De Jager and Others v S (CA&R69/2012) [2016] ZAECGHC 92; 2016 (2) SACR 716 (ECG) (27 September 2016)

De Jager and Others v S (CA&R69/2012) [2016] ZAECGHC 92; 2016 (2) SACR 716 (ECG) (27 September 2016)

The court held that while it was foreseeable that throwing bottles at spectators would cause them to flee, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the pressure from fleeing crowds would cause the brick wall to collapse and kill the deceased. The collapse of the wall was considered a novus actus interveniens, breaking the causal link between the appellants' conduct and the death. The Magistrate misdirected himself by finding that the death was a foreseeable consequence of the appellants' actions. There was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal connection for culpable homicide, and the convictions could not be sustained.

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 92
Parties
Appellant: Ricardo Johnny De Jager; Appellant: Keith Korkee; Appellant: Willie Louw; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Case Number
CA&R69/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
NG Beshe, B Sandi
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Novus Actus Interveniens, Causation, Foreseeability, Criminal Negligence
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Novus Actus Interveniens Causation Foreseeability Criminal Negligence

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ricardo Johnny De Jager

Appellant

Keith Korkee

Appellant

Willie Louw

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' conduct was negligent and unlawfully caused the death of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether a reasonable person in the appellants' position would have foreseen the collapse of the wall and the resulting death.
  3. 3 Whether the collapse of the wall constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while it was foreseeable that throwing bottles at spectators would cause them to flee, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the pressure from fleeing crowds would cause the brick wall to collapse and kill the deceased. The collapse of the wall was considered a novus actus interveniens, breaking the causal link between the appellants' conduct and the death. The Magistrate misdirected himself by finding that the death was a foreseeable consequence of the appellants' actions. There was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal connection for culpable homicide, and the convictions could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions in respect of all three appellants are set aside.