Petersen and Another v Minister of Safety & Security (514/2008) [2009] ZASCA 88; [2010] 1 All SA 19 (SCA) (10 September 2009)

Petersen and Another v Minister of Safety & Security (514/2008) [2009] ZASCA 88; [2010] 1 All SA 19 (SCA) (10 September 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the police were confronted by a violent crowd that posed an imminent threat to their lives. The police had attempted to use non-lethal means, including firing rubber bullets, but these proved ineffective. The use of live ammunition was a last resort, taken only after all reasonable alternatives had been exhausted. The contradictions in police testimony were immaterial and did not undermine the core facts, which were corroborated by defence witnesses. The court held that the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that the police conduct was justified by necessity and was therefore not wrongful. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 88
Parties
Appellant: Dolora Petersen in her capacity as mother and natural guardian of J L P; Respondent: The Minister of Safety & Security
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Case Number
514/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (cape Town), Which Sat as a Court of Appeal From the Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Brand, Heher, Snyders, Hurt, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Necessity, Police Use of Force, Liability for Injury, Justification, Onus of Proof
Delict Necessity Police Use of Force Liability for Injury Justification Onus of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dolora Petersen in her capacity as mother and natural guardian of J L P

Appellant

The Minister of Safety & Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (cape Town), Which Sat as a Court of Appeal From the Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police action causing injury to the appellant's minor son was justified by necessity.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving justification for the police conduct.
  3. 3 Whether contradictions in police testimony undermined the respondent's case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the police were confronted by a violent crowd that posed an imminent threat to their lives. The police had attempted to use non-lethal means, including firing rubber bullets, but these proved ineffective. The use of live ammunition was a last resort, taken only after all reasonable alternatives had been exhausted. The contradictions in police testimony were immaterial and did not undermine the core facts, which were corroborated by defence witnesses. The court held that the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that the police conduct was justified by necessity and was therefore not wrongful. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.