Chapter 4 - The definitional elements and causation

Question 1

What are definitional elements?

Answer 1

The definitional elements signify a concise description of the requirements set by the law for liability for a specific type of crime. In this context, requirements do not mean general requirements applying to all crimes but particular requirements applying only to a certain type of crime. The definitional elements of a crime contain the model or formula that enables both an ordinary person and a court to know which particular requirements apply to a certain type of crime.

Question 2

Name two groups of crime.

Answer 2

1. Formally defined crime
2. materially defined crime

Question 3

Explain formally defined crimes

Answer 3

In the case of formally defined crimes, the definitional elements proscribe a certain type of conduct, irrespective of what the result of the conduct is. Examples of crimes falling into this category are perjury and the possession of drugs.

Question 4

Explain materially described crimes

Answer 4

In the case of materially defined crimes, on the other hand, the definitional elements do not prescribe a specific conduct, but rather any conduct that causes a specific condition. Examples of this type of crime include murder, culpable homicide, and arson.

Question 5

Elaborate further on the issue of causation

Answer 5

When dealing with materially defined crimes, the question that always arises is whether there is a causal link (nexus) between Thabo’s conduct and the prohibited result (e.g. Lebo’s death)

Question 6

Explain the basic principle to be applied in determining causation.

Answer 6

In order to find that there is a causal link between Thabo’s act and the prohibited condition, two requirements must be met.

1. It must be clear that Thabo’s act was the factual cause of Lebo’s death.
2. It must be clear that Thabo was the legal cause of Lebo’s death.

Question 7

Explain the factual causation (conditio sine qua non) further

Answer 7

Thabo’s act is the factual cause of Lebo’s death if it is a conditio sine qua non, that is, if there is a “but-for-causation” or a “but-for” link between Thabo’s act and Lebo’s death. If this requirement has been met, we may speak of factual causation.

Question 8

Explain the legal cause further

Answer 8

In terms of policy considerations, it is reasonable and fair that Thabo’s act be deemed the cause of Lebo’s death. If this requirement has been met, we may speak of legal causation.

Question 9

Name 3 tests or theories of legal causation

Answer 9

1. The individualisation theories
2. The theory of adequate causation
3. Novus actus interveniens

Question 10

Explain the individualisation theories

Answer 10

The objection to this approach is that two or more conditions are often operative in equal measure, for example, where Thabo bribes Mandla to commit murder, which Mandla commits while Vusi stands guard in order to warn Mandla, should the police arrive. In a situation such as this, where three different people have acted, we cannot regard the act of one as the only cause of death, to the exclusion of the acts of the other two.

Question 11

Explain the theory of adequate causation

Answer 11

An act is the legal cause of a situation if, according to human experience, in the normal course of events, the act has the tendency to bring about that kind of situation.

Question 13

Explain novus actus interviens.

Answer 13

This expression means a new intervening event and is used to indicate that between Thabo’s initial act and the ultimate death of Lebo, another event, which breaks the chain of causation, has taken place, preventing us from regarding Thabo’s act as the cause of Lebo’s death.