THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case no: 522/10

THE STATE

Appellant

and

HENDRIK LOURENS JACOB BOEKHOUD

Respondent

______________________________________________________________

Neutral citation:
S v Boekhoud (522/10) [2011] ZASCA 48 (30 March
2011)

CORAM:

Navsa, Heher, Cachalia, Bosielo JJA and Petse AJA

HEARD:

1 March 2011
DELIVERED:
30 March 2011

SUMMARY: Application for leave to appeal following on refusal by high court
to reserve questions of law in terms of s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
of 1977 ─ uncertainty about facts to which questions relate ─ confusion and
contradictions in indictment, summary of substantial facts and further
particulars supplied by State ─ questions concerning the application of
doctrine of common purpose unrelated to specific charges ─ State still
considering redrafting of indictment ─ application for leave to appeal refused.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________

On appeal from:
South Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) (Borchers J
sitting as court of first instance).
1.
The application for condonation for late filing of the application for leave
to appeal is granted.
2.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________

NAVSA JA (Heher, Cachalia, Bosielo JJA and Petse AJA concurring)

[1] This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, South
Gauteng, for leave to appeal to this court against a decision of the South
Gauteng High Court (Borchers J), in terms of which it had refused an
application to reserve certain questions of law in terms of s 319 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA). The high court had ruled that it
had no jurisdiction in relation to offences allegedly committed by the
respondent, Mr Hendrik Boekhoud, whilst he was resident in the United
Kingdom. The matter was referred for the hearing of oral argument before us
as was an application for condonation for the late filing thereof.1

[2] During 2006 Mr Boekhoud, along with four co-accused, was indicted in
the high court on a main  charge of contravening s 2(1)(e) read with sections
1, 2(2), 2(3), 2(4) and 3 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998
(POCA) ─ these offences relate to racketeering activities ─ and 54 other
counts, which include a number of counts of theft, fraud, money laundering in
contravention of s 4 of POCA, read with sections 7A and 8 thereof and also
contraventions of the provisions of the Mining Rights Act 20 of 1967. A
number of alternative charges to each of the 55 charges was preferred

1 In terms of s 21(3)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959.

against the respondent. These include contraventions of Exchange Control
Regulations, the Mining Rights Act and POCA. The indictment, itself extends
to 72 pages. The associated summary of substantial facts comprises 11
pages.

[3] As appears to be the wont of the State in certain high profile cases, it
appears to have adopted a scattergun approach to the prosecution, covering
as many bases as possible. Whilst at face value this approach may appear
prudent it often leads to a lack of focus and imprecision.

[4] Unsurprisingly, the extensive and voluminous charge sheet led to Mr
Boekhoud requesting further particulars in terms of s 87 of the CPA. The
request comprised 36 pages. The State furnished 67 pages of further
particulars.

[5] At the commencement of the trial Mr Boekhoud tendered a plea in
terms of s 106(1)(f) of the CPA.2 He averred that with the exception of the
main count (the racketeering charge in terms of s 2 of POCA) the court lacked
jurisdiction to try him on all the others. The reason for the racketeering charge
being excluded is that s 2(1) provides that a person who commits any of the
acts listed thereunder shall be guilty of the offence whether or not they were
committed ‘within the Republic or elsewhere’.

[6] At this stage it is necessary to set out the background against which
the charges were brought and the plea of a lack of jurisdiction raised. At the
centre of the charges is the theft of unwrought precious metals (upms) stolen
from South African mines, principally in the Rustenburg area, and which
ultimately found their way to the United Kingdom. The upms it appears might
have contained one or other of the precious metals in the platinum group,
which includes gold, platinum, palladium and rhodium.

2 Section 106(1)(f) provides:
‘When an accused pleads to a charge he may plead ─
. . .
(f)
that the court has no jurisdiction to try the offence.’

[7] The State’s case was that after certain persons had physically stolen
the upms from South African mines Mr Boekhoud’s co-accused came to
possess them within South Africa, knowing they were stolen. Thereafter the
upms were exported by them to a refinery in the United Kingdom, which for all
practical purposes was owned and controlled by Mr Boekhoud.

[8] To export the ore to the United Kingdom documentation had to be
prepared, which, according to the State, did not represent the true value of the
ore. Consequently the documentation was false. This explains the theft, fraud
and unlawful possession of upms charges as well as the charges involving
exchange control regulations.

[9] If the State’s affidavit in support of the present application for leave to
appeal is to be believed (in conjunction with the heads of argument filed on its
behalf both in this court and the court below) its case against Mr Boekhoud,
as set out in the indictment, is ‘accurate, clear succinct and detailed’. It was
submitted that simply put the State’s case was that Mr Boekhoud was
involved in the planning of all of these offences with his co-accused.
According to the State, an examination of the indictment, the summary of
substantial facts and the further particulars reveals that this was a scheme
involving all of the accused, including Mr Boekhoud. The veracity of the
State’s assertions in this regard is in issue in this case.

[10] In upholding Mr Boekhoud’s plea of lack of jurisdiction, Borchers J
recorded (at para 11 of her judgment), that in its reply to the request for
further particulars the State had alleged that all the acts which constituted
criminal conduct by Mr Boekhoud were performed by him outside the
boundaries of South Africa. She said the following:
‘These are the central facts which run through the indictment. Minor exceptions to the pattern
which I have sketched and small variations in the manner in which certain acts were
performed are in my view relevant.’

[11] Before us the State was adamant that the further particulars supplied
by it did not allege that all of Mr Boekhoud’s acts, constituting the criminal

conduct in respect of which he had been charged, were committed outside of
South Africa. The State submitted that Borchers J had erred in this regard.

[12] In her judgment Borchers J noted that Mr Boekhoud was originally a
South African citizen but that in the 1980’s he renounced his South African
citizenship and became a citizen of the Netherlands. Since then he has
resided and worked in the United Kingdom. Whilst he owns assets here and
visits this country occasionally he is neither resident nor domiciled here.

[13] The learned judge’s material findings were that the court lacked
jurisdiction on two grounds. First, the acts, which constitute the crimes of theft,
fraud and the various alternatives, were committed not by him but by his co-
accused. Second, such acts as he had performed were all committed in the
United Kingdom and South African courts consequently have no jurisdiction.

[14] In reaching those conclusions the court below postulated the general
position in regard to territorial jurisdiction:  South African courts only exercise
jurisdiction over offences committed by persons within South Africa.
Generally, offences committed beyond the borders of South Africa cannot be
prosecuted here.

[15] Borchers J expressed views concerning the interpretation and
application of s 2 of POCA, which she expressly stated were obiter. This is an
aspect to which I shall return briefly in due course.

[16] The learned judge went on to consider a submission by counsel for the
State that Mr Boekhoud was liable to be convicted on counts 2-55 on the
basis of having formed a common purpose with his co-accused. It was
contended on behalf of the State that the actus reus of one person can be
imputed to another where there is proof of a common purpose between them.
The court below thought that what was being sought was the extension of
extra-territorial jurisdiction over Mr Boekhoud for acts committed by his co-
accused in South Africa. Borchers J considered that there was no authority for

this proposition by the State, which she considered ‘remarkable’. She stated
the following:
‘There is as far as I can ascertain, no occasion on which a court has exercised extra-territorial
jurisdiction over actions performed entirely outside South Africa’s borders, save where such
jurisdiction is extended expressly by statute. Treason may be a partial exception but even
there I note that the courts found that by broadcasting propaganda from abroad the accused
overseas was creating airwave disturbances or changes in South African air or atmosphere.
Even here some sort of actus reus in South Africa was required by the courts.’

[17] For all the reasons stated Borchers J held that the court below had no
jurisdiction to try Mr Boekhoud on counts 2-55, nor on any of the alternative
charges in the indictment.

[18] I have doubts about the correctness of the learned judge’s approach to
the application of the doctrine of common purpose, spurred no doubt by the
State’s own confusion in this regard. Put differently, it is not clear to me that
the application of the common purpose doctrine involves a court extending its
jurisdiction extra-territorially. This is an aspect discussed in more detail later in
this judgment. However, as will become clear the central issue in this
application for leave to appeal is whether certainty exists in regard to all of the
facts to which the question relates or on which the legal point hinges. That
issue is inextricably linked to the intelligibility and precision with which the
indictment, the summary of substantial facts and the further particulars were
framed.

[19] As will become clear, the expression ‘extra-territorial jurisdiction’ was
wrongly employed and it distracted all concerned and led to confusion.

[20] Subsequent to the finding of the court below, that it lacked jurisdiction
in respect of counts 2-55, the State resorted to s 319 of the CPA, in terms of
which it applied to that court to reserve questions of law for the consideration
of this court.3 Expectedly, the application was opposed by Mr Boekhoud.

3  Section 319 reads as follows:
‘(1) If any question of law arises on the trial in a superior court of any person for any offence,
the court may of its own motion or at the request either of the prosecutor or the accused

[21] Not dissimilarly to the manner in which it framed the indictment and the
accompanying documentation, the questions were rather intricate. The first
question was framed as follows:
‘(1)
Whether, as a question of law, having regard to the wording of section 2 as well as
the definition of “pattern of racketeering offences” in section 1, as well as the list of offences
set out in Schedule 1 to POCA, and the law applicable to them (which offences include theft,
fraud, any offence relating exchange control, any offence under any law relating to illicit
dealing in or possession of precious metals or precious stones, contravention chapter 3 of
POCA (sections 4 and 6), the racketeering acts set out in counts 2 – 55, for a conviction
under section 2 to ensue, have to have occurred within the borders of South Africa only.’
This question was accompanied by four related questions, which for present
purposes it is not necessary to repeat.

[22] Borchers J’s response to this question was that it postulates that she
had held that for a prosecution of racketeering under s 2 of POCA to succeed,
the racketeering act as defined must have occurred within the borders of
South Africa. She stated that she had made no such finding and that anything
she had said regarding s 2 of POCA had been obiter. She held that for that
reason it could not form the subject matter of a reserved question of law in
terms of s 319 of the CPA. The State does not persist in challenging the
learned judge’s refusal to reserve this question.

[23] The second set of questions that the State sought to reserve
comprised a primary question accompanied by four associated questions:
‘(2)
Whether in law, the operation of the doctrine of common purpose is applicable to
someone beyond the borders of the Republic of South Africa as well, the latter who (1)
conspires with others in the Republic to perpetrate theft, fraud and/or statutory offences
related to the theft, fraud and/or statutory offences, and/or, (2) who acts in concert with others
in the Republic through acts of association (such as refining property, selling property,
remitting profits) for the mutual benefit of the participants.

reserve that question for the consideration of the Appellate Division, and thereupon the first-
mentioned court shall state the question reserved and shall direct that it be specially entered
in the record and that a copy be transmitted to the registrar of the Appellate Division.
(2) The grounds upon which any objection to an indictment is taken shall, for the purposes of
this section, be deemed to be questions of law.
(3) The provisions of ss 317(2), (4) and (5) and 318(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis with
reference to all proceedings under this section.’

[A]
Related questions to question 2
(a)
Whether in law, a person abroad who conspired or reached agreement with others in
South Africa to perpetrate an offence in South African, can, once the said offence has been
executed by such others in South Africa, be charged in a South African court with the
completed offence because of the conspiracy/agreement earlier reached?
(b)
If the offence is perpetrated over a period of time, and the agreement or conspiracy to
commit a particular crime or crimes of an ongoing nature, is the answer to the question still
the same?
(c)
Can such person abroad also be charged on the basis of common purpose, having
regard to acts of association perpetrated abroad?
(d)
Which law with regards to the elements of unlawfulness and mens rea is applicable to
such person abroad, that of South Africa or that of the place abroad where such person was
located at the time of the perpetration of the offence or offences by others in South Africa.’

[24] Questions 3, 4 and 5, drafted in the same convoluted and extended
fashion relate to the offence of theft and, as recorded by the court below, all
arise from the State’s contention that the doctrine of theft is a continuing
offence, which it was submitted afforded extra-territorial jurisdiction. One of
the related questions was whether the doctrine of continuity was also
applicable in ‘taking-out’ cases, where someone outside the country knows
that the property was stolen, intentionally assists the thieves in South Africa
by further dealing with or handling the stolen property.

[25] The court below responded to these questions by stating that the fact
that theft is a continuing offence did not entitle it to exercise extra-territorial
jurisdiction. Borchers J said the following:
‘This is the law, whether the case is a so called “bringing in” or “taking out” case.’

[26] Questions 6 and 7 ask whether ss 4 and 6 of POCA4 apply to acts
committed extra-territorially. The learned judge answered these two questions
tersely, in the negative.

4 Section 4 creates money laundering offences and s 6 makes it an offence for any person to
acquire, use or have possession of property which he or she knows or ought reasonably to
have known that it is or forms part of the proceeds of unlawful activities of another person.

[27] Question 8 is framed in a broad and somewhat curious manner:
‘Whether as a question of law, the power of the High Court to develop the common law,
becomes a duty because of the interest of justice principle envisaged in section 173 of the
Constitution, 108 of 1996, and/or because of the constitutional duty of the State to effectively
prosecute crime, once that court forms the view that common law principles with regards to
common law offences do not provide for extra – territorial jurisdiction and therefore ought to
be developed.’

[28] Borchers J had the following to say about that question:
‘Question 8 was never raised before judgment and therefore forms no part of the judgment. I
have never formed the view that the common law ought to be developed to provide for
extraterritorial jurisdiction in the factual situation presently before the court. I was not asked
even to consider that question. This question can therefore not be reserved as a question for
the consideration of the Supreme Court of Appeal.’

[29] The learned judge consequently refused the application to reserve
questions in terms of s 319 of the CPA in its entirety. It is necessary to record,
as the court below did in its judgment upholding the plea of non-jurisdiction,
that Mr Boekhoud’s co-accused have either had charges against them
withdrawn or have pleaded guilty in terms of s 105A of the CPA and entered
into plea bargain agreements with the State. Mr Boekhoud remained the only
accused in the court below.

[30] At the outset before us, counsel for the State readily accepted that not
all of the counts between count 2 and 55 were applicable to Mr Boekhoud.
Several were primarily directed against his co-accused. Counsel indicated
that the State might have to give consideration to whether the counts involving
contraventions of the Exchange Control Regulations should be withdrawn.
The State might also give consideration to withdrawing some of the theft
charges. Importantly, counsel for the State conceded that in relation to the
indictment and associated documentation, it might have to ‘return to the
drawing board’ before resuming Mr Boekhoud’s prosecution.

[31] Before the judgment of the Constitutional Court in S v Basson 2007 (1)
SACR 566 (CC), this court had repeatedly held that a question of law could

only be reserved in terms of s 319 of the CPA, upon conviction or acquittal of
an accused and that an order upholding an exception to a charge was neither
a conviction nor an acquittal and consequently could not be reserved for
consideration by this court. In Basson the Constitutional Court was concerned
with circumstances where the upholding of an objection to an indictment had
the effect of barring the State from prosecuting the accused on charges which
were quashed.

[32] The Constitutional Court had regard to the State’s prosecutorial
authority, enabling it to fulfil its constitutional obligations to prosecute those
offences that threaten or infringe the rights of its citizens. It noted that the
purpose of s 319 was amongst others to allow the State to appeal on a point
of law to the SCA. At para 148 the following is stated:
‘Section 319(1) provides that if “any question of law arises on the trial in a superior court”, the
Court may of its own motion or at the request of the prosecutor or accused reserve that
question for consideration by the SCA. There is nothing in the language to suggest that the
State may only request the reservation of questions directed at the conviction or acquittal of
the accused. Section 319(2) indeed strongly suggests that the Legislature intended to permit
an appeal against any order upholding or dismissing an objection by way of a reservation of a
question of law. The subsection provides that “(t)he grounds upon which any objection to an
indictment is taken shall, for the purposes of [s 319], be deemed to be questions of law.” ’

[33] Whilst appreciating that that there was a well-established legislative
and judicial policy which precluded piecemeal appeals to the SCA the
Constitutional Court noted there was no such problem where the only charge
against an accused is quashed. That effectively brings the proceedings to an
end.5  The same would apply in the event that all the charges in an indictment
were to fall away because of a ruling on jurisdiction.6 It went on to hold that
there is no bar to a question being reserved in this regard.

[34] Whenever a question of law is reserved in terms of s 319 of the CPA,
certainty must exist in regard to all of the facts to which the question relates or

5 Para 149.
6 See Basson para 151.

on which the legal point hinges. In S v Basson 2003 (2) SACR 373 (SCA) the
following summary appears at 378-379:
‘The State has no right to appeal in terms of the Act against incorrect factual findings by a trial
court. The State can appeal only if the trial court gave a wrong decision due to a mistake of
law. In order to determine whether the trial court erred in law the factual basis upon which it
based its decision must be determined. Another factual basis cannot give an indication
whether the court made a mistake of law. It follows that a question of law arises only when the
facts upon which the trial court based its judgment could have another legal consequence
than that which the trial court had found. For those reasons (a) there must be certainty
regarding the legal issue being raised and the facts upon which the trial judge based her or
his findings, and (b) when a question of law is reserved, it has to be set out clearly not only
which legal issue is raised but also the facts on which the trial court based its finding.’
See also S v Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) at 9H.

[35] The five questions set out in paragraph 23 above are couched in the
abstract. They are posed theoretically without reference to specific charges or
the allegations in those charges that the State will set out to prove.
Furthermore, the questions conflate conspiracy with common purpose. Whilst
one could agree beforehand to act together with others, prior agreement is not
always necessary before an accused can be convicted on the basis of
common purpose. Before us it was submitted on behalf of the State that this
court ought to consider all the charges and the alternatives, relate them to the
summary of substantial facts and the request for further particulars and the
responses thereto and that this would then provide the factual background
against which the questions should be answered. So much then for precision
and the notion that counsel are there to assist the court and not the other way
around.

[36] At this stage it is necessary to consider in some detail, the indictment,
the summary of substantial facts, the request for further particulars and the
responses thereto. A careful reading of the first 26 pages of the indictment
reveals that the 55 offences allegedly committed by the accused are named,
without amplification or factual setting. On page 27 of the indictment there is a
‘preamble’ to the racketeering charge and the alternatives thereto. The
preamble purports to explain the genesis and purpose of section 2 of POCA.

It records that it was modelled on legislation that exists in the United States of
America, namely, The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act
(RICO), found at Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961 et seq.7

[37] I interpose to consider the provisions of section 2 of POCA and the
definition of ‘a pattern of racketeering activity’. Section 2 provides:
‘Offences
(1)
Any person who ─
(a)
(i)
receives or retains any property derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern
of

racketeering activity; and

(ii)
knows or ought reasonably to have known that such property is so derived;

and

(iii)
uses or invests, directly or indirectly, any part of such property in

acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation or activities of,

any enterprise;
(b)
(i)
receives or retains any property, directly or indirectly, on behalf of any

enterprise; and
(ii)
knows or ought reasonably to have known that such property derived or is

derived from or through a pattern of racketeering activity;
(c)
(i)
uses or invests any property, directly or indirectly, on behalf of any enterprise

or in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation or

activities of any enterprise; and
(ii)
knows or ought reasonably to have known that such property derived from or

through a pattern of racketeering activity;
(d)
acquires or maintains, directly or indirectly any interest in or control of
any enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity;
(e)
whilst managing or employed by or associated with any enterprise, conducts or
participates in the conduct, directly or indirectly, of such enterprise’s affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity;
(f)
manages the operation or activities of an enterprise and who knows or ought
reasonably to have known that any person, whilst employed by or associated with that
enterprise, conducts or participates in the conduct, directly or indirectly, of such
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; or

7 In the twentieth century the opening of markets, the free movement of persons, goods,
capital and services and the improvement in transport and telecommunications provided a
perfect opportunity for the globalisation of crime. We are living in times in which governments
are rightly concerned about suppressing transnational crimes. Legislation creating offences
such as money laundering abound. For an interesting discussion of the topic see an article by
Neil Boister ‘The trend to “universal extradition” over subsidiary universal jurisdiction in the
suppression of transnational crime’ 2003 Acta Juridica 287.

(g)
conspires or attempts to violate any of the provisions of paragraphs (a), ((b), (c), (d),
(e) or (f), within the Republic or elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence.’

[38] Section 1 of POCA defines ‘a pattern of racketeering activity’ as
‘the planned, ongoing, continuous or repeated participation or involvement in any offence
referred to in Schedule 1 and includes at least two offences referred to in Schedule 1, of
which one of the offences occurred after the commencement of this Act and the last offence
occurred within 10 years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of such
prior offence referred to in Schedule 1.’
Schedule 1 refers, amongst others, to the offences of theft and fraud.

[39] In count 1 Mr Boekhoud was charged with a contravention of s 2(1)(e)
of POCA. In two alternatives to the main count he was charged with
contraventions of s 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(b) of POCA.

[40] Returning to the indictment, the State purports therein to explain how
an enterprise can be a legitimate entity, or not. The indictment notes that at
least two predicate offences, listed in Schedule 1 have to be committed within
the listed period. The indictment states that the acts that comprise the ‘pattern
of racketeering activity’ are also separate criminal offences that may be
charged separately. Counts 2-55, according to the State, were meant to do
just that.

[41] The ‘enterprise’ contemplated in s 2 of POCA is explained in two
further pages of the indictment and amounts to what is set out in summary
form in para 9 above. In the next two pages of the indictment the State sets
out the objects and the activities of the enterprise, which is in effect a
repetition of what has already been described with a little more detail added.

[42] The indictment then goes on to explain that the constituent
racketeering acts or the predicate offences, as they are now commonly
referred to, are those set out in counts 2-55. The indictment proceeds to link
the predicate offences and the alternative counts to the enterprise.

[43] At page 69 of the indictment the following appears:
‘At the time of stealing the unwrought precious metals in question a common purpose existed
between accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 to steal, export and sell the material with a view to profit from
the sale.’

[44] The State was requested to provide exact details concerning the actus
reus of Mr Boekhoud in the illegal procurement (theft) and smuggling (fraud)
of the upms. The State responded as follows:
‘As can be gleaned from the Indictment it is not alleged by the State that accused 1 physically
partook in the acquiring (theft) or illegal exportation (fraud) of the unwrought precious metals.
It is alleged that he and the other accused were associated together in an illegal enterprise
that had as its main aim the procurement of unwrought precious metals, the unlawful dispatch
of those metals from South Africa to the United Kingdom and money laundering as regards
the remittances and proceeds unlawfully earned as consequences of the first two activities.’

[45] In regard to the preparation and presentation of falsified export
documentation the indictment alleged that ‘on occasion’ Mr Boekhoud had
directed how it was to be done.

[46] In response to the question whether Mr Boekhoud performed any act
or acts in relation to any of the preferred charges at any place other than in
Ramsay, Peterborough in the United Kingdom, the State said:
‘Accused 1 always acted through [his refinery] and the said address belongs to [the refinery].
In that sense he always acted from the said address, except with regard to counts 27, 29 and
51. . . .
Accused 1, however, communicated from time to time with one or more accused, . . . who
were in South Africa.’

[47] Significantly, in response to an enquiry about the legal and factual
basis upon which common purpose is to be inferred, the State said the
following:
‘The State will ask the court to look at all the evidence and all of the acts of all the accused as
a whole at the end of the trial to determine whether or not a common purpose (objective of the
group) existed between the participants to steal, dispatch and sell for profit. With regard to the
legal basis upon which the existence or otherwise of a common purpose needs to be
determined the position is well established. With reference to S v Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA
687(A), the Constitutional Court in S v Thebus and Another 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) at 532 H-I,

said the following about common purpose, in particular with regard to mens rea: “If the
prosecutions relies on common purpose, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each
accused had the requisite mens rea concerning the unlawful outcome at the time the offence
was committed.” And, further, that: “He or she must have intended that criminal result or must
have foreseen the possibility of the criminal result ensuing and nonetheless actively
associated himself or herself reckless as to whether the result was to ensue.” The State can
rely on circumstantial evidence. See S v Blom 1939 (AD) 188.’ (My emphasis.)

[48] In response to a question whether Mr Boekhoud committed the crime
of racketeering in Johannesburg, the State said:
‘The State did not allege that Accused 1 was in Johannesburg when he acted as alleged. . . .’

[49] In response to a question about whether Mr Boekhoud acted
elsewhere ─ other than in Johannesburg ─ the State responded in the
following manner:
‘The State does not allege that the accused acted “elsewhere”. However, other
members/associates of the enterprise did.
The word elsewhere is used in the Indictment because some acts by enterprise
members/associates happened at places other than Johannesburg and surroundings in the
UK. In this regard the State alleges that in respect of counts 2 – 7, 15, 17, 18, 19, 26, 30, 32 -
34 the stolen unwrought precious metals originates from the Bushveld platinum area
(Rustenburg). In respect of counts 14 and 16, the State alleges that the bulk of the material in
these counts were stolen from the Bushveld platinum area, but that a portion of the stolen
material originates from the Great Dyke area . . . Even where the theft of unwrought precious
metals happened outside the jurisdiction area of the Gauteng South Division of the High Court
or borders of South Africa, the Gauteng South Division of the High Court of South Africa still
has jurisdiction in regard to such stolen material found or handled within its jurisdiction area.
. . .
What is important is that the State must be able to prove that Accused 1 knew that the
unwrought precious metals that he received from the Oliver Tambo International Airport in
collaboration with others was stolen, not where it was stolen from . . .’

[50] Mr Boekhoud requested the following particulars in respect of count 1:
‘The State is required to indicate on what basis it is alleged, in fact and in law, that the
Witwatersrand Local Division of the High Court . . . has jurisdiction in respect of accused 1
and the acts he is alleged to have performed in the execution of the crimes perpetrated by the
enterprise’.

[51] The State responded thus:
‘The unwrought precious metals in the Indictment was handled and/or possessed within the
jurisdiction area of this Honourable court. It was dispatched from the Oliver Tambo
International airport to Accused 1. This Honourable Court has jurisdiction in respect of
Accused 1’s activities because he is inter alia charged in terms of section 2(1)(e) of POCA as
an associate/participant of an enterprise that acted through a pattern of racketeering activity
to commit the offences set out in the Indictment, which provides for extra territorial jurisdiction.
It furthermore has jurisdiction because Accused 1 has been charged with 2(1)(b), 4 and 6 of
POCA, which provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction. Moreover, he is charged with conspiracy
(refer section 2(1)(g) of POCA) and/or that he acted with a common purpose, which doctrines
also provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction.’ (My emphasis.)

[52] The State was asked to provide the dates, times and places where
Mr Boekhoud is alleged to have stolen the upms and the ‘precise and exact
actus reus’ of Mr Boekhoud in committing the theft of upms. The State said
the following:
‘The State does not allege that Accused 1 physically stole or handled the unwrought precious
metals in question in South Africa. As already stated above, he received it in the United
Kingdom. It is trite law that theft is a continuous offence. . . .’

[53] Insofar as possession in contravention of the Mining Rights Act is
concerned, the State was asked to ‘indicate the factual and legal basis for the
allegation that accused 1 possessed the unwrought precious metal..’ The
response was as follows:
‘The State relies on the doctrine of common purpose re possession in South Africa. With
reference to possession in the UK, the State relies on the provisions of sections 6, 4, and
2(1)(b) [of POCA], the latter three counts which provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction. . . .’ (My
emphasis.)

[54] In a subsequent paragraph in the further particulars supplied by the
State in relation to the possession of upms the following appears:
‘With reference to contravening the Mining Rights Act, the State relies on the doctrine of
common purpose. Knowing that he was trading in stolen unwrought precious metals
forwarded to him from South Africa, accused 1 would then have known as a necessary
consequence that the Mining Rights Act or another statute was being contravened…’

[55] In relation to fraud connected to the export of the upms the State, inter
alia, said the following:
‘With reference to the specific facts in this matter the State will prove that accused 1 knew or
ought reasonably to have known (dolus eventualis) when importing stolen unwrought precious
metals, that fictitious/false documentation would have to be prepared and presented to
Customs. This is a necessary consequence when exporting stolen precious metals.’

[56] I consider it necessary to now deal briefly with the doctrine of common
purpose in order to demonstrate the confusion in the State’s case flowing from
the indictment, the summary of substantial facts, the further particulars
provided by the State, and the heads of argument filed by the State in this
court. Professor C R Snyman deals with the doctrine of common purpose
fairly extensively in his Criminal Law 4 ed (2002) (at 260 et seq). The learned
author provides a ‘summary of principles’:
‘1
If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in
order to achieve that purpose, the conduct of each of them in the execution of that purpose is
imputed to the others.
2.
In a charge of having committed a crime which involves the causing of a certain result
(such as murder), the conduct imputed includes the causing of such result.
3.
Conduct by a member of the group of persons having a common purpose which
differs from the conduct envisaged in the said common purpose may not be imputed to
another member of the group unless the latter knew that such other conduct would be
committed, or foresaw the possibility that it might be committed and reconciled himself to that
possibility.
4.
A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common
purpose is not dependent upon proof of a prior conspiracy. Such a finding may be inferred
from the conduct of a person or persons.
5.
A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common
purpose may be based upon the first-mentioned person’s active association in the execution
of the common purpose. However, in a charge of murder this rule applies only if the active
association took place while the deceased was still alive and before a mortal wound or mortal
wounds had been inflicted by the person or persons with whose conduct such first-mentioned
person associated himself. . . .’

[57] When the acts of an accused’s cohorts committed here are imputed to
him, notwithstanding that he is a foreign national resident in that country there
is no need to speak of extra-territorial jurisdiction. This is illustrated by the
following example. A Portuguese national who lives in Lisbon who plans with

his corporate associates who are South African nationals resident here to
assassinate business rivals based in South Africa and who is actively involved
in the procurement of weapons for that purpose can hardly be heard to object
to a South African court trying him for the murders committed here by his co-
accused, even though he was in Lisbon at the time of the murders. This would
apply even if he left to them the details and the execution of the murders as
long as they had the common purpose to murder. A South African court would
be trying the Portuguese national for the murder committed here. The imputed
acts would be sufficient to found jurisdiction.

[58] The State vacillated between seeking to hold Mr Boekhoud liable on
the doctrine of common purpose by imputing the acts of his co-accused to
him, and holding him liable on the basis of his own acts committed in the
United Kingdom. The reference to extra-territorial jurisdiction being afforded
either by way of statute or the doctrine of common purpose is confusing and
demonstrates the lack of a proper appreciation of the doctrine of common
purpose. This is demonstrated by the practice note on behalf of the State in
this court, which reads as follows:
‘The aspect that will need to be pronounced upon relates to extra-territorial jurisdiction by a
South African court with specific reference to the doctrine of common purpose and several
other doctrines and principles pertaining to inter alia the common law crimes of theft and
fraud, as well as whether section 4 & 6 (money laundering) of the Prevention of Organized
Crime Act, No 121 of 1998 (POCA) has extra-territorial effect.’
The confusion permeates the indictment read with the summary of substantial
facts and the further particulars. It is therefore not surprising that Borchers J
recorded that the State, in supplying further particulars, alleged that the acts
which constituted criminal conduct were performed by him outside the
boundaries of South Africa.

[59] At this stage it is necessary to deal briefly with the purpose and
significance of further particulars provided in terms of s 87 of the CPA. The
particulars provided must be clearly worded and concise. S v Alexander &
others 1964 (1) SA 249 (C) at 251H, S v Mpetha 1981 (3) SA 803 (C) at

806E-F and E Du Toit, F J De Jager, A Paizes, A St Q Skeen, S van der
Merwe Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act p 14-27.

[60] Section 87(2) of the CPA provides:
‘The particulars shall be delivered to the accused without charge and shall be entered in the
record, and the trial shall proceed as if the charge had been amended in conformity with such
particulars.’
Thus, the particulars that the State provides become part of the record. The
State is bound by them8 and must prove them.

[61] Although no obligation rests on the State to disclose the evidence by
means of which material facts are to be proved it is obliged to provide
particulars of the material facts, which it intends to prove.9

[62] A question framed in terms of s 319 must be framed in such a way that
it accurately expresses the legal point, but there must also be certainty
concerning the facts on which the legal point is intended to hinge. See
Director of Public Prosecutions, Natal v Magidela & another 2000 (1) SACR
458 (SCA) para 9. This principle is usually applied to questions being framed
at the end of a trial upon conviction or acquittal. I can see no reason why the
same should not apply to the present situation where the indictment and
associated documentation runs into hundreds of pages and where the need
for clarity is equally imperative. Indeed, it should notionally be easier to frame
such questions when a charge is quashed at the outset. One would in such
event be confined to the indictment and related documentation to which the
questions should easily relate.

[63] Tellingly, the State, as pointed out in para 47 above, stated that it
would ask the court to look at all the evidence and all the acts of the accused
as a whole at the end of the trial to determine whether the accused acted with
others in a common purpose to steal, dispatch and sell the upms for a profit.
More damning for the State, however, is the concession during argument that

8 R v Verity-Amm 1934 TPD 416 at 422, R v Wilken 1945 EDL 246 at 254, S v Mandela 1974
(4) SA 878 (A) at 882E, S v Nathaniel & others 1987 (2) SA 225 (SWA) at 235D.
9 S v Cooper & others 1976 (2) SA 875 (T) at 885H-886A.

several of the counts preferred against Mr Boekhoud have to be revisited or
abandoned.

[64] In relation to the set of questions in para 23 above, the following
questions arise:
To which specific counts do they apply? Is common purpose still relied upon
by the State to extend the jurisdiction of the court below extra-territorially? In
respect of which particular acts was there a common purpose and in respect
of which is there reliance placed on the provisions of POCA for the extension
of jurisdiction extra-territorially?

[65] Generally, the question remains: which counts are to be revisited or
redrafted or withdrawn? One must guard against being seduced into
answering questions such as those set out in para 23 in a vacuum. Should the
State wish to ground its case on common purpose and seek to impute the
conduct of perpetrators in South Africa to Mr Boekhoud then it should say so
clearly and unequivocally in respect of each of the charges it intends to prefer
against him. The State is seriously contemplating redrawing the indictment
because it recognises that there are flaws. There is therefore no finality or
clarity in respect of the charges it intends finally to prefer against
Mr Boekhoud. That in itself is fatal to the State’s case.

[66] In Basson the Constitutional Court was concerned that the State
should not lose its right to prosecute by not having the ability to appeal
against an exception to a charge. It is not a concern we should lose sight of.
However, in the present case, the main count and its alternatives remain
extant. Having regard to the main count and the material parts of the
summary of substantial facts, it is the racketeering offences that the State is
most intent on establishing.

[67] Borchers J expressed the obiter view that the reference in the definition
to a pattern of racketeering activity is a reference to offences committed in
South Africa. She expressed the view that the predicate offences, which
constitute the pattern of racketeering activity, can be committed by a person

or persons other than the accused and all that is required is involvement or
participation in some form by the accused.10 In summary, the learned judge’s
prima facie view appears to be that the extra-territorial jurisdiction afforded to
the court below in relation to Mr Boekhoud is premised on his co-accused
having committed the predicate offences and that he was involved to some
degree or participated in some form. She appears to hold the view that the
predicate offences have to be committed in South Africa. She did not,
however, decide all those questions finally.

[68] In S v Dos Santos [2010] ZASCA 73 (27 May 2010); 2010 (2) SACR
382 (SCA) Ponnan JA said the following (para 39):
‘For a pattern of racketeering activity, POCA requires at least two offences committed during
the prescribed period. In this court, as indeed the one below, counsel argued that the word
“offence” in that context meant a prior conviction. Absent two prior convictions, so the
submission went, POCA could not be invoked. Underpinning that submission is the contention
that an accused person must first be tried and convicted of the predicate offences (here the
charges in terms of the Diamonds Act) before he/she could be indicted on the racketeering
charge in terms of POCA. Allied to that submission is the argument that in this instance there
has been an improper splitting of charges resulting in an improper duplication of convictions.’

[69] In para 40 of Dos Santos, the following appears:
‘In my view, whether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a court are decisions
that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion. Nor would it be necessary, it seems to me,
for the court to return a verdict of guilty in respect of the predicate offences for the POCA
racketeering charge to be sustained. It may well suffice for the court to hold that the predicate
charge has been proved without in fact returning a guilty verdict. But that need not be decided
here.’

10 In S v Eyssen 2009 (1) SACR 406 (SCA) para 7, this court said the following of a charge in
terms of s 2(1)(e) and (f) of POCA:
‘It is a requirement of the subsections in question that the accused (in ss (e)) or the other
person (in ss (f)) must participate in the enterprise’s affairs. It will therefore be important to
identify what those affairs are. It will also be important for the State to establish that any
particular criminal act relied upon, constituted participation in such affairs. . . . The
participation may be direct, or indirect.’
At para 9 of Eyssen Cloete JA said the following:
‘The participation must be by way of ongoing, continuous or repeated participation or
involvement. The use of “involvement” as well as the word “participation” widens the ambit of
the definition. So does the use of the words “ongoing, continuous or repeated”. Although
similar in meaning, there are nuances of difference. “Ongoing” conveys the idea of “not as yet
completed”. “Continuous” (as opposed to “continual”) means uninterrupted in time or
sequence. “Repeated” means recurring.’

[70] It appears that the State intends to prove the predicate offences and if
it proves that Mr Boekhoud shared a common purpose with his co-accused in
respect of one such offence, but does not establish a pattern of racketeering
activity it might consider whether a decision of guilt on one such offence is a
competent verdict in terms of s 270 of the CPA. If the court below is
disinclined to agree, the State will have a clearly defined set of facts against
which to frame a question in terms of s 319, should it be so advised.

[71] Furthermore, if the State proves a common purpose in respect of a
pattern of racketeering activity and the court below is disinclined to convict
Mr Boekhoud in respect thereof because it considers that this would mean it
was exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction, which in its view the statute or the
doctrine precludes it from doing, then there would be a defined set of facts
against which a question could be framed. Courts of appeal are, however, not
in the business of giving advice. It is for the State to consider its options and
to act advisedly.

[72] The problems referred to above are also evident in relation to
questions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. As stated earlier in this judgment, the State has
misconceived its own case and has employed the expression ‘extra-territorial’
loosely and without due regard to the principles of the doctrine of common
purpose. It appears not to be able to decide the foundations of its case and is
caught betwixt and between a number of conflicting concepts. I must confess
that the meaning of question 8 eludes me. It is so broad and unconnected to
any particular count as to be virtually unintelligible. In any event, as pointed
out by Borchers J, it was never an issue pertinently raised before her.

[73] It was submitted on behalf of Mr Boekhoud that the application for
condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal be refused.
The State, as is often the case, was at the mercy of transcribers. It took some
time for it to obtain the judgment of the court below. The explanation of the
steps taken by the State is, in my view, a reasonable one. I would accordingly
grant condonation.

[74] There is some force in the submission on behalf of Mr Boekhoud that
the State’s application for leave to appeal is not, as required by SCA rule
6(5)(a), ‘clear and succinct and to the point’. In my view, it should not in the
totality of circumstances for that reason alone be dismissed.

[75] For all the reasons stated above, there are no prospects of success
and the application for leave to appeal must fail. The following order is made:
1.
The application for condonation for late filing of the application for leave
to appeal is granted.
2.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

_________________
M S NAVSA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant:
J W S de Villiers

E H F le Roux

Instructed by

Not applicable

For Respondent:
W Vermeulen

B Myburgh

Instructed by

B D K Attorneys Johannesburg

Symington & De Kok Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

30 March 2011

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form
part of the judgment.

S v Boekhoud
(522/10) [2011] ZASCA 48 (30 March 2011)

Media Statement

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the application for leave to appeal by
the Director of Pubic Prosecutions, South Africa against a decision of the South Gauteng High
Court (Borchers J) in terms of which it had refused an application to reserve certain questions
of law in terms of s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

Mr Boekhoud, along with four co-accused, was indicted on a main charge in terms of s 2 of
the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) – offences relating to
racketeering activities – and 54 other counts including a number of counts of theft, fraud,
money laundering and contraventions of the provisions of the Mining Rights Act 20 of 1967.A
number of alternative charges were also preferred against the respondent.

At the commencement of the trial Mr Boekhoud tendered a plea in terms of s 106 of the CPA.
He averred that the court lacked jurisdiction on all but the main count of racketeering as s 2 of
POCA provides that a person who commits any of the acts listed thereunder shall be guilty of
the offence whether or not they were committed within the Republic.

Borchers J dealt with counsel for the State's submission that Mr Boekhoud was liable to be
convicted on the basis of having formed a common purpose with his co-accussed.  The court
thought that what was being sought was an extension of the extra-territorial jurisdiction and
considered that there was no authority for the proposition.
The court below upheld Mr Boekhoud's plea of lack of jurisdiction, and recorded that the State
had alleged that all the acts which constituted criminal conduct by Mr Boekhoud were
performed by him outside the boundaries of South Africa.  The State submitted that Borchers
J had erred in this regard.

The State resorted to s 319 of the CPA in terms of which it applied to that court to reserve
questions of law for the consideration by the court. It framed eight questions of law to be
decided by the court. The first question, the court below held could not be the subject matter
of a reserved question as it postulates that the learned judge had held that for a prosecution

of racketeering under POCA to succeed the racketeering act must have occurred with the
borders of South Africa. The judge stated that she had made no such finding and the State
did not persist in challenging the judge's refusal to reserve the question.

After considering the remaining questions the court below refused the application to reserve
certain questions of law.  The State applied for leave to appeal to the SCA which application
was opposed by Mr Boekhoud.

The SCA held that whenever a question of law is reserved in terms of s 319 certainty must
exist in regard to all of the facts to which the questions relate or on which the legal point
hinges.  So not only must the question be framed in such a way as to accurately express the
legal point but there must also be certainty concerning the facts on which the legal point
hinges.  In its heads of argument the State submitted that it would ask the court below to look
at all the evidence and all the acts of the accused as a whole at the end of the case and to
then determine whether it had established common purpose. During argument before the
SCA the State indicated that several counts would have to be revisited or abandoned as they
had been framed with Mr Boekhoud’s co-accused in mind. There was confusion in the State’s
summary of substantial facts, the further particulars supplied by it and heads of argument filed
by it. It vacillated by seeking wrongly to have the attribution principle of common purpose
applied so as to provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction and submitting that the acts were
committed here so that the question of extra-territorial jurisdiction did not arise.

The SCA held that in relation to the points of law sought to be determined by way of reserved
questions, the primary question that arose was as follows: to which specific counts did they
apply? The other questions appear hereafter: Is common purpose still relied on to ‘extend
jurisdiction extra-territorially’? In respect on which particular acts was there a common
purpose and in respect of which is there reliance placed on the provisions of POCA for the
extension of jurisdiction extra-territorially? The last remaining question is which counts are to
be revised or redrafted or withdrawn. The State was not precluded from redrafting its
indictment and stating clearly the bases of its case against Mr Boekhoud.

The court noted that the State was sometimes inclined in high profile cases to adopt a
scattergun approach and to draft numerous charges in an attempt to cover all bases thereby
leading to a lack of focus and precision.

For these reasons the court held that there was no prospect of success and that the
application for leave to appeal must fail.
--- ends ---