Since the pre-requisites for common-purpose liability where there was no prior agreement were laid down in S V Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA 687 (A), the appellate division has moved to resolve related controversial issues. These include the question whether a joiner-in is a perpetrator or accomplice, and whether he should be convicted of murder or attempted murder. It is the question of dissociation which has remained elusive. Courts accept that a person should only be criminally liable when his dissociation from a common purpose takes place after the commencement of execution stage is reached. My submission is that whether one dissociates himself should be a question of fact, to be determined according to the circumstances of each case. Such determination should pay close attention to the doctrine of proximity. Where a person played a minor role, or acted under the influence of a dominant partner, this should be reflected in the punishment imposed. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)

Since the pre-requisites for common-purpose liability where there was no prior agreement were laid down in S V Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA 687 (A), the appellate division has moved to resolve related controversial issues. These include the question whether a joiner-in is a perpetrator or accomplice, and whether he should be convicted of murder or attempted murder. It is the question of dissociation which has remained elusive. Courts accept that a person should only be criminally liable when his dissociation from a common purpose takes place after the commencement of execution stage is reached. My submission is that whether one dissociates himself should be a question of fact, to be determined according to the circumstances of each case. Such determination should pay close attention to the doctrine of proximity. Where a person played a minor role, or acted under the influence of a dominant partner, this should be reflected in the punishment imposed. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Criminal & Procedural Law)

An accused cannot be held criminally liable by a court until he is considered to be culpable, a process which entails establishing criminal capacity and intention (dolus) or negligence (culpa). Determining a perpetrator’s necessary intent in the form of dolus eventualis has proved to be a predicament in South African jurisprudence. This type of intent occurs when a person does not aim to cause the unlawful act, however, he subjectively foresees the likelihood that in pursuing with his conduct, the unlawful result will possibly happen, and he reconciles himself to this possibility. The problem with this form of intention, especially where the death of another is caused recklessly, is, amongst others, reservations as to whether the perpetrator’s foresight was of a real, reasonable or a remote possibility. This research examines the imperatives and rationale for preceding and current interpretations and applications of dolus eventualis and associate concepts in South African as well as in selected foreign legal frameworks in order to provide a comprehensive perspective on the subject. In this regard, the study challenges conflicting judgments on the application of dolus eventualis in domestic courts, especially as regards homicide- and putative private defence cases, amongst others. It is evidenced that in case law concerning dolus eventualis, legal rules were not properly articulated when determining this type of criminal intent. In this investigation, the legislative framework applicable to dolus eventualis under international law is also critically evaluated with the aim of facilitating the comprehension of this element in South African law. As the concept of dolus eventualis is an indispensable concept in South African criminal law, recommendations are proposed on the application and interpretation of dolus eventualis suitable to the South African landscape, which includes possible law reform. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. D. (Criminal and Procedural Law)