S v Goosen (94/1989) [1989] ZASCA 95 (5 September 1989)

S v Goosen (94/1989) [1989] ZASCA 95 (5 September 1989)

The court found that the appellant foresaw the possibility that Mazibuko might intentionally shoot the deceased during the robbery, but did not foresee the possibility of death resulting from an accidental discharge of the firearm. The actual manner in which the fatal shot was fired—accidentally during Mazibuko's attempt to evade the moving vehicle—constituted a material deviation from the causal sequence foreseen by the appellant. The court held that, in such circumstances, dolus eventualis for murder was not established. However, the death was reasonably foreseeable, and the appellant's conduct was negligent in the context of the armed robbery. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 95
Parties
Appellant: Machiel Adriaan Goosen; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 1989
Case Number
94/1989
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted to Adduce New Evidence Under Section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence for murder set aside. Substituted with conviction for culpable homicide and sentence of six years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the robbery sentence.
Judges
Van Heerden, Nestadt, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Causation, Manslaughter, Appeal Procedure, Conviction Substitution
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Causation Manslaughter Appeal Procedure Conviction Substitution

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

Parties

Machiel Adriaan Goosen

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted to Adduce New Evidence Under Section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant foresaw the possibility of the deceased's death during the armed robbery.
  2. 2 Whether the manner in which the fatal shot was fired (accidentally or intentionally) affects the appellant's criminal liability for murder.
  3. 3 Whether a substantial deviation between the foreseen and actual causal sequence excludes intent (dolus eventualis) for murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant foresaw the possibility that Mazibuko might intentionally shoot the deceased during the robbery, but did not foresee the possibility of death resulting from an accidental discharge of the firearm. The actual manner in which the fatal shot was fired—accidentally during Mazibuko's attempt to evade the moving vehicle—constituted a material deviation from the causal sequence foreseen by the appellant. The court held that, in such circumstances, dolus eventualis for murder was not established. However, the death was reasonably foreseeable, and the appellant's conduct was negligent in the context of the armed robbery. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence for murder set aside. Substituted with conviction for culpable homicide and sentence of six years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the robbery sentence.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds and the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder are set aside.
  • The conviction and sentence are substituted with a finding of guilty of culpable homicide and a sentence of six years' imprisonment.