| Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa |
| Full case name | Petersen v Minister of Safety and Security |
| Decided | 10 September 2009 |
| Citation(s) | [2010] 1 All SA 19 (SCA); Case No. 514/08 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | FDJ Brand, JA Heher, S Snyders JJA, NV Hurt and ZL Tshiqi AJJA |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Brand JA |
| Keywords | |
| Delict, Claim for damages, Personal injury, Defence of necessity, Onus, Police, Wrongfulness | |
Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security [1] [2] is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.
In 2002, the police attempted to seize at least twenty bags of illegally harvested abalone or perlemoen in an area infamous for perlemoen poaching. During that exercise, a belligerent crowd gathered, opposing the removal of the haul by the police. The crowd then began stoning the police, forcing their retreat. That allowed the crowd to make off with most of the bags of perlemoen. In the course of the altercation between the crowd and the police, the latter attempted to stave off the attack by firing rubber bullets into the crowd. When the police ran out of rubber bullets, they started shooting into the ground near the crowd with sharp-point ammunition from their firearms.
The appellant sued the respondent for damages sustained by her son in the above-mentioned shooting. The respondent raised the defence of justification in the form of self-defence, alternatively necessity. The plea of necessity was upheld by the trial court, which led to the dismissal of the appellant's claim, with costs. The present appeal ensued.
Much more was said by the appellant on appeal, in the numerous contradictions between the police witnesses on matters of detail. The appellant asked the court to conclude, from the contradictions, that the version of the police witnesses could not be accepted.
The court, however, found the contradictions between the police witnesses to bear the hallmarks of honest mistakes. They were patently immaterial and were of a kind that may result from erroneous observation in a confused situation. The court cited the judgment of Nicholas J in S v Oosthuizen : [3] [4]
Where the [contradicting] statements are made by different persons, the contradiction in itself proves only that one of them is erroneous: it does not prove which one. It follows that the mere fact of the contradiction does not support any conclusion as to the credibility of either person. It acquires probative value only if the contradicting witness is believed in preference to the first witness, that is, if the error of the first witness is established [....] [5] [6] Plainly it is not every error made by a witness which affects his credibility. In each case the trier of fact has to make an evaluation; taking into account such matters as the nature of the contradictions, their number and importance, and their bearing on other parts of the witness's evidence. [7]
The court did find, however, that the appellant's son was an unsatisfactory witness. He was clearly attempting to disassociate himself from the crowd, and in doing so ended up denying things that were fairly common cause.
The question remaining was whether, in the circumstances, the police action which caused the appellant's son's injuries did not attract liability because it was justified in circumstances of necessity. Unlike self-defence, the defence of necessity does not require that the defendant's action be directed at a wrongful attacker. There was, therefore, no need for the respondent to establish that the appellant's son was himself part of the attacking crowd.
What the respondent had to prove in order to establish the justification defence of necessity, appeared in broad outline, from the following statements in by JR Midgley and JC van der Walt:
An act of necessity can be described as lawful conduct directed against an innocent person for the purpose of protecting an interest of the actor or a third party [...] against a dangerous situation [....]
Whether a situation of necessity existed is a factual question which must be determined objectively [....]
A person may inflict harm in a situation of necessity only if the danger existed, or was imminent, and he or she has no other reasonable means of averting the danger [....]
The means used and measures taken to avert the danger of harm must not have been excessive, having regard to all the circumstances of the case [....] [8]
Based on the facts, the court agreed with the finding of both the trial court and the court a quo: that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing that the conduct of the police officers, which caused the complainant's injuries, was not wrongful, as their actions were justified by necessity.
The appeal was thus dismissed with costs.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.
In English law, the defence of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.
Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.
The South African law of delict engages primarily with ‘the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered’. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict ‘in general terms [...] as a civil wrong’, and more narrowly as ‘wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person’. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.
NEHAWU v Tsatsi is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 14 November 2005, with judgment handed down on 1 December.
Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict, but with implications also for criminal law. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 21 August 2003, with judgment handed down on 26 September.
First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC ; PM Wulfsohn SC appeared for the respondents.
South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.
Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.
Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of delict and on the question of negligence.
Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.
Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.
K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.
Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.
Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.
In Van Eeden v. Minister of Safety and Security , an important case in the South African of law of delict as well as the country's criminal law, the appellant, Ghia Van Eeden, was assaulted, raped, and robbed by a known, dangerous criminal who had escaped from police custody. The court held that the state was obliged to protect individuals by taking active steps to prevent violations of the constitutional right to freedom and security of the person, inter alia by protecting everyone from violent crime. It was also obliged under international law to protect women specifically from violent crime.
Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court Of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.
Informal admissions in South African law are part of the South African law of evidence. Briefly, an admission is a statement made by a party, in civil or criminal proceedings, which is adverse to that party's case. Informal admissions, which are usually made out of court, must be distinguished from formal admissions, made in the pleadings or in court. Formal admissions are binding on the maker, and are generally made in order to reduce the number of issues before the court; an informal admission is merely an item of evidence that can be contradicted or explained away.