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)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/17306 |
| Date | 11 1900 |
| Creators | Makiwane, Paterson Nkosemntu |
| Contributors | Snyman, C. R., Ochonogor, Chukunoye Enunuwe |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | 1 online resource (iii, 53 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds