1.

S v Frederiksen 2018 (1) SACR 29 (FB)

• Facts: Frederiksen was charged with multiple counts including rape, murder,
and contraventions of the National Health Act. He was found in possession of
human tissue stored in a freezer without proper authorization. The case drew
attention due to the gruesome nature of the crimes and the accused’s
psychological profile.

• Issue: Whether the accused could be convicted on charges of unlawful

possession of human tissue and whether the evidence supported the rape and
murder charges.

• Rule: Section 58 and 55 of the National Health Act prohibit the removal, use, and
possession of human tissue without consent. Criminal Procedure Act governs
admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.

• Application: The court found that Frederiksen had no lawful authority to possess
the tissue and that the evidence, including forensic links and witness testimony,
supported the convictions. His application for discharge under section 174 was
denied.

• Conclusion: Convictions upheld. The case emphasized the importance of

consent in medical and anatomical contexts and the role of forensic evidence in
securing convictions.

2. S v Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A)

• Facts: Known as the “Sharpeville Six” case, the accused were part of a protest
against municipal service fees. The protest escalated into violence, resulting in
the deputy mayor being burned to death. Although not all accused physically
participated in the killing, they were convicted of murder.

• Issue: Can individuals be convicted of murder under the doctrine of common

purpose without direct participation?

• Rule: The doctrine of common purpose allows for liability where individuals
associate with a group intent on committing a crime, even if they do not perform
the act themselves.

• Application: The court held that the accused had associated with the mob and
shared the intent, making them liable. Their presence and encouragement were
sufficient for conviction.

• Conclusion: Convictions upheld. The case remains a landmark in South African

criminal law for its application of common purpose and its political implications
during apartheid.
3. S v Shabalala and Another 2020 (2) SACR 38 (CC)

• Facts: The accused were convicted of rape. The case reached the Constitutional
Court to determine whether the doctrine of common purpose applies to rape, a
crime traditionally requiring physical penetration.

• Issue: Can common purpose be extended to rape where not all accused
physically commit the act?

• Rule: Section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution protects against violence. The court
considered whether legal development was needed to reflect the collective
nature of sexual violence.

• Application: The court held that excluding rape from common purpose would
create a legal anomaly. It emphasized the need to recognize the collective harm
and trauma inflicted by group sexual violence.

• Conclusion: Common purpose applies to rape. This decision marked a

progressive shift in rape law, aligning it with constitutional values of dignity and
equality.

4. S v Jacobs and Others 2019 (1) SACR 623 (CC)

• Facts: The accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to life

imprisonment without parole for crimes committed as juveniles. They
challenged the constitutionality of such sentencing.

• Issue: Is life imprisonment without parole for juveniles constitutional?

• Rule: Section 28(1)(g) of the Constitution requires that children be detained only
as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.

• Application: The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the

evolving capacity of children. It found that denying parole foreclosed the
possibility of reform.

• Conclusion: Life imprisonment without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional.

The case reinforced the constitutional commitment to child justice and
rehabilitation.

5. S v Mshumpa 2008 (1) SACR 126 (EC)

• Facts: Mshumpa was hired by the father of an unborn child to stage a shooting
that would kill the mother and fetus. The mother survived; the fetus did not. The
case raised the question of whether killing a fetus constitutes murder.

• Issue: Can the killing of an unborn child amount to murder under South African
law?
 • Rule: Under common law, a fetus is not considered a legal person until birth.
Murder requires the unlawful killing of a person.

• Application: The court held that while morally reprehensible, the killing of a
fetus does not meet the legal definition of murder. However, Mshumpa was
convicted of attempted murder of the mother and other charges.

• Conclusion: No murder conviction for the fetus. The case highlighted the legal
gap regarding fetal rights and sparked debate on law reform.

8. S v Thebus and Another 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC)

• Facts: The accused were convicted of murder under the doctrine of common
purpose. They challenged the constitutionality of the doctrine, arguing it violated
their right to a fair trial and individual culpability.

• Issue: Does the doctrine of common purpose infringe on the constitutional right
to a fair trial and personal criminal liability?

• Rule: Section 35 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, including
the presumption of innocence and the right to be tried for one’s own conduct.

• Application: The Constitutional Court held that common purpose is a legitimate

legal doctrine that promotes accountability in group crimes. It does not violate
the Constitution if applied correctly, as it requires proof of active association and
shared intent.

• Conclusion: Doctrine upheld. The case affirmed the compatibility of common

purpose with constitutional principles and clarified its evidentiary requirements.

7. S v Hoho 2009 (1) SACR 276 (SCA)

• Facts: Hoho distributed pamphlets containing defamatory statements about

public officials. He was charged with multiple counts of crimen injuria and
criminal defamation.

• Issue: Did the pamphlets constitute criminal defamation and crimen injuria
under South African law?

• Rule: Criminal defamation requires publication of false statements that harm

reputation; crimen injuria involves unlawful, intentional impairment of dignity.

• Application: The court found that the pamphlets were intentionally harmful and
lacked truth or public interest justification. Hoho’s defense of political speech
was rejected due to the malicious nature of the content.

• Conclusion: Convictions upheld. The case clarified the boundaries of protected

speech and the role of criminal sanctions in safeguarding dignity and reputation.
8. S v Phetoe 2018 (1) SACR 593 (SCA)

• Facts: Phetoe was convicted of murder. He appealed on the grounds that the
trial court erred in its factual findings and assessment of witness credibility.

• Issue: Can an appellate court overturn a conviction based on factual findings

and credibility assessments?

• Rule: Appellate courts defer to trial courts on credibility unless there is a clear
misdirection or error.

• Application: The SCA found no material misdirection in the trial court’s

reasoning. The evidence was sufficient and properly evaluated.

• Conclusion: Conviction upheld. The case reinforced the principle of appellate

restraint in factual matters and the importance of trial court discretion.

9. S v Motaung and Others 1990 (4) SA 485 (A)

• Facts: The accused were convicted of murder under common purpose for
participating in a violent mob that killed a victim. They appealed, arguing
insufficient evidence of intent.

• Issue: Was the doctrine of common purpose correctly applied to establish

liability?

• Rule: Liability under common purpose requires active association and shared
intent to commit the crime.

• Application: The court found that the accused were present, encouraged the
violence, and shared the intent. Their conduct met the threshold for common
purpose.

• Conclusion: Convictions upheld. The case affirmed the evidentiary standards

for group liability and clarified the role of presence and conduct in establishing
intent.

10. S v Makhalima 2018 (1) SACR 625 (ECG)

• Facts: Makhalima was convicted of rape based on the complainant’s testimony.

He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and inconsistent.

• Issue: Can a conviction stand on the testimony of a single witness with

inconsistencies?

• Rule: The single witness rule allows conviction if the evidence is credible and
satisfactory in all material respects.
• Application: The court found material contradictions in the complainant’s
account and a lack of corroboration. The trial court failed to apply the cautionary
rule properly.

• Conclusion: Conviction overturned. The case emphasized the need for careful
scrutiny of single witness testimony in sexual offense cases.

11. S v Phiri 2014 (1) SACR 211 (GNP)

• Facts: Phiri was convicted of robbery based primarily on the identification

evidence of a single witness. He appealed, arguing that the identification was
unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Issue: Can a conviction be based solely on a single witness’s identification?

• Rule: The “single witness rule” allows for conviction if the testimony is credible
and satisfactory in all material respects. Courts must apply caution, especially in
identification cases.

• Application: The court found that the witness’s identification was not
corroborated and contained inconsistencies. The trial court failed to apply the
necessary caution.

• Conclusion: Conviction overturned. The case reinforced the importance of

careful scrutiny in single-witness identification cases, especially where the
accused’s liberty is at stake.

12. S v Prins 2017 (1) SACR 20 (WCC)

• Facts: Prins was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He

appealed the sentence, citing personal circumstances and the absence of
previous convictions.

• Issue: Was the life sentence appropriate given the mitigating factors?

• Rule: Sentencing must balance the seriousness of the offense with the
offender’s personal circumstances and the interests of society.

• Application: The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but found
that the trial court had not adequately considered the mitigating factors,
including the accused’s age and lack of prior convictions.

• Conclusion: Sentence reduced. The case highlighted the need for individualized
sentencing and proportionality in punishment.

13. S v Myeni 2019 (1) SACR 360 (ECG)

• Facts: Myeni was convicted of rape and appealed the sentence. He argued that
the sentence was excessive and that the trial court failed to consider his
personal circumstances.

• Issue: Was the sentence disproportionate to the offense?

• Rule: Courts must impose sentences that are just and proportionate,
considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.

• Application: The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the
brutality of the offense and the need for deterrence. The accused’s personal
circumstances did not outweigh the seriousness of the crime.

• Conclusion: Sentence confirmed. The case reaffirmed the principle that serious
offenses warrant severe punishment, even in the presence of mitigating factors.

14. S v Kopsani and Another 2019 (2) SACR 53 (ECG)

• Facts: The accused were convicted of robbery and murder under the doctrine of
common purpose. They appealed, arguing that they did not share the intent to
kill.

• Issue: Can an accused be held liable for murder under common purpose
without direct participation?

• Rule: Common purpose requires active association and shared intent to commit
the crime.

• Application: The court found that the accused were present, armed, and acted
in concert with the principal offender. Their conduct demonstrated a shared
intent.

• Conclusion: Convictions upheld. The case reinforced the evidentiary threshold

for establishing common purpose in violent crimes.

15. Ngwenya v S (A169/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 11

• Facts: Ngwenya was convicted of kidnapping, assault, and rape. He appealed

both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient
and the sentence excessive.

• Issue: Were the convictions supported by the evidence, and was the sentence
appropriate?

• Rule: Convictions must be based on credible, corroborated evidence. Sentences

must be proportionate and consider mitigating factors.
• Application: The court upheld the convictions, finding the complainant’s
testimony credible and supported by medical evidence. However, it found the
sentence of 20 years excessive and reduced it to 6 years.

• Conclusion: Convictions confirmed; sentence reduced. The case illustrated the

court’s willingness to intervene where sentencing is disproportionate, even when
the conviction is sound.

16. R v Davies 1956 (3) SA 52 (A)

• Facts: Davies was charged with murder after fatally stabbing a man during a
confrontation. He claimed self-defense, arguing that he was under attack and
acted to protect himself.

• Issue: Was the use of force reasonable and necessary to justify self-defense?

• Rule: Self-defense requires that the force used be proportional to the threat and
necessary to repel the attack.

• Application: The court found that Davies’ response was excessive and not
justified by the circumstances. The threat posed did not warrant lethal force.

• Conclusion: Conviction upheld. The case clarified the limits of self-defense and
emphasized proportionality in assessing justification.

17. R v Schoombie 1945 AD 541

• Facts: Schoombie was charged with attempted arson for trying to set fire to a
building. He argued that the act was incomplete and lacked intent.

• Issue: Can one be convicted of attempted arson based on preparatory acts?

• Rule: Attempt requires intent and conduct that goes beyond mere preparation
and constitutes a commencement of execution.

• Application: The court found that Schoombie’s actions — including possession

of flammable materials and proximity to the target — demonstrated intent and
sufficient execution.

• Conclusion: Conviction upheld. The case established that preparatory acts,

when coupled with intent, can support a conviction for attempt.

18. S v Botha 2019 (1) SACR 127 (SCA)

• Facts: Botha was convicted of culpable homicide after a fatal car accident. He
appealed the sentence, arguing that it was too harsh given his remorse and lack
of prior convictions.
 • Issue: Was the sentence proportionate to the offense and offender’s
circumstances?

• Rule: Sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the offense, the interests of
society, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

• Application: The court found that the trial court had properly considered all
relevant factors, including the gravity of the negligence and the impact on the
victim’s family.

• Conclusion: Sentence confirmed. The case reinforced the principle of balanced

sentencing in cases of negligent homicide.

19. Ex parte the Minister of Justice: In re S v Grotjohn 1970 (2) SA 355 (A)

• Facts: The case involved a legal inquiry into whether suicide is a criminal offense
and the implications for assisted suicide.

• Issue: Is suicide or attempted suicide punishable under South African law?

• Rule: Under common law, suicide is not a crime, and criminal liability for
assisted suicide depends on causation and intent.

• Application: The court held that suicide is not punishable and that assisting
suicide may only be criminal if it involves direct causation or unlawful conduct.

• Conclusion: Suicide is not a crime. The case clarified the legal boundaries of
assisted suicide and the role of causation in establishing liability.

20. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince and
Others 2019 (1) SACR 14 (CC)

• Facts: Prince challenged the constitutionality of laws criminalizing the private

use and cultivation of cannabis by adults. He argued that these laws infringed on
his right to privacy.

• Issue: Do laws prohibiting private cannabis use violate the constitutional right to
privacy?

• Rule: Section 14 of the Constitution protects the right to privacy, including

personal autonomy in one’s home.

• Application: The Constitutional Court found that criminalizing private use of

cannabis unjustifiably limited the right to privacy. It emphasized that the state’s
interest in regulation did not outweigh individual autonomy in private spaces.
• Conclusion: Laws prohibiting private adult use and cultivation of cannabis
declared unconstitutional. The case marked a significant shift in drug policy and
privacy jurisprudence.