IURI 211: LE // SU 3 by Jacques Matthee on Prezi
IURI 211: LE // SU 3
Handeling: Eerste Element van 'n Misdryf // Conduct: First Element of a Crime
Transcript of IURI 211: LE // SU 3
Handeling: Eerste Element van 'n misdryf
Conduct: First Element of a Crime
WAT WORD VAN U VERWAG?
Maak die 'internet browser' op u 'smartphone', selfoon, iPad of skoortekenaar met internettoegang oop.
Open the internet browser on your smarthpone, cell phone, iPad or laptop with internet access.
Tike die volgende adres in: 'm.socrative.com'
Klik enter/'go to'/'proceed' ens.
U sal nou skerm
Type in the following address: 'm.socrative.com'.
Press enter/go to etc.
You will now see screen
By 'room number' tik in 'jlm' en klik op 'join room'.
Wag vir verdere instruksies.
Type in 'jlm' at 'room number' and click on 'join room'.
WAT HET ONS VERLEDE WEEK BEHANDEL?
Willekeurige menslike handeling.
Outomatisme & Absolute Dwang
Voluntary human conduct.
Defences: Automatism & compulsion.
Uitgesluit deur regverdigingsgronde.
Excluded by grounds of justification.
Nie element van misdryf nie.
Voorvereiste vir skuld.
Uitgesluit deur skulduitsluitingsgrond.
Not element of crime.
Prerequisite for fault.
Excluded by grounds excluding fault.
Bestaan uit opset of nalatigheid.
Uitgesluit deur skulduitsluitingsgronde.
Consists of intention or negligence.
Feitelik & Juridies
Factual & legal.
LE / SU 3
LE / SU 4
LE / SU 5
LE / SU 6
LE / SU 7
Die groter prentjie ...
Voldoening aan legaliteitsbeginsel
Compliance with principle of legality
LE / SU 2
menslike handeling = misdryf
human conduct = crime
'n misdryf pleeg nie
"Kyk, die hond blaf"
begeer het; of
wou doen nie.
Aktiewe, positiewe optrede
Active, positive conduct
Versuim om op te tree
Wanneer aanspreeklik vir late?
When liable for ommission?
algemene regsplig om aktief op te tree ten einde skade/nadeel vir ander te voorkom nie.
general legal duty to act positively to prevent damages/harm from coming to another.
Uitgekristalliseerde kategorieë van aanspreeklikheid vir lates
Crystallised categories of liability for ommissions
Statutêre plig //
Vorige positiewe optrede //
Prior positive conduct
Beheer oor gevaarlike voorwerp //
Control of dangerous thing
Openbare/Kwasi-Openbare amp //
Middele & Geleentheid
Wat is die toets wat die hof in Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 3 SA 590 (A) rakende die aanspreeklikheid van lates neergelê het?
What is the test for the liability of
omissions as formulated by the court in Minister of Police v Ewels 1975 3 SA 590 (A)?
In kort ...
Een dag terwyl Hein in sy tuin werk sien hy die bure se ses-jarige seun in die swembad baljaar. Die seun se ouers is nêrens te siene nie. Die volgende oomblik begin die seun om hulp skree en was duidelik in die moeilikheid. Hein, 'n Olimpiese goue-medalje swemeer, besluit om nie die seun te help nie, aangesien hy gereken het dat sy ouers hom sou hoor en hom te hulp sal snel. Ongelukkig hoor die seuntjie se ouers hom nie en hy verdrink. Bespreek die vraag of Hein strafregtelike aansrpeeklik gehou sal kan vir die dood van die seuntjie. Verwys na toepaslike regspraak.
One day while Hein was working in his garden he saw the neighbour's six year old son splashing around in the pool. The boy's parents were nowhere in sight. The next moment the boy started yelling for help and was clearly in distress. Hein, an Olympic gold-medallist swimmer, decided not to help the boy as he figured his parents would hear him and come to his aid. Unfortunately, the boy's parents did not hear him and the boy drowned. Discuss the question whether Hein could be held criminally liable for the death of the boy. Refer to applicable case law.
Gesonde vs Sieklike outomatisme
R v Ngang 1960 3 SA 363 (T)
S v Ngema 1992 2 All SA 436 (D)
Wat is die verskil in die hof se uitspraak in bogenoemde sake?
What is the difference in the court's decision in the cases above?
Beskou die volgende scenario ...
View the following situation ...
R v Mkize 1959 2 SA 260 (N)
Feite & bevinding // Facts & decision?
R v Victor 1943 TPD 77
Wat was die hof se ratio vir sy bevinding?
What was the court's ratio for its decision?
R v Schoonwinkel 1953 3 SA 136 (K)
Wat was die verskil in bogenoemde uitsprake?
What was the difference in the decisions above?
S v Viljoen
1992 1 SACR 601 (T)
Verweer - ja/nee?
Defence - yes/no?
S v Johnson 1969 1 SA 201 (A)
Is dronkenskap 'n verweer?
Wat was die effek van S v Chretien 1981 1 SA 1097 (A) op die regsposisie rakende dronkenskap?
What was the effect of S v Chretien 1981 1 SA 1097 (A) on the legal position regarding intoxication?
Artikel 1 van Wet 1 van 1988
Section 1 of Act 1 of 1988
ABSOLUTE vs RELATIEWE DWANG
ABSOLUTE vs RELATIVE FORCE
Wat is die invloed daarvan op 'n dader se strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid?
What is the influence thereof on a perpetrator's criminal liability?