Chapter 14 - Participation 1 : Introduction and perpetrators

Question 1

Define a perpetrator

Answer 1

A person is a perpetrator if

1. His conduct, the circumstances in which takes place, (including, where relevant, a particular description with which he as a person must, according to the definition of the offence, comply) and the culpability with which it is carried out are such that she satisfies all the requirements for a liability contained in the definition of the offence

OR

2. If, although her own conduct does not comply with that required in the definition of the crime, she acted together with one or more persons and the conduct required for a conviction is imputed to him by virtue of the principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose.

Question 2

Define an accomplice

Answer 2

A person is an accomplice if

1. Although she does not comply with all the requirements for liability setout in the definition of the crime
2. Although the conduct required for a conviction is not imputed to her in terms o the doctrine of common purposes

Question 3

Distinguish between perpetrator and accomplice.

Answer 3

To determine whether someone is perpetrator, you must first look at the definition of the particular crime and, secondly, consider whether the accused’s conduct , state of mind and characteristics comply in all respects with the definition. Murder is the unlawful, intentional causing of the death of another person and anyone who, in whatever manner, unlawfully and intentionally causes the death of another person is a perpetrator of the crime or murder

Question 4

List different types of perpetrators

Answer 4

1. A direct perpetrator is a perpetrator who commits the crime with her own hands or body
2. An indirect perpetrator does not commit the crime with her body, but makes use of somebody else to commit the crime. For instance, Thabo hires Menzi to murder Lebo. If Menzi executes the assignment, he himself fires the shot at Lebo, killing Lebo. Menzi is the direct perpetrator, whereas Thabo is the indirect perpetrator.

The distinction between a direct and indirect perpetrator is of no significance for the purpose of determining liability

Question 5

Explain the doctrine of common purpose

Question 6

How can the existence of a common purpose be proved?

Answer 6

1. On the basis of an express or implied prior agreement to commit an offence
2. Where no prior agreement can be proved, the liability arises from an active association and participation in a common criminal design.

Question 7

Which is the leading case on the doctrine of common purpose?

Answer 7

it is the Safatsa case

Question 8

How can Thabo’s active association in participation in a common purpose be proven?

Answer 8

1. First, Thabo must have been present at the scene of the crime
2. Second, he must have been aware of the assault on Lebo
3. Third, Thabo must have intended to make common cause with those committing the assault
4. Fourth, he must have manifested his sharing of a common purpose by himself performing some act of association with he conduct of others
5. Fifth, he must have had the intention to kill Lebo or contribute to his death

Question 9

How can Thabo dissociate from the common purpose?

Answer 9

1. Thabo must have a clear and unambiguous intention to withdraw from such a purpose.
2. Thabo must perform some positive act of withdrawal
3. The type of act required for an effective withdrawal depends on a number f circumstances,, such as the manner and degree of the accused’s participation, how far the commission of the crime has progressed, and the manner and timing of disengagement. in some instances, what steps did Thabo take or could have taken to prevent the commission or completion of the crime?
4. A withdrawal will be effective if it takes place before the course of events has reached the commencement of execution
5. The withdrawal must be voluntary

Question 10

Summerise what the joiner-in

Answer 10

The joiner-in is a person whose attack on another did not hasten their death, whose blow was administered at a time when the person was still alive and did not act with a common purpose together with the other persons who also inflicted wounds on the other person.