S v Collett (199/90) [1991] ZASCA 33; 1991 (2) SA 854 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 524 (AD) (26 March 1991)

S v Collett (199/90) [1991] ZASCA 33; 1991 (2) SA 854 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 524 (AD) (26 March 1991)

The court held that even if the appellant's possession of dagga fell within the statutory prohibition and was prima facie unlawful, criminal liability under section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 requires proof of dolus, including awareness of unlawfulness. The magistrate accepted that the appellant did not know her conduct was unlawful, as she intended to hand the dagga to her co-accused and did not believe her actions were wrong. The appellant lacked the required awareness of unlawfulness, and thus did not act with the necessary dolus. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 33
Parties
Appellant: Ethel Anne Collett; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 1991
Case Number
199/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Magistrate's Court, After Leave to Appeal Was Granted by the Chief Justice.
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Vivier, Eksteen, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Substance, Wederregtelikheid, Dolus, Defence of Necessity, Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Possession of Prohibited Substance Wederregtelikheid Dolus Defence of Necessity Criminal 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ethel Anne Collett

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Magistrate's Court, After Leave to Appeal Was Granted by the Chief Justice.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's possession of dagga constituted a contravention of section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's possession was unlawful (wederregtelik) under South African criminal law.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant possessed the required awareness of unlawfulness (wederregtelikheidsbewussyn) to be convicted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if the appellant's possession of dagga fell within the statutory prohibition and was prima facie unlawful, criminal liability under section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 requires proof of dolus, including awareness of unlawfulness. The magistrate accepted that the appellant did not know her conduct was unlawful, as she intended to hand the dagga to her co-accused and did not believe her actions were wrong. The appellant lacked the required awareness of unlawfulness, and thus did not act with the necessary dolus. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence against the appellant are set aside.