Van Schalkwyk v S (680/2015) [2016] ZASCA 49; 2016 (2) SACR 334 (SCA) (31 March 2016)

Van Schalkwyk v S (680/2015) [2016] ZASCA 49; 2016 (2) SACR 334 (SCA) (31 March 2016)

The majority found that the appellant, an experienced farmer, struck the deceased with a hay hook with sufficient force to penetrate the heart and sever a rib. The majority held that the appellant must have subjectively foreseen the risk of death and reconciled himself with that possibility, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The dissenting judgment, however, found that the evidence did not support a finding of actual foresight or reconciliation with the risk of death, and that the appellant's conduct amounted to culpable homicide rather than murder. The majority relied on the nature of the weapon, the appellant's experience, and the circumstances of the assault to infer...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 49
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus van Schalkwyk; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Case Number
680/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Northern Cape Division of the High Court, Kimberley
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with conviction for culpable homicide and a reduced sentence.
Judges
Lewis, Tshiqi, Willis, Plasket, Baartman
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Culpable Homicide, Mens Rea, Murder, Sentencing, Criminal Intent
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Culpable Homicide Mens Rea Murder Sentencing Criminal Intent

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus van Schalkwyk

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Northern Cape Division of the High Court, Kimberley

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of murder with intent in the form of dolus eventualis or culpable homicide.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally caused the death of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported a finding of subjective foresight and reconciliation with the possibility of death.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority found that the appellant, an experienced farmer, struck the deceased with a hay hook with sufficient force to penetrate the heart and sever a rib. The majority held that the appellant must have subjectively foreseen the risk of death and reconciled himself with that possibility, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The dissenting judgment, however, found that the evidence did not support a finding of actual foresight or reconciliation with the risk of death, and that the appellant's conduct amounted to culpable homicide rather than murder. The majority relied on the nature of the weapon, the appellant's experience, and the circumstances of the assault to infer...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; conviction and sentence for murder set aside and replaced with conviction for culpable homicide and a reduced sentence.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld to the extent set out below.
  • The conviction of murder and the sentence of eight years' imprisonment are set aside.