• What is the extent of the illegal organized cigarette trade in South Africa? How much money is lost annually to the South African economy as a result? We answer these and other important questions in an article published in Servamus: January 2021.

  • Servamus subscribers stand the chance of winning a BYRNA Less-lethal firearm (no need for permits). Turn to p21 of Servamus: January 2021 to find out what you need to do to win this awesome prize worth R7500!

  • COVID-19 has exacerbated the threat of crimes that are committed in the pharmaceutical industry, such as counterfeiting and fraud, as large consignments of counterfeit medical products have been distributed. Our article published from p24 in Servamus: January 2021, reveals more details.

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

- S V Mkhize and Others (390/18) [2019] ZASCA 56 (1 April 2019) (SCA)

The doctrine of common purpose (Afrikaans: “gemeenskaplike oogmerk-leerstuk”)

According to the learned criminal law author Snyman, on p265 of his Criminal Law, fifth edition as published by LexisNexis, “the essence of the doctrine [of common purpose] is that if two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in order to achieve that purpose, then the conduct [Afrikaans: ‘handeling’] of each of them in the execution of that purpose is imputed [Afrikaans: ‘toegereken’] to the others”. (Words in square brackets inserted by Pollex.)

Prima facie (at first sight or on the face of it) this sounds as if common purpose only applies to offences where the required form of mens rea (fault [Afrikaans: “skuld”]) is dolus (intention). Bear, however, in mind that the required form of mens rea for the offence of culpable homicide is culpa (negligence) and NOT dolus.

This is, of course, not so. Snyman, on p269 of his Criminal Law supra, refers to Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) judgments where it was held that “common purpose to commit culpable homicide” is in fact possible. On p265 (again) in item 6, Snyman explains as follows, namely -

“If, on a charge of culpable homicide the evidence reveals that a number of persons acted with a common purpose to assault or commit robbery and that the conduct of one or more of them resulted in the death of the victim, the causing of the victim’s death is imputed to the other members of the group as well, but negligence in respect of the causing of the death is not imputed”.

The facts in S v Mkhize and Others under discussion
The five accused persons were all SAPS members who, at the time, were members of a special task team established to deal with a spate of armed robberies and car hijackings in the area of Jozini and Esikhawini in KwaZulu-Natal.

A man by the name of Bongani Cebekhulu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was suspected of being involved in these crimes. Accordingly, he was taken to the offices of the detective branch at Esikhawini. During interrogation by the five accused persons, the deceased died right there in the office.

All five the accused persons were charged with murder before the Esikhawini regional court. Note that not one of the accused persons gave evidence in their respective defence.

After a long trial all five the accused persons were convicted of the competent verdict (Afrikaans: “bevoegde uitspraak”) of culpable homicide. The regional court held that because all five accused persons were present at the offices during interrogation, they acted in common purpose and that a
reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against the possibility of death and that the accused persons failed to take such steps. All five accused persons were each sentenced to three years’ correctional supervision in terms of section 276(6)(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. In addition, each one of the five accused persons were sentenced to five years’ incarceration which was wholly, conditionally suspended for four years.

Appeal before the High Court in Pietermaritzburg
Not satisfied with this outcome, all five accused persons appealed to the High Court in Pietermaritzburg (“the High Court”) against their convictions only. What happened here was that all the convictions were confirmed. However, in respect of sentence, the High Court held that it was too lenient. In the result the sentences imposed by the regional court were all set aside and replaced with a sentence of seven years’ incarceration of which two years were conditionally suspended for five years. The effective sentences imposed by the High Court were thus five years’ direct incarceration in respect of each of the five accused persons.


[This is only an extract of this legal discussion that is published in Servamus: March 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.]

powered by social2s

Servamus - January 2021

A lack of employment and job opportunities is often considered to be an important reason for criminal behaviour.
By Kotie Geldenhuys
Towards the end of March 2020, the President, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, announced that as of midnight on 26 March 2020, South Africa would go into a "hard lockdown".
By Kotie Geldenhuys
The current worldwide COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in various lockdown levels across the world, has opened new opportunities for criminals to exploit people - especially in cyberspace.
By Annalise Kempen
Families across the world have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which will likely have a long-lasting impact on public health and our well-being.
By Kotie Geldenhuys

Pollex - January 2021

Read More - S v Leshilo (345/2019) [2020] ZASCA 98 (8 September 2020) (SCA)
Mr Moshidi Danny Leshilo (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”), was accused 1 before the regional court, Pretoria (“the trial court”) where he was convicted on 11 June 2014 of housebreaking with the intent to commit an unknown offence in terms of section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (count 1); the unlawful possession of a firearm (count 2); and the unlawful possession of ammunition (count 3).
Read More - S v JA 2017 (2) SACR 143 (NCK)
Mr JA, the accused who is from Port Nolloth on the northern part of the South African west coast, was convicted of rape before the regional court, Springbok in Namaqualand.
Read More - S v Ndlovu 2017 (2) SACR 305 (CC)
Relevant legislation (1) Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 provides for the offence of rape simpliciter (Afrikaans: “sonder voorbehoud”).

Letters - January 2021

Hearty congratulations to Sgt T S Moletsane of the Beaufort West Stock Theft Unit who was awarded as the Best Member of a Stock Theft Unit - for the fourth consecutive year!
January 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.