• What is the difference between cybercrime; hi-tech crime; and computer-facilitated crime? Knowing what cybercrime entails can assist users to be more alert. Refer to the article published on p10 and p11 of Servamus: June 2020..

    What is the difference between cybercrime; hi-tech crime; and computer-facilitated crime? Knowing what cybercrime entails can assist users to be more alert. Refer to the article published on p10 and p11 of Servamus: June 2020..

  • Social media is not all about being connected – it comes with a lot of pressure about what you say or share and can even have a negative impact on your career. Refer to our articles about social media published on p21 and p28 of Servamus: June 2020.

    Social media is not all about being connected – it comes with a lot of pressure about what you say or share and can even have a negative impact on your career. Refer to our articles about social media published on p21 and p28 of Servamus: June 2020.

  • Do you know what hacking, money muling and supplier side scams entail? Learn more about these concepts to ensure that you are not these cybercriminals’ next victim. Refer to the articles published on p30; p32 and p38 of Servamus: June 2020.

    Do you know what hacking, money muling and supplier side scams entail? Learn more about these concepts to ensure that you are not these cybercriminals’ next victim. Refer to the articles published on p30; p32 and p38 of Servamus: June 2020.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

- S v Smith 2017 (1) SACR 520 (WCC)

Background
Section 18 of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956* provides as follows:

“18.(1) Any person who attempts to commit any offence, against a statute or a statutory regulation shall be guilty of an offence and, if no punishment is expressly provided thereby for such an attempt, be liable on conviction to the punishment to which a person convicted of actually committing that offence would be liable.

(2) Any person who -

(a) conspires with any other person to aid or procure the commission of or to commit; or

(b) incites, instigates; commands, or procures any other person to commit, any offence, whether at common law or against a statute or statutory regulation, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the punishment to which a person convicted of actually committing that offence would be liable.”

Note that the so-called inchoate, incomplete or anticipatory crimes and/or offences* supra, are all statu-tory offences in terms of section 18 of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956. Note further that these are Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 offences*, but only if such conspiracy, incitement or attempt is in respect of a Schedule 1 offence - such as murder.

Remember then that conspiracy to commit an offence (any offence), can only take place where two or more persons are involved.

Also see what the learned author Snyman has to say on pp294-297 of his Criminal Law, fifth edition as published by LexisNexis. However, in this latter (Snyman) regard, see S v Kwatsha 2004 (2) SACR 564 (ECD) as discussed by Pollex in Servamus: June 2005.

In the last instance, by way of background, can a person be convicted of an attempt (which is one of the so-called incomplete offences supra), to commit another incomplete offence namely, conspiracy? In the light of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in S v Kekana 2013 (1) SACR 101
(SCA), the answer is “yes”. Refer to Pollex in Servamus: June 2013 where Kekana is discussed, as well as all the relevant remarks made at the time by Pollex.

For the sake of completeness: is an attempt to incite a person to commit an offence, legally speaking, possible? The answer is “yes” - see S v Nkosiyana 1966 (4) SA 655 (A).

Discussion
In the matter under discussion, namely S v Smith, Mr Smith (hereinafter referred to as the accused) and Mr Alan Kusevitsky (hereinafter referred to as Mr AK) were joint owners of City Bowl Armed Response (CBAR), a security business in Cape Town. As time passed, Mr AK discovered that the accused had misappropriated some of the business's income for his own account. Mr AK confronted the accused and after some time the latter agreed to repay Mr AK.

******************************

[This is only an extract of this legal discussion that is published in Servamus: February 2020. If you are interested in reading the rest of the discussion, send an e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or contact us at tel: (012) 345 4660/22 to find out how.]

 

0
0
0
s2smodern
powered by social2s

Servamus - June 2020

In February 2020, a family from Pretoria East had a harmful experience with a smartwatch which was meant to keep their children safe.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
When Anita* (a widow) found love via an online platform, she was thrilled.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
One unforeseen consequence of the emergence of the Internet, is the rapid increase in the illicit trade in child sexual abuse images and videos worldwide.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
The world around us is evolving at a rapid pace.
By Adv Jacqueline Fick

Pollex - June 2020

Read More The doctrine of common purpose and the crime of rape powered by social2s - S V Tshabalala; and S V Ntuli CCT 323/18 and CCT 69/19 (11 December 2019) (CC)
On 20 September 1998 (more than 20 years ago and while common law rape was still in operation) a group of young men - the two accused persons Mr Tshabalala and Mr Ntuli, together with their co-accused - went on a rampage in the Umthambeka section of the township of Tembisa in Gauteng.
Read More - S V Masuku 2019 (1) SACR 276 (GJ)
Mr Masuku, the accused, appeared before the regional court in Johannesburg (“the trial court”) on two charges of rape in contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, read with section 51(1) and, further read with Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (which provides for minimum sentences).
Read More - Van Rooyen and Another V Minister of Police 2019(1) SACR 349 (NCK)
The main characters in this legal drama are the following (note that the particulars of some of them are not mentioned in the judgment per se infra, accordingly Pollex found it on the Internet):

Letters - June 2020

NAME: W/O L H Zandberg STATION: Pretoria Central SAPS
Congratulations to Pollex for reaching 400 not out. Thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May God bless you with good health and joy and happiness, Brigadier.
“To sue or not to sue: May a public school be held liable when things go wrong?”
I want to take this opportunity to thank Servamus because, as a legal advisor in the police I cannot do it without Servamus.
May Magazine Cover

Servamus' Mission

Servamus is a community-based safety and security magazine for both members of the community as well as safety and security practitioners with the aim of increasing knowledge and sharing information, dedicated to improving their expertise, professionalism and service delivery standards. It promotes sound crime management practices, freedom of speech, education, training, information sharing and a networking platform.