R v Peverett

Last updated
R v Peverett
Court Appellate Division
Full case nameRex Respondent v Peverett Appellant
Decided26 March 1940 (1940-03-26)
Citation(s)1940 AD 213
Case history
Appealed fromDurban and Coast Local Division
Case opinions
Criminal law, Attempted murder, suicide, Intention
Court membership
Judges sitting De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA, and Feetham JA
Case opinions
Decision byWatermeyer JA

R v Peverett is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on March 7, 1940. The appellant's attorneys were Renaud & Mooney, Durban, and Kannemeyer & Jeffreys, Bloemfontein.

Contents

Facts

The accused and one Edna Saunders, at the latter's suggestion, decided to commit suicide by introducing into a closed motor car poisonous fumes from the exhaust pipe of the car. The accused made the necessary arrangements. He and Saunders then sat in the car, and the accused started the engine. They both lost consciousness but were later removed from the car and eventually recovered. The accused was convicted of attempted murder. The case came to the Appellate Division as an appeal upon a question of law reserved by Carlisle J, presiding with assessors at the Criminal Sessions of the Durban and Coast Local Division.

Arguments

TB Turner, for the appellant, argued that neither suicide nor attempt to commit suicide is a crime in South Africa. [1] [2] If accused was merely an accessory to attempted suicide, he committed no crime. [3] There was no intent to kill; therefore accused did not attempt murder.

LC Barrett, for the Crown, contended that a person cannot in law consent to his life being taken by the other party to a suicide pact. If the other kills him in the execution of such pact, such killing is unlawful. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The question whether suicide is or is not a crime was irrelevant, he contended; alternatively, he argued that suicide was not a crime in South African law. [9] [10] [11]

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the fact that Saunders was free to breathe the poisonous gas or not as she pleased did not free the accused from criminal responsibility for his acts. The accused had contemplated and expected that, as a consequence of his acts, Saunders would die; he therefore intended to kill her, however little he may have desired her death.

Watermeyer JA observed that Van der Linden's statement in his notes to Voet seems to differ from his statement in the Institutes. [12] [13] As regards a person who attempted to commit suicide, it was doubtful whether he thereby committed a crime in South African law. [14] [15] [16]

The evidence showed that the accused had the intention to kill. He actually set about encompassing the death of Saunders; his acts went beyond mere preparation. [17] In English law, attempted suicide was a misdemeanour according to Rex v Doody , [18] but according to Rex v Mann , [19] it was a felony. [20] A change of mind after his acts had amounted to an attempt could not avail him. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.

<i>R v Brown</i>

R v Brown[1993] UKHL 19, [1994] 1 AC 212 is a House of Lords judgment which re-affirmed the conviction of five men for their involvement in consensual unusually severe sadomasochistic sexual acts over a 10-year period. They were convicted of a count of unlawful and malicious wounding and a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The key issue facing the Court was whether consent was a valid defence to assault in these circumstances, to which the Court answered in the negative. The acts involved included the nailing of a part of the body to a board, but not so as to necessitate, strictly, medical treatment.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.

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.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

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.

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.

<i>R v Victor</i> South African legal case

R v Victor, an appeal against a conviction by a magistrate, is an important case in South African criminal law, especially as it bears on the defence of automatism. The driver of a motor vehicle was prone to epileptic fits, and knew as much, but nevertheless put himself behind the wheel of a motor car. He suffered a fit while driving and collided with a pedestrian and another car. The court on appeal sustained his conviction by a magistrate on the ground that the negligence which the accused there committed was not so much in the driving of the vehicle, but in his driving at all, knowing of his physical disability. A reasonable person would have foreseen the likelihood of a fit and refrained from driving.

In S v Fernandez, an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 17, 1966, the court held that the appellant had been negligent in mending a cage from which a baboon had subsequently escaped, which subsequently bit a child, who subsequently died. The appellant must have foreseen the likelihood of an attack in the event of the baboon's escaping; he was, the court held, therefore rightly convicted of culpable homicide. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Galgut J and Clayden J, who had dismissed an appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court.

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.

R v Patel is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on May 8, 1959. The appellant's attorneys were Levy, Rogaly & Cohen, Pretoria, and S. and v A Rosendorff, Bloemfontein. The Appellate Division ruled that "a person has the same right to use force in the defence of another from a threatened danger, as he would have to defend himself, if he were the person threatened."

In S v Jackson, an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that a person is justified in killing in self-defence not only when he fears that his life is in danger but also when he fears grievous bodily harm. PE Linde appeared for the appellant and BG van der Walt, SC, Attorney-General OFS, for the State. The case was heard on March 8, 1963. The appellant's attorney was DA Carroll, Johannesburg.

<i>R v Bourke</i>

In Rex v Bourke, an important case in South African criminal law, the Transvaal Provincial Division (TPD) held that, under Roman-Dutch law, drunkenness is, as a general rule, no defence to a crime, although it may be a reason for mitigation of punishment. If the drunkenness is not voluntary—that is, if not caused by an act of the accused—and results in rendering the accused unconscious of what he was doing, he would not be responsible in law for an act done while in such a state. If constant drunkenness has induced a state of mental disease rendering the accused unconscious of his act at the time, he is not responsible and can be declared insane. Where a special intention is necessary to constitute a particular offence, drunkenness might reduce the crime from a more serious to a less serious one.

S v Vika, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security 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.

Rex v Zikalala is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 27, 1953. Zikalala, the appellant, had been charged and convicted of the culpable homicide in causing the death of one Alpheus Tsele. On appeal to the Appellate Division, he successfully argued self-defence.

The appellant in Van Aardt v S, an important case in South African criminal law, had been convicted in the Grahamstown High Court of the murder of a fifteen-year-old youth, following a savage beating administered by the appellant, who suspected the deceased of theft. An appeal to the full bench of the Eastern Cape High Court was unsuccessful, so the matter came on further appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant admitted common assault, but denied that such assault had caused the death of the deceased, or that he bore a legal duty to seek medical intervention for the deceased.

<i>R v Smith</i> (1900)

R v Smith is a case decided by the Special Court created by the Indemnity and Special Tribunals Act, 1900, sitting in the buildings of the Supreme Court of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. It relates to whether superior orders are an excuse or justification. It has been called a leading case.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 88; vol. 2, p. 1263).
  2. ↑ Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275 and footnote on p. 276 and p. 277).
  3. ↑ See Rex v Rasool 1924 AD 44 at p. 47.
  4. ↑ See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 85).
  5. ↑ Grotius (2.1.43, 44, 46).
  6. ↑ Schorer's Note 70 on sec. 44.
  7. ↑ Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (4.34.11, p. 277 of vol. 2, Kotze's trans.).
  8. ↑ Moorman (van Hasselt) Over de Misdaaden (2.11.4).
  9. ↑ See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 1263).
  10. ↑ Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275).
  11. ↑ Van der Linden's Institutes (2.5.14).
  12. ↑ See Carpzovius' Lijfstraffelyke Misdaaden (ch. 2, paras. 13-21).
  13. ↑ See the article on suicide in the SA Law Journal (vol. 25, p. 413).
  14. ↑ See Moorman (2.11.2 and 4) (not punishable).
  15. ↑ See Damhouder Cap. LXXXI (in affirmative).
  16. ↑ See Carpzovius (supra) (eh. 2, para. 22 et seq.) (punishable under certain circumstances).
  17. ↑ As to what constitutes an attempt see Rex v Sharpe 1903 TS 868; Rex v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485; Rex v Vilinsky and Lipschitz 1932 OPD 218.
  18. ↑ 6 Cox 463.
  19. ↑ 1914, 2 KB 107.
  20. ↑ See also Russell on Crimes (8th ed., vol. 1, pp. 618, 620).
  21. ↑ See Rex v Hlatwayo and Another 1933 TPD 441.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.