S v Barnard (209/1984) [1986] ZASCA 23 (24 March 1986)

S v Barnard (209/1984) [1986] ZASCA 23 (24 March 1986)

The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the deceased was aware of any intention to arrest him or that he fled to avoid arrest, as required by section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appellant did not make himself sufficiently visible or audible to the deceased, and the circumstances did not justify a reasonable belief that the deceased was a terrorist or that deadly force was the only means to prevent escape. The appellant's actions were found to be negligent, and the statutory justification did not apply. The conviction for culpable homicide was therefore upheld.

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 23
Parties
Appellant: Marthinus Christoffel Barnard; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 1986
Case Number
209/1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction for culpable homicide upheld.
Judges
Jansen, Van Heerden, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Statutory Justification, Manslaughter, Burden of Proof, Arrest Powers, Use of Deadly Force
Criminal Law Statutory Justification Manslaughter Burden of Proof Arrest Powers Use of Deadly Force

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

Parties

Marthinus Christoffel Barnard

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was justified in causing the deceased's death under section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant reasonably believed the statutory requirements for justified killing were satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof regarding statutory justification and absence of negligence rested on the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the deceased was aware of any intention to arrest him or that he fled to avoid arrest, as required by section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appellant did not make himself sufficiently visible or audible to the deceased, and the circumstances did not justify a reasonable belief that the deceased was a terrorist or that deadly force was the only means to prevent escape. The appellant's actions were found to be negligent, and the statutory justification did not apply. The conviction for culpable homicide was therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction for culpable homicide upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.