Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

IURI 211: LE // SU 3

Handeling: Eerste Element van 'n Misdryf // Conduct: First Element of a Crime
by

Jacques Matthee

on 9 February 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of IURI 211: LE // SU 3

LEEREENHEID 3

Handeling: Eerste Element van 'n misdryf

STUDY UNIT 3

Conduct: First Element of a Crime
ENIGE VRAE?
ANY QUESTIONS?
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF YOU?
WAT WORD VAN U VERWAG?
IURI 211

STRAFREG
CRIMINAL LAW

Hersieningsoefening //
Revision Exercise
STAP 1
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.
STAP 2
Tike die volgende adres in: 'm.socrative.com'
Klik enter/'go to'/'proceed' ens.
U sal nou skerm
(1)
sien.
Type in the following address: 'm.socrative.com'.
Press enter/go to etc.
You will now see screen
(1)
.
STAP 3
By 'room number' tik in 'jlm' en klik op 'join room'.
U sal nou skerm
(2)
sien.
Wag vir verdere instruksies.
Type in 'jlm' at 'room number' and click on 'join room'.
You will now see screen

(2)
.
Wait for further instructions.
WHAT DID WE DISCUSS LAST WEEK?
WAT HET ONS VERLEDE WEEK BEHANDEL?
VOORBEREIDING
//
PREPARATION
HANDELING
CONDUCT
(1)
(2)
Misdryf
Crime
Willekeurige menslike handeling.
Uitsluitingsgronde:
Outomatisme & Absolute Dwang

Voluntary human conduct.
Defences: Automatism & compulsion.
Wederregtelikheid.
Uitgesluit deur regverdigingsgronde.

Unlawfulness.
Excluded by grounds of justification.
Toerekeningsvatbaarheid.
Nie element van misdryf nie.
Voorvereiste vir skuld.
Uitgesluit deur skulduitsluitingsgrond.
Capacity.
Not element of crime.
Prerequisite for fault.
Excluded by grounds excluding fault.
Skuld.
Bestaan uit opset of nalatigheid.
Uitgesluit deur skulduitsluitingsgronde.

Fault.
Consists of intention or negligence.
Excluded by grounds excluding fault.
Kousaliteit.
Feitelik & Juridies

Causation.
Factual & legal.
LE / SU 3
LE / SU 4
LE / SU 5
LE / SU 6
LE / SU 7
Die groter prentjie ...
The bigger picture
...
Voldoening aan legaliteitsbeginsel

Compliance with principle of legality
LE / SU 2
SLEGS

menslike handeling = misdryf
ONLY

human conduct = crime
Diere kan
nie
'n misdryf pleeg nie
Animals
cannot
commit a crime
"Kyk, die hond blaf"
Hoekom
nie?
Why not?
HANDELING
CONDUCT
Voorkom
Prevent
Vermy
Avoid
Keuse
Choice
Willekeurigheid
Voluntariness
NIE
wat beskuldigde
bedoel het;
begeer het; of
wou doen nie.
NOT

what accused
intended;
desired; of
wanted to do.
skuld
fault
Onwillekeurige
handeling

Involuntary
conduct
GEEN
misdryf!
NO

crime!
Voorbeelde???
Examples???
Hoekom nie?
Why not?
HANDELING
CONDUCT
Aktiewe, positiewe optrede
Active, positive conduct
Versuim om op te tree
Failure to act
Wanneer aanspreeklik vir late?
When liable for ommission?
Late //

Omission
Algemene reël:
Geen
algemene regsplig om aktief op te tree ten einde skade/nadeel vir ander te voorkom nie.
General rule:
No
general legal duty to act positively to prevent damages/harm from coming to another.
Gemeenskapsedes
Legal convictions
of community
Uitgekristalliseerde kategorieë van aanspreeklikheid vir lates
Crystallised categories of liability for ommissions
Statutêre plig //
Statutory duty
Vorige positiewe optrede //
Prior positive conduct
Beheer oor gevaarlike voorwerp //
Control of dangerous thing
Beskermingsverhouding //
Protective relationship
Openbare/Kwasi-Openbare amp //
Public/Quasi-Public office
Polisiebeamptes //
Police officers
Addisionele vereistes
Additional requirements
Middele & Geleentheid
Means & Opportunity
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)?
STRAFREGTELIKE HANDELING
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
WILLEKEURIG
VOLUNTARY
DOEN/LATE?
ACT/OMISSION?
MENSLIKE GEDRAG
HUMAN CONDUCT
In kort ...
In short ...
Toets u kennis
Test your knowledge
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.
OUTOMATISME
AUTOMATISM
Gesonde vs Sieklike outomatisme
Sane vs Insane automatism
Wat is die verskil?
What is the difference?
Oorsake?
Causes?
SLAAP
//
SLEEP
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 ...
EPILEPSIE
//
EPILEPSY
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?
Is intoxication a defence?
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 verskil?
What is the difference?
Wat is die invloed daarvan op 'n dader se strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid?
What is the influence thereof on a perpetrator's criminal liability?
https://googledrive.com/host/0ByNh1R6mT4Q3c0xCTklCa2poY00/
https://googledrive.com/host/0ByNh1R6mT4Q3c0xCTklCa2poY00/
Full transcript