Chapter 3 – Unlawful Conduct
JJCV 200 – Criminal Law Module
Ms. A Christoffels-Du Plessis
Unlawful Conduct = Actus Reus
Unlawful conduct
Essential State unable to prove, no
criminal liability
elements of Criminal capacity and fault
criminal determined in relation to
accused's conduct.
liability
Fault =
intention Criminal
OR capacity
negligence
Unlawful Conduct = Actus Reus
Actus reus
depends on crime
committed
•1. Human conduct
•2. Voluntary
3 essential
•3. Unlawful conduct
•Common law/ Legislation
•Must satisfy principle of legality
requirements: •Various forms e.g.
committing/omitting/state of
affairs/prohibited consequence
Human/Voluntary/Involuntary Conduct
Involuntary conduct and
Voluntary conduct and
Human Conduct omissions ≠ criminal
omissions
conduct
• Punishing human • Accused can • Actions resulting from
conduct, including use prevent/avoid conduct, imposed physical force
of animals to carry out if he/she wanted to • Uncontrollable muscular
crime. • Actions controlled by movements
conscious will = ability to • Acts and omissions
direct actions during
sleep/unconsciousness
• Acts and omissions
during automatism.
Automatism •Classification
•Organic or toxic or
psychogenic?
•Important for
distinction between
•Sane automatism
e.g. sleepwalking,
epilepsy, blackouts
Conduct involuntary etc…
and excludes criminal
liability. •Insane (pathological)
automatism
•Due to mental
illness/defect
(defence)
•Excludes criminal
State of automatism capacity
= appearance of
goal-directed action •Consequences
but no conscious •Accused must prove
control, robot like.
defence on balance
of probabilities
•'Special verdict':
Mechanical device accused detained in
with no will or though mental institution.
•S v Stellamacher
(1983)
Somnambulism - Sleepwalking
Actions involuntary = Excludes
criminal liability
Sleepwalker not conscious of and
Difficult to succeed with defence will not remember actions
R v Dhlamini 1955 (3) SA 120 (T).
Epilepsy
Due to
Movements
chemical
Brief vs. involuntary R v Mkize
imbalance
Generalised = no 1959 (1) SA
in brain
seizures criminal 260 (N)
causing
liability
seizures
Hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar)
Level of glucose (natural sugar) drops below requisite for
proper brain function
Various symptoms
Possible to suffer from hypoglycaemia as medical condition
Hypoglycaemic episodes ('hypos')
– Common amongst diabetics
– Actions involuntary and excludes criminal liability
– S v Viljoen 1992 (1) SACR 601 (T).
Blackouts Amnesia
Temporary loss of consciousness Memory loss
Valid defence in SA requires evidentiary Indication of automatism
foundation.
Blackout due to mental illness = insanity Conscious mind not functioning
not sane automatism = special verdict
S v Evans 1985 (2) SA 865 (ZS) S v Henry 1999 (1) SACR 13 (SCA)
Severe intoxication
Extremely drunk or otherwise intoxicated = temporary loss of
consciousness/automatic behaviour
No distinction: automatism due to intoxication (voluntary/involuntary)
and other forms of sane automatism.
S v Chretien 1981 (1)SA = AD set out 3 Stages of intoxication
Severe intoxication cont…
1. Extreme intoxication - Performing
involuntary movements (‘dead
drunk’) no criminal liability as
movements not equal to conduct for
criminal liability.
S v Chretien 1981 (1)SA =
2. Drunk enough – lost powers
of insight/self-control, will not
AD 3 Stages of intoxication
be held liable, lacks criminal
capacity and effect on criminal
liability
3. Less drunk – still drunk enough not
to foresee unlawful consequences of
his actions, therefore lacks fault in
form of intention, But could be
criminally liable for negligence.
Severe intoxication cont…
Voluntary intoxication – 2 Principles
Actio libera in causa rule
Deliberately get drunk to commit a crime that accused
Original cause of conduct (getting drunk) within
might otherwise not have had courage to commit = Even if conduct was involuntary
criminally liable conscious control.
S 1(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act 1 of 1988
Criminal offence to commit If found not liable for crime in Accused not guilty of crime
Due to voluntary Knowing substance had in question, but
criminal act while criminal question due to lack of criminal
intoxication intoxicating effect capacity contravention of section
capacity impaired;
1(1) of Act (different
offence).
Psychogenic sane automatism
• Temporary loss of conscious control due to combined effects
of overwhelming psychological factors
• E.g. = Provocation during and resulting in extreme emotional
stress/distress
• Distinguishable from temporary insanity
• No mental illness or disability
• Defence = TNPCI
• S v Arnold 1985 (3) SA 256 (C)
• S v Laubscher 1988 (1) SA 163 (A)
• S v Eadie 2002 (3) SA 719 (SCA).
Psychogenic sane automatism cont…
1st spectrum dealing with
involuntary acts i.e. sleep
movements, paralytic
drunk, seizure
2nd spectrum dealing with acts
that are more than muscle
reflexes but less than acts of
conscious volition i.e.
Sane Automatism = TNPCI
• Here the overlaps between
involuntary conduct vs
criminal capacity enquiry.
Defences excluding voluntary conduct:
Voluntary conduct may be excluded by:
Culpable prior voluntary conduct
Liability based on
requirements to be met:
• Preceded by some voluntary
Liable due to prior
Causal link to later act;
voluntary conduct (not • Must be causally connected to R v Schoonwinkel 1953
involuntary act or
final involuntary the later involuntary conduct (3) SA 136 (C)
omission
act/omission = outcome) • Prior voluntary conduct must
be culpable, fault
(negligence/intent) as defined
in crime
With required form of Extension of actio libera
R v Victor 1943 TPD 7
fault in causa rule
