Hughes en Andere v Minister van Wet en Orde en Andere (652/89) [1991] ZASCA 164 (26 November 1991)

Hughes en Andere v Minister van Wet en Orde en Andere (652/89) [1991] ZASCA 164 (26 November 1991)

The court found that section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not apply to the deceased, as there was no evidence that the police officers reasonably suspected him of theft or that he was fleeing arrest. The deceased was merely a passenger, intoxicated, and unaware of the vehicle's stolen status. The police officers failed to prove that the deceased was lawfully subject to arrest or that he was attempting to evade arrest. The alternative defence that the officers acted to prevent danger to the public was not supported by statutory authority or evidence. The court held that the officers acted negligently in firing at the vehicle, as they could not accurately target the wheels and...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 164
Parties
Appellant: Theresa Barbara Hughes; Appellant: Rene Abrahams; Appellant: Mary Theunissen; Appellant: Bonita Visser; Respondent: Minister van Wet en Orde; Respondent: Neville Barnard De Beer; Respondent: Stephen Brian McEvoy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1991
Case Number
652/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with judgment in favour of the appellants for the agreed amounts and costs.
Judges
J J F Hefer, Joubert, E M Grosskopf, Goldstone, Krieger
Legal Topics
Wrongful Death, Negligence, Statutory Immunity, Police Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Wrongful Death Negligence Statutory Immunity Police Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theresa Barbara Hughes

Appellant

Rene Abrahams

Appellant

Mary Theunissen

Appellant

Bonita Visser

Appellant

Minister van Wet en Orde

Respondent

Neville Barnard De Beer

Respondent

Stephen Brian McEvoy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the killing of the deceased by police officers was statutorily justified under section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  2. 2 Whether the police officers acted negligently in firing at the stolen vehicle, resulting in the death of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the deceased was lawfully subject to arrest and whether he was fleeing arrest as required by section 49(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not apply to the deceased, as there was no evidence that the police officers reasonably suspected him of theft or that he was fleeing arrest. The deceased was merely a passenger, intoxicated, and unaware of the vehicle's stolen status. The police officers failed to prove that the deceased was lawfully subject to arrest or that he was attempting to evade arrest. The alternative defence that the officers acted to prevent danger to the public was not supported by statutory authority or evidence. The court held that the officers acted negligently in firing at the vehicle, as they could not accurately target the wheels and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with judgment in favour of the appellants for the agreed amounts and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with judgment for the plaintiffs.