S v Mokgethi en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

S v Mokgethi en Andere
1990 (1) SA 32 (A)

1990 (1) SA p32

Citation	1990 (1) SA 32 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Van Heerden AR, Vivier AR, MT Steyn AR, Kumleben AR, Friedman Wn AR
Heard	August 22, 1989
Judgment	September 18, 1989

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Strafreg — Moord — Veroorsaking — Verwyderdheid van gevolg — In die reël is 'n handeling wat 'n sine qua non van oorledene se dood was te ver verwyderd vir die ontstaan van strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid waar die oorledene se versuim om mediese advies in te win of instruksies na te kom die onmiddellike oorsaak van sy dood was; waar die verwonding nie C insigself lewensgevaarlik was nie of dit nie meer op die tersaaklike tydstip was nie; en die versuim relatief onredelik was met inagneming van die eienskappe ens van die oorledene.

Headnote : Kopnota

D In die reël is 'n dader se handeling wat 'n sine qua non van die slagoffer se dood was, te ver verwyderd van die gevolg om tot strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid daarvoor te lei indien:

(a)

'n versuim van die slagoffer om mediese of soortgelyke advies in te win, behandeling te ondergaan of instruksies na te kom die onmiddellike oorsaak van sy dood was;

(b)

E die verwonding nie in sigself lewensgevaarlik was nie of dit nie meer op die tersaaklike tydstip was nie; en

(c)

die versuim relatief onredelik was, dit wil sê onredelik ook met inagneming van die eienskappe, oortuigings ensovoorts van die slagoffer.

Die appellante is in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling skuldig bevind aan onder andere moord wat tydens 'n rooftog gepleeg is en is ter dood veroordeel. F Die oorledene was 'n bankteller en is deur een van die appellante tussen die skoublaaie geskiet. Die oorledene het nie onmiddellik beswyk nie en is eers ongeveer ses maande daarna oorlede. Op appèl is dit namens die appellante aangevoer dat, alhoewel die skietwond 'n oorsaak van die oorledene se dood was, dit nie regtens sy dood veroorsaak het nie. Volgens die getuienis het die oorledene as gevolg van die skoot 'n parapleeg geword en moes gebruik maak van 'n rolstoel. Sy toestand het tot so 'n mate verbeter dat hy later sy werk by die bank hervat het. Hy is egter later weer in die hospitaal opgeneem weens erge druksere en septisemie wat ontstaan het omdat hy versuim het om homself in die rolstoel genoegsaam te verskuif in weerwil van die mediese advies tot G dien effekte wat aan hom gegee is.

Beslis, op 'n toepassing van die bostaande beginsels op die feite van die onderhawige saak, dat die verwonding van die oorledene nie as regsoorsaak van sy dood vir die doeleindes van 'n aanklag van moord beskou kon word nie.

Beslis, gevolglik, dat die skuldigbevindings aan moord en die doodsvonnisse ter syde gestel moes word en vervang moes word met H skuldigbevindings aan poging tot moord. Die appellante is elkeen gevonnis tot tien jaar gevangenisstraf ten opsigte van hierdie aanklag.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal law — Murder — Causation — Remoteness of result — Generally speaking an act which is a sine qua non for the deceased's death is too I remote to give rise to criminal liability where the deceased's failure to obtain medical advice or to comply with treatment is the immediate cause of his death; where the wounding in itself did not pose a threat to life or at the relevant time had ceased to pose such a threat; and where the deceased's failure was relatively unreasonable considering the characteristics etc of the deceased.

Headnote : Kopnota

In general, a perpetrator's action which is a sine qua non for the death of the deceased is too remote from the result to give rise to criminal J liability in respect thereof if:

1990 (1) SA p33

(a)

A a failure on the part of the deceased to obtain medical or similar advice, to undergo treatment or to follow instructions as to his treatment is the immediate cause of his death;

(b)

the wounding was not in itself lethal or was no longer lethal at the relevant time; and

(c)

such failure was relatively unreasonable, that is unreasonable also taking into account the characteristics, convictions etc of the deceased.

B The appellants had been convicted in a Provincial Division of inter alia murder which had been committed during a robbery and were sentenced to death. The deceased was a bank teller and was shot between the shoulder blades during the robbery by one of the appellants. The deceased did not die immediately but only some six months later. On appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellants that, although the shooting of the deceased was a cause of the deceased's death, it did not in law cause his death. According to the evidence the deceased had become a C paraplegic as a result of the shot and had to make use of a wheelchair. His condition improved to such an extent that he later resumed his work at the bank. He was, however, later readmitted to hospital suffering from serious pressure sores and septicaemia which had developed because he failed sufficiently to shift his position in the wheelchair as he had been advised to do by the medical practitioners who treated him.

Held, on an application of the above principles to the facts of the case, that the wounding of the deceased could not be regarded as a D juridical cause of the deceased's death for the purposes of a charge of murder.

Held, accordingly, that the convictions of murder and the death sentences had to be set aside and replaced with convictions of attempted murder. The appellants were each sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in respect of this count. E

Case Information

Appèl teen skuldigbevindings aan moord en doodsvonnisse opgelê in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (Smit R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Van Heerden AR.

F H J Brandt namens die eerste tot die vierde appellante (namens die tweede appellant op versoek van die Hof) het na die volgende gesag verwys: Snyman Strafreg 2de uitg op 64 ev; Visser en Vorster General Principles of Criminal Law through the Cases 2de uitg op 92; Gardiner en Lansdown South African Criminal Law and Procedure 5de uitg band II op 1410; S v Mokoena 1979 (1) PH H13 (A); S v Daniëls en 'n Ander 1983 (3) SA 275 (A) op 331B - C; Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) op 33 ev; R v John 1969 (2) SA 560 (RA) op 571E - F; Joubert (red) Law of G South Africa band 6 'Criminal Law - General Principles' para 31; Hunt en Milton South African Criminal Law and Procedure 2de uitg band II op 344 ev; R v Loubser 1953 (2) PH H190 (W); R v Motomane 1961 (4) SA 569 (W) op 571 - 2; R v Mubila 1956 (1) SA 31 (SR) op 33; S v Mini 1963 (3) SA 188 (A) op 196E - F; S v Bochris Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another H 1988 (1) SA 861 (A) op 866J - 867A; S v Van As 1976 (2) SA 921 (A); S v Diedericks 1981 (3) SA 940 (C); Hiemstra SA Strafproses 4de uitg; S v Mkize 1979 (1) SA 461 (A); S v Letsolo 1970 (3) SA 476 (A) op 476 - 7; S v V 1972 (3) SA 611 (A) op 614F; S v Bapela 1985 (1) SA 236 (A) op 245B - C; S v S 1987 (2) SA 307 (A) op 314C - H; S v Sampson 1987 (2) SA 620 (A) op 624 ev; S v Tuhadeleni and Others 1969 (1) SA 153 (A) op 189; I S v Whitehead 1970 (4) SA 424 (A) op 438F; S v Burger 1975 (4) SA 877 (A); S v Skenjana 1985 (3) SA 51 (A).

C F Eckard namens die vyfde appellant op versoek van die Hof het na die volgende gesag verwys: S v Daniëls en 'n Ander 1983 (3) SA 275 (A); J R v Loubser 1953 (2) PH H190 (W); Snyman Strafreg 2de uitg op 64 ev;

1990 (1) SA p34

A Hunt en Milton South African Criminal Law and Procedure 2de uitg band II op 344 ev; Visser en Vorster General Principles of Criminal Law through the Cases 2de uitg; Van Oosten 'Oorsaaklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Strafreg' 1983 De Iure 36; Joubert (red) Law of South Africa band 6 para 32; R v Mubilo 1956 (1) SA 31 (SR); R v Kristasamy 1945 AD 549; R v B Gumede 1949 (3) SA 749 (A); S v Mokonto 1971 (2) SA 319 (A); R v W and Another 1960 (3) SA 247 (OK); S v Robinson 1968 (1) SA 666 (A); Hiemstra Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproses 4de uitg; S v Fick 1970 (4) SA 510 (N); S v Tuhadeleni and Others 1969 (1) SA 153 (A); S v Snyman 1987 (2) SA 620 (A).

W R Malan namens die Staat het na die volgende gesag verwys: S v Grotjohn 1970 (2) SA 355 (A); S v Daniëls en 'n Ander 1983 (3) SA 275 (A); C S v van As en 'n Ander 1967 (4) SA 594 (A); R v Loubser 1953 (2) PH H190 (W); Hunt en Milton South African Criminal Law and Procedure 2de uitg band II op 344 ev; Snyman Strafprosesreg 2de uitg op 64 - 9; S v Dlamini 1984 (3) SA 360 (N); R v Mubila 1956 (1) SA 31 (SR); S v Mabok 1968 (4) SA 811 (R); S v Taylor 1967 (2) PH H301 (SWA); R v Du Plessis D 1960 (2) SA 642 (T); S v Hibbert 1979 (4) SA 717 (D); De Wet en Swanepoel Strafreg 4de uitg op 63 - 4; R v Gabriel (1908) 27 NLR 750; S v Willliams 1986 (4) SA 1188 (A); Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A); S v Sedaba 1964 (1) SA 26 (A); Hiemstra Suid-Afrikaanse Strafprosesreg 4de uitg; S v Shaik and Others 1983 (4) SA 57 (A); S v Talane 1986 (3) SA 196 (A); S v Rapitsi 1987 (4) SA 351 (A); S v Mooi E 1985 (1) SA 625 (A); S v De Jager 1965 (2) SA 616 (A); S v Fazzi and Others 1964 (4) SA 673 (A); Ex parte Neethling and Others 1951 (4) SA 331 (A); S v Marmola 1976 (2) SA 587 (A); R v S 1958 (3) SA 102 (A); S v Ivanisevic 1967 (4) SA 572 (A); S v Anderson 1964 (3) SA 494 (A); S v Sibiya 1973 (2) SA 51 (A); S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A); S v Pillay 1977 (4) SA 531 (A).

F Cur adv vult.

Postea (September 18).

Judgment

Van Heerden AR:

Op 19 November 1986 het die vyf appellante in 'n gesteelde voertuig na die middedorp van Rustenburg gereis. Al vyf was G gewapen en hul oogmerk was om die tak van Eerste Nasionale Bank (destyds Barclays Bank) in Pleinstraat te beroof. Die vyfde appellant was die bestuurder van die voertuig (die Toyota) en het dit naby die bankgebou (die bank) geparkeer. Hy het in die Toyota sit en wag terwyl die ander vier appellante die...