Crimes against property + freedom of will

Question 1

Malicious Injury to property

What is malicious injury to property?

Answer 1

the unlawful and intentional, damagining of a thing that belongs to another person or a thing that belongs to the perpetrator themselves, and this thing is insured, and the perpatrator damages the thing with the intention to claim for damages from the insurance

-Malicious injury to property is a materially defined crime, thus it is a crime where we punish the consequence (thus X actions must cause a damage to Y property

Question 2

Arson

What is the crime of arson?

Answer 2

-where X intentionally and unlawfully sets fire to an immovable property, belonging to someone else, or an immovable property belonging to X themselves, with the aim of claiming the value of the property from an insurance company.

NB: Only immovable property can be subject to the crime of arson.

Question 3

Theft

What is theft?

Answer 3

** unlawful and intentional appropriation of a movable corporeal thing which;**:
a)belongs to someone else,and is in that person possession,
b) belongs to another but is in the perpetrator’s own possession,
c)belongs to the perpertrator, but is in the possession of anohter and such other person has the right to possession , which legally prevails against the perpetrator’s own right to possession

Question 4

Theft

What did the Tau case state regarding theft?

Answer 4

T worked at a company that was responsible for melting gold. They melted the gold into block pieces. On this particular day as they were melting this gold, a piece of gold fell on the ground, and T looked around and concealed he gold, underneath an iron table.

T was charged with theft and was convicted in the court of quo.But in the appeal court, the question that arose was whether theft was actually committed?: The court of appeal held that T did not commit theft, as neither the negative nor the positive component was complied with.

The importnat aspect of the case is the appropriation model of theft applied (the negative and positive component) and BOTH these two components must be complied with for theft to be present/completed.

Question 5

Theft

What is the crime of shop theft?

Answer 5

where X takes the item and conceals it on their body and the owner is no longer able to see the item, the crime of shop theft has already been completed.

Question 6

Theft

What did the Dlamini case state regarding theft?

Answer 6

-The accused went to the shop with no money on him. He then took a shirt in the shop and hid it away under his jacket. He then tried to go to the exit of the shop where he was stopped by the security of the shop. He was charged and convicted of theft.

-It was held that the positive component was complied with (that is, from the moment in which the accused concealed the item inder his jacket, the owner had lost control over the item/property).

-The court held that once a person conceals an item in such a manner that the item can no longer be seen, then at that moment the crime of theft is completed. The owner loses effective control over the property.

Question 7

Theft

what is innocent reception in terms of the crime of theft?

Answer 7

X innocently receives a stolen property and finds out that the property is a stolen property when it is in their possession and decides to keep the property, this will be considered to be theft.

Thus, the moment X finds out that the property is a stolen item and decides to keep it, then they will be liable for theft

Question 8

Theft

What did the Markins Motors case state regarding innocent reception?

Answer 8

The accused worked at Markins Motors and they purchased a motorbike which was a stolen motorbike. He was informed by the SAPS that it was stolen. The accused nonetheless decided to keep it and sell it. He was charged with theft.

**The question that arose was whether this was theft where a motorbike was innocently received. **
The court held that the act of theft was committed the moment he became aware the motorbike was stolen and he decided to keep it and sell it to someone else.

Question 9

Theft

Is theft possible with incorporeal things?

Answer 9

Harper
Harper was charged with theft because he had stolen shares from a company that he worked for.
The question that arose was whether theft could be committed in respect of an incorporeal thing?

The court answered in the affirmative and held that incorporeal and intangible things can be stolen.

Question 10

Theft

What is constructive handling?

Answer 10

X does not have to physically handle the amount for theft to be committed.
EG: Where X sees a bag of money on their property and they do nothing about it. This will be considered to be theft by means of omissio

Question 11

Theft

What type of crime is theft?

Answer 11

Theft is a continuing crime.
Cassiem: The court held that as long as the owner is deprived of their property, the crime of theft continues.

Question 12

Theft

What type of crime is the receiving of stolen property?

Answer 12

The unlawful and intentional receiving of stolen property and X is aware that the property is stolen.

Question 13

Robbery

What is robbery?

Answer 13

Theft of property by unlawfully and intentionally using :

(1) violence to take the property from someone else
(2) threats of violence to induce the possessor of the property to submit to the taking of that property.

Robbery constitutes theft by means of violence.

The violence can be physical violence or threats of physical violence
It must be a threat of immediate violence, and therefore not a future threat

Question 14

Robbery

What did the Elbrecht case state rgearding robbery?

Answer 14

-The question that arose was whether the accused should be found guilty of robbery or theft.
The court held that there was no element of violence, either by means of personal violence or threat of violence. Thus Elbrecht was found guilty of normal theft.

-

Question 15

Robbery

What did the Kgoyana case state regarding robbery?

Answer 15

-It was held that the minute that the threat of violence was present, the act changes into the crime of robbery

Question 16

Robbery

What did the Yolelo case state regarding the causal link between the theft +assault in instances of robbery?

Answer 16

Is it still robbery if the violence is after the theft?

-The court held that it does not constitute robbery if the theft preceeds the assualt. But the court held, that robbery maybe committed if the violence follows completed theft, if there is a sufficiently close link between the theft and the violence and can be considered a connecting components of the whole act. In these circumstances, it will constitute as robbery.

Question 17

Robbery

What did the Mohamed case state regarding the crime of robbery?

Answer 17

**Facts: The complainant was walking tofther with her mother after they had been shopping. The accused ran past and grabbbed the necklace and pulled it from her neck. **

-The accused was also charged with robbery and the court held in this instances that as soon as there is an element of violence, (where the perpertrator uses violence to prevent or nutralise anticipated resistence), the violence can be slight violence, there is not requirement that there be physical injuries.

Thus the removal of the necklace without violence amounts to the crime of theft and not robbery.
The accused in Mohammed was found guilty of robbery (there was a level of violence in the removal of the necklace)

Question 18

Robbery

Is it a requirement to be in the immediate vicinity of the owner in instances of robery according to the Seekoei case?

Answer 18

The court held that it is not a requirement that the actual theft happen in the vicinity of the owner. The accused had used violence to get the keys, which he later used to go commit the theft, and was thus guilty of robbery.
S assaulted V in her farmhouse. Took her car keys and drove to her farm shop 2km away where he stole from the shop. S was guilty of robbery