R v Smith (1900)

Last updated
Regina v Smith
Coat of arms of the Cape Colony 1876-1994.svg
Decided30 October 1900
Citation(s)(1900) 17 SC 561; (1900) 10 CTR 773
Court membership
Judges sitting Solomon J, [1] Lange J, [2] Maasdorp QC

R v Smith [3] is a case decided by the Special Court created by the Indemnity and Special Tribunals Act, 1900 (No 6), sitting in the buildings [4] of the Supreme Court of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. [5] It relates to whether superior orders are an excuse [6] or justification. [7] It has been called a leading case. [8] [9] [10]

Contents

According to the Cape Times Law Reports, the ratio decidendi [11] of this case is as follows: The orders of a superior officer so long as they are neither obviously and decidedly illegal nor opposed to the well-established customs of the Army, must be completely and unhesitatingly obeyed by a soldier subordinate to such officer. But if such commands are obviously illegal, the inferior will be justified in questioning or even refusing to execute them. An officer or soldier acting under orders from his superior which are not necessarily nor manifestly illegal, will be justified in obeying such orders. [7]

Facts

During the Second Boer War, [12] on 22 November 1899, Peter William Smith, a member of the Cape Police Force and part of a patrol of British troops under the direct command of Captain Chas F Cox, shot and killed John Dolley, a native servant, at Jackhalsfontein, Colesberg, then in Cape Colony, for failing to produce a missing bridle, in obedience to the order "If he does not look sharp, put a hole through him" given by Cox. Smith was charged with the murder of Dolley. [7]

Judgment

Stephen said that in delivering judgment the Court, which was performing the duties of a jury as well as those of judges, found as a fact that Captain Cox believed that Dolley knew where the bridle was when he was told to fetch it, and that he willfully refused to do so; otherwise, there was no disputed question of fact of any importance for them to decide. [13]

The Court in announcing the law on which they acted left on one side the questions whether Captain Cox's order was in fact lawful and whether if it were not his acts and those of Smith were covered by the Act of Indemnity: and held that even if Captain Cox's order was unlawful, Smith was bound to obey it if it was not obviously and decidedly in opposition to the law of the land, or to the well-known established customs of the army. The rule was that if a soldier honestly believed he was doing his duty in obeying the commands of his superior and if the orders were not so manifestly illegal that he must or ought to have known that they were unlawful, the private soldier was protected by the order of his superior officer. Smith was accordingly acquitted. [13]

Novelty

This case was the first to be heard before the Special Court. [14]

It was reserved for the Court to give the first authoritative judgment on what had previously been a moot point, namely, what according to civil, as opposed to military, law is the position of a soldier who commits homicide at the order of his superior officer? [6]

In 1901, Stephen said:

It is probable that had the case been tried in England the question of law would have been decided precisely as it was by Mr. Justice Solomon and his colleagues. Case law is practically silent on the point, and the only statutory provision on the subject seems to be sect 9. of the Army Act, by which 'any person subject to military law' who 'disobeys any lawful command given by his superior officer' is liable in some cases to death, in others to penal servitude. The matter has not, however, escaped attention, and the judgement of the Court is in fact delivered in the terms of the Manual of Military Law, ch. iii, par. 11, which is in accordance with the view suggested by Sir James Stephen in his History of the Criminal Law, vol. i. p. 205. The point is not dealt with by the Draft Code of the Commission of 1878; but sect. 50 of that Code applies a similar rule to the acts of a soldier in suppressing a riot, when he is justified in obeying the command of his superior officer, unless such order is manifestly illegal. The report of Lord Bowen's Committee on the Featherstone riots hardly touches the liability of the private soldier, being chiefly occupied with the duty of the officer, and being in any case confined to the case of a riot.

The South African Court . . . thus had a pretty free hand in the matter . . . [13]

Subsequent judicial history

This case was followed [15] in R v Celliers. [16] It was not followed [17] in R v Van Vuuren. [18] It was held not to apply to the order in R v Werner. [19]

Reports

This case was reported in the Supreme Court Reports and the Cape Times Law Reports. [4] In 1901, Stephen said that the report in the Cape Times was the best report yet to hand [6] and he hoped a proper report of the case might be produced in some form easily accessible to the English practitioner. [13]

Bail

Regina v Smith
Coat of arms of the Cape Colony 1876-1994.svg
Decided23 August 1900
Citation(s)(1900) 10 CTR 486
Court membership
Judges sitting Buchanan ACJ, Maasdorp J, Solomon J [20]
Keywords
  • Murder
  • Bail

The Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope refused Smith's application for bail. [21] [22]

Related Research Articles

A court-martial or court martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.

The Nuremberg principles are a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anton Dostler</span> German general

Anton Dostler was a German army officer who fought in both World Wars. During World War II, he commanded several units as a General of the Infantry, primarily in Italy. After the Axis defeat, Dostler was executed for war crimes—specifically, ordering the execution of fifteen American prisoners of war in March 1944 during the Italian Campaign.

Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying a lawful order of one's superior. It is generally a punishable offense in hierarchical organizations such as the armed forces, which depend on people lower in the chain of command obeying orders.

The 1902 court-martial of Breaker Morant was a war crimes prosecution that brought to trial six officers – Lieutenants Harry "Breaker" Morant, Peter Handcock, George Witton, Henry Picton, Captain Alfred Taylor and Major Robert Lenehan – of the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC), an irregular regiment of mounted rifles during the Second Boer War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Benjamin Prentiss</span> American lawyer and military officer (1819–1901)

Benjamin Mayberry Prentiss was an American soldier and politician. He fought in the Mexican–American War and on the Union side of the American Civil War, rising to the rank of major general. He commanded a division at the Battle of Shiloh, which suffered heavy casualties while defending what became known as the Hornet's Nest from continued Confederate assaults, and he eventually surrendered his division. He was criticized by some for his conduct in that battle. After his exchange, he continued to serve in the army until his resignation in 1863. He spent much of his remaining life practicing as a lawyer and as a politician in the Republican Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Command responsibility</span> Doctrine of hierarchical accountability

In the practice of international law, Command Responsibility is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes, whereby a commanding officer (military) and a superior officer (civil) is legally responsible for the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed by his subordinates; thus, a commanding officer always is accountable for the acts of commission and the acts of omission of his soldiers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of South Africa</span> Legal system of the Republic of South Africa

South Africa has a 'hybrid' or 'mixed' legal system, formed by the interweaving of a number of distinct legal traditions: a civil law system inherited from the Dutch, a common law system inherited from the British, and a customary law system inherited from indigenous Africans. These traditions have had a complex interrelationship, with the English influence most apparent in procedural aspects of the legal system and methods of adjudication, and the Roman-Dutch influence most visible in its substantive private law. As a general rule, South Africa follows English law in both criminal and civil procedure, company law, constitutional law and the law of evidence; while Roman-Dutch common law is followed in the South African contract law, law of delict (tort), law of persons, law of things, family law, etc. With the commencement in 1994 of the interim Constitution, and in 1997 its replacement, the final Constitution, another strand has been added to this weave.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Maxwell (British Army officer)</span> British Army general and colonial governor (1859–1929)

General Sir John Grenfell Maxwell, was a British Army officer and colonial governor. He served in the Mahdist War in the Sudan, the Second Boer War, and in the First World War. As Commander-in-Chief, Ireland, he played a key part in the response to the 1916 Easter Rising, including overseeing the courts-martial after the rebellion. Maxwell retired in 1922.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Superior orders</span> Criminal defense of "just following orders"

Superior orders, also known as the Nuremberg defense or just following orders, is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether a member of the military, law enforcement, or the civilian population, should not be considered guilty of committing actions that were ordered by a superior officer or official.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts of South Africa</span>

The courts of South Africa are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa. They apply the law of South Africa and are established under the Constitution of South Africa or under Acts of the Parliament of South Africa.

Captain Alfred James "'Bulala" Taylor was an Irish military officer who was active in Africa during the Scramble for Africa and the Second Boer War. He is best known as a defendant in one of the first war crimes prosecutions in British military history. Born into a middle class Protestant family in Dublin, Ireland, Taylor jumped ship in Cape Town in 1886 and served in the British South Africa Police of the British South Africa Company (BSAC). He played a major role in the conquest of modern-day Zimbabwe by the company. During two subsequent uprisings by the Northern Ndebele people against Company rule in Rhodesia, Taylor was dubbed by the Ndebele "Bulala" and "Bamba".

The principle of command and obedience in the Bundeswehr, along with the concept of "citizens in uniform", was central to the 1953 idea of "leadership development and civic education". The revised definition of military orders and obedience, as well as superior–subordinate relations by the former "Amt Blank", was a 1950s result of Nazi German excesses. Central aims were the reduction of power to command by superiors and a shared responsibility for obedience by subordinates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Cape Division</span> Superior court of law in the Western Cape, South Africa

The Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa is a superior court of law with general jurisdiction over the Western Cape province of South Africa. The division, which sits at Cape Town, consists of 31 judges led by Judge President John Hlophe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British war crimes</span> War crimes perpetrated by the United Kingdom and its armed forces

British war crimes are acts committed by the armed forces of the United Kingdom that have violated the laws and customs of war since the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, from the Boer War to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Such acts have included the summary executions of prisoners of war and unarmed shipwreck survivors, the use of excessive force during the interrogation of POWs and enemy combatants, and the use of violence against civilian non-combatants and their property.‌

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

In Carelse v Estate De Vries, an important case in South African succession law, Carelse was seduced, on the promise of marriage, by the deceased. Carelse and the deceased continued their relationship, which produced seven children, before the deceased died intestate.

Reginald Percy Basil Davis KC was a South African judge and Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court.

References

  1. ↑ As to the identity of Solomon J, see "The Special Court, Cape Colony" (1900) 17 Cape Law Journal 337
  2. ↑ As to Lange J, see "Sir John Lange" (1920) 37 South African Law Journal 395 at 396
  3. ↑ Also called "Reg v Smith" and "Queen v Smith" and "Queen v P W Smith"
  4. 1 2 R v Smith (1900) 17 SC 561; (1900) 10 CTR 773
  5. ↑ Chalmers and Hood Phillips' Constitutional Laws of Great Britain, the British Empire and Commonwealth. 6th Edition. 1946. p 300. Owen Hood Phillips. The Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. Sweet & Maxwell. 1952. p 406.
  6. 1 2 3 H L Stephen, "Superior Orders as Excuse for Homicide", (1901) 17 Law Quarterly Review 87
  7. 1 2 3 R v Smith (1900) 10 CTR 773
  8. ↑ As to South Africa, see: S v Banda and Others 1990 (3) SA 466 at 480 (B) per Friedman J. Ellison Kahn, Law, Life, and Laughter, Juta & Co Ltd, 1991, p 107. Digby Sqhelo Koyana, Influence of the Transkei Penal Code on South African Criminal Law, Lovedale Press, 1992, p 76. Burchell and Milton, Principles of Criminal Law, Juta & Co Ltd, 1991, p 292.
  9. ↑ As to Lesotho, see R v Molapo (1986) CRI/T/2/86 at p 8, High Court of Lesotho
  10. ↑ As to England and Canada, see: Geoffrey Creighton "Superior Orders and Command Responsibility in Canadian Criminal Law" (1980) 38 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 1 at 15 (see also p 5). Lippman, "Conundrums of Armed Conflict" [1996] 15 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1 at 7; Lippman, "The Development and Scope of the Superior Orders Defense" [2001] 20 Penn State International Law Review 153 at 163.
  11. ↑ This is what headnotes do: Machaha, A Simple Guide to the Introduction of Law, Law Development Centre, 2004, p 31; Geldart, Elements of English Law, 1911, Reprinted 1918, p 18; Legal Research Materials and Methods, 4th Ed, LBC Information Services, 1996, p 110.
  12. ↑ Anders and Ellson. The Criminal Law of South Africa. W E Hortor & Co. Johannesburg. 1915. Page 9.
  13. 1 2 3 4 H L Stephen, "Superior Orders as Excuse for Homicide" (1901) 17 Law Quarterly Review 87 at 88
  14. ↑ R v Smith (1900) 17 SC 561
  15. ↑ S v Banda and Others 1990 (3) SA 466 at 482 per Friedman J. Snyman, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 1995, p 124.
  16. ↑ Rex v Celliers [1903] ORC 1 (Google Books)
  17. ↑ (1944) 61 South African Law Journal 97; S v Banda and Others 1990 (3) SA 466 at 482; R v Molapo (1986) CRI/T/2/86 at p 8, High Court of Lesotho
  18. ↑ Rex v Van Vuuren 1944 OPD 35 at 38
  19. ↑ Rex v Werner and Another 1947 (2) SA 828 (A); (1947) 14 International Law Reports 203; (1947) 60 International Law Studies 385 at 389. See further 5 Bond Law Review  6
  20. ↑ As to the identity of Buchanan ACJ , Maasdorp J and Solomon J, see 10 CTR, page following title page
  21. ↑ Regina v Smith (1900) 10 CTR 486; Queen v Smith (1900) 17 Cape Law Journal 277
  22. ↑ For further commentary, see In re Dinuzulu (1908) 29 Natal Law Reports 51; Swift, The South African Law of Criminal Procedure, 1957 p 137; Nathan, The Common Law of South Africa, 1907, vol 4, p 2671.
Attribution
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.