Attoney-General of Natal v Ndlovu (73/86) [1987] ZASCA 145 (30 November 1987)

Attoney-General of Natal v Ndlovu (73/86) [1987] ZASCA 145 (30 November 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that negligence (culpa) is not sufficient to constitute an offence under section 8(1)(d) of the Publications Act, No. 42 of 1974. The court reasoned that adopting negligence as the required fault would lead to unjust and unrealistic consequences, given the diverse levels of education...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 145
Parties
Appellant: The Attorney-General of Natal; Respondent: Isaac Ndlovu
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1987
Case Number
73/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division Under Section 311(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Joubert, Hefer, Boshoff, Steyn
Legal Topics
Mens Rea, Dolus Eventualis, Culpa, Statutory Offences, Publication Control
Criminal Law Mens Rea Dolus Eventualis Culpa Statutory Offences Publication Control

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney-General of Natal

Appellant

Isaac Ndlovu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division Under Section 311(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether negligence (culpa) is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 8(1)(d) of the Publications Act, No. 42 of 1974.
  2. 2 Whether dolus (intent), either direct or eventual, is required for a contravention of section 8(1)(d).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that negligence (culpa) is not sufficient to constitute an offence under section 8(1)(d) of the Publications Act, No. 42 of 1974. The court reasoned that adopting negligence as the required fault would lead to unjust and unrealistic consequences, given the diverse levels of education and awareness among the South African population. The court found that the legislature could not have intended to impose criminal liability based on an objective standard of negligence for possession of prohibited publications, as this would require individuals to constantly monitor government notices and lists of banned publications, an unreasonable expectation. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.