Chapter 2 - Legality Flashcards
What is the principle of legality ?
The principle of legality ensures that laws are clear and fair, providing certainty and notice to people about what is legal and the consequences for breaking the law.
What is a legal norm ?
A legal norm is a rule in law that doesn’t make a violation a crime, but simply guides acceptable behavior.
What is a criminal norm ?
A criminal norm is a law that clearly states certain actions are crimes and punishable by law.
What is a criminal sanction ?
A criminal sanction outlines the punishment (like imprisonment or a fine) a court must impose if someone is convicted of a crime.
What was the issue in the Prins case ?
The issue was that SORMA did not specify a punishment for a specific crime, and the SCA needed to decide whether the law still created a crime without a specified punishment.
What was the court’s ruling in the Prins case ?
- The court ruled that the law still created a crime.
- Section 276(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows courts to impose sentences like imprisonment, fines, or correctional supervision if no specific punishment is prescribed.
- The court has discretion to determine the punishment, limited by any statutory restrictions.
What is the implication of the ruling in the Prins case ?
- The ruling confirms that if parliament creates a crime but doesn’t specify a punishment, the principle of legality is still upheld, as long as it’s clear that the act creates an offense.
- The court doesn’t create crimes; it just assigns a general punishment under section 276(1) of the CPA, ensuring no violation of nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law) or ius acceptum (the right to accept punishment).
What was the issue in the Masiya
case ?
- The Constitutional Court expanded the definition of rape to include not only vaginal penetration but also anal penetration.
- Prior to this, anal intercourse was considered indecent assault, not rape.
What principle should be taken away from this case ?
Masiya case.
- The legality principle ensures that individuals can reasonably expect the consequences of their actions based on clear laws.
- It also protects individual autonomy by preventing arbitrary state power.
- The principle of foreseeable criminalization means laws should provide clear guidance on what is criminal and ensure individuals’ expectations align with the law.
What makes an act voluntary ?
An act is voluntary if it’s controlled by the person’s conscious will or intellect, meaning their bodily movements are intentional.
What is involuntary conduct ?
Involuntary conduct happens when a person is not consciously controlling their actions, like in cases of an epileptic fit or hypoglycemic attack.
What are the three grounds to exclude voluntariness ?
- Absolute Force: When a person is forced to act under overwhelming physical pressure, making their actions involuntary (e.g., being forced to stab someone).
- Absolute Impossibility: When a person’s omission (failure to act) would have made no difference because it was impossible to act.
- Automatism: When a person’s actions are unconscious, such as during sleepwalking, sneezing, or having a seizure.
What is Automatism ?
Automatism is when a person’s actions are unconscious, like sleepwalking or a medical condition, and they cannot control their behavior.
What are the types of Automatism ?
- Sane Automatism: A person acts involuntarily due to factors like sleepwalking. If successful, the person is acquitted and free.
- Insane Automatism: A person’s involuntary actions are due to mental illness. If successful, the person is not acquitted but will be placed in a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
What is the difference in the onus of proof between sane and insane automatism ?
- In sane automatism, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act was voluntary.
- In insane automatism, the defendant has to prove on a balance of probabilities that their actions were due to mental illness (this is a reverse onus).
Can provocation lead to sane automatism ?
- Generally, courts are skeptical of provocation as a defense for sane automatism.
- The question is whether provocation can make someone lose control to the extent that their actions are involuntary, akin to automatism.
- As an alternative, non-pathological criminal capacity (proven by mental health experts) may be used as a defense.
What is required to prove possession in a crime ?
- Corpus: The physical control over the item (e.g., holding drugs).
- Animus: The mental awareness of possessing the illegal material (e.g., knowing you are holding the drugs).
What’s the difference between material and formally defined crimes ?
- Material Crimes focus on punishing the consequences (e.g., homicide, where the result is the death).
- Formally Defined Crimes focus on punishing the act itself (e.g., traffic violations or drug possession, where the action itself is the crime).
What is Novus Actus Interveniens (NAI) in criminal law ?
- NAI refers to an intervening event that is so unexpected or extraordinary that it breaks the causal chain between the original act and the consequence.
- This can serve as a defense against causation (i.e., the defendant may not be held liable if the intervening act was independent or extraordinary).
What was the issue in Daniels Decision regarding causation ?
- Appellant 1 shot the deceased, and Appellant 2 fired a shot that caused the immediate death.
- The issue is whether Appellant 1’s actions were the cause of death.
- The court held both appellants responsible for murder, using the doctrine of common purpose (even though Appellant 1 was not the immediate cause of death).
What did the court decide in the Mokgethi case ?
- The accused shot a man in a robbery, and the man later died from septic sores caused by paralysis.
- The issue was whether the deceased’s failure to follow medical advice was an NAI.
- The court found that the failure to follow medical advice was not an NAI, and the accused was still responsible for the death.
How did the Tembani Case handle medical negligence as an NAI ?
- The accused shot his girlfriend, and she later died due to medical negligence at the hospital.
- The issue was whether medical negligence at the hospital was an NAI.
- The court ruled that medical negligence did not break the causal chain of causation, as it was not extraordinary or unexpected.
