (2) SA 637 (A) at 640F; S v Mtshiza 1970 (3) SA 747 (A) at 752A - C; S v Letsolo 1970 (3) SA 476 (A) at 476G - H; S v Dhlamini and Another 1971 (1) SA 807 (A) at 815A - B and 815G - H; S v Mdluli and Others 1972 (2) SA 839 (A) at 841A - C; S v P 1972 (3) SA 412 (A) at 416C - F; S v H Kritzinger 1973 (1) SA 596 (C) at 602D - E; S v Bvuure 1974 (1) SA 208 (R) at 212A; S v X 1974 (1) SA 344 (RA) at 348D - G; S v Grove-Mitchell 1975 (3) SA 417 (A) at 419E - F; S v Lebea 1975 (4) SA 337 (W) at 338F - H; S v De Bruyn 1976 (1) SA 496 (A) at 500D - F; S v Harman 1978 (3) SA 767 (A) at 770E; S v Mafela 1980 (3) SA 825 (A) at 829F - G; S v Maxaba and Others 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) at 1156B - D; S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) I at 743E - G; S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 184B - D and 184H - 185C; S v Khoza en Andere 1984 (1) SA 57 (A) at 59E - 60A; S v Smith and Others 1984 (1) SA 583 (A) at 593E - F and 592H - 593C; S v Theron 1984 (2) SA 868 (A) at 880H; S v Ngoma 1984 (3) SA 666 (A) at 673H - I; S v Magwaza 1985 (3) SA 29 (A) at 36D - H, 38B - F, 39E - H, J 37A - C and 41C - H; S v Masuku and Others 1985 (3) SA 908 (A) at 912D and 913E; S v Mtsweni 1985 (1) SA 590 (A) at

1987 (2) SA p275

594B - D; Burchell and Hunt South African Criminal Law and A Procedure vol I 2nd ed at 148; C W H Schmidt Bewysreg 2nd ed at 533 - 4; Hoffmann and Zeffertt The South African Law of Evidence 3rd ed at 182 - 4. Verder op die feite.

J K Berlowitz namens appellante 4 en 5 het na die volgende gesag verwys: R v Barlin 1926 AD 459 at 456 - 66; R v Kuzwayo B 1949 (3) SA 761 (A) at 768; R v Selebano and Another 1957 (1) SA 384 (O) at 388; S v Mofokeng and Another 1968 (4) SA 852 (W) at 858H and 859A - H; S v Dhlamini and Another 1971 (1) SA 807 (A) at 815A - C; S v Mdluli and Others 1972 (2) SA 839 (A) at 841A - C; S v...