Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose
The doctrine of common purpose has been subject to much criticism, especially concerning its use under apartheid. However, the doctrine predates the apartheid era and I argue that it should now be recognised as a tool to achieve justice. The constitutionality of the doctrine was confirmed in Thebus...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Department of Private Law
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613183628279808 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara |
| author2 | Schwikkard, Pamela Jane |
| author_browse | Schwikkard, Pamela Jane Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara |
| author_facet | Schwikkard, Pamela Jane Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara |
| author_sort | Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara |
| collection | Thesis |
| description | The doctrine of common purpose has been subject to much criticism, especially concerning its use under apartheid. However, the doctrine predates the apartheid era and I argue that it should now be recognised as a tool to achieve justice. The constitutionality of the doctrine was confirmed in Thebus and Another v S 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC). Despite agreeing with the outcome, it is my view that the judgment would have been stronger had the Court acknowledged that, by dispensing with the requirement of causation, the doctrine must be subjected to a proportionality inquiry to determine whether there was ‘just cause' to deprive the appellants of their freedom. I argue that depriving persons who engage in joint criminal activity of their freedom is just as it is necessary to ensure crime control and safety in communities and there are no effective less restrictive means available to achieve this purpose. While misapplication of the doctrine is a legitimate concern, this does not make the doctrine itself unjust. It is incumbent upon courts to scrutinise the evidence against each accused and only convict them under the doctrine where a common purpose can be proved. The recent Constitutional Court judgment in Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 (3) BCLR 307 (CC) expresses the importance of the doctrine in combating crimes (especially those of a sexual nature) committed by persons acting in concert. The doctrine ensures prosecution of collective criminal activity, and liability thereunder can be avoided where an accused effectively dissociates from a common purpose. It is submitted that the doctrine is a proportionate means to achieve justice and is in fact necessary in a country like South Africa, ravaged by high levels of collective criminal activity. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/36239 |
| institution | University of Cape Town (South Africa) |
| language | eng |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:32:06.010Z |
| license_str | Not specified — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateRange | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | Department of Private Law |
| publisherStr | Department of Private Law |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| spelling | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/36239 In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara Schwikkard, Pamela Jane Private Law The doctrine of common purpose has been subject to much criticism, especially concerning its use under apartheid. However, the doctrine predates the apartheid era and I argue that it should now be recognised as a tool to achieve justice. The constitutionality of the doctrine was confirmed in Thebus and Another v S 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC). Despite agreeing with the outcome, it is my view that the judgment would have been stronger had the Court acknowledged that, by dispensing with the requirement of causation, the doctrine must be subjected to a proportionality inquiry to determine whether there was ‘just cause' to deprive the appellants of their freedom. I argue that depriving persons who engage in joint criminal activity of their freedom is just as it is necessary to ensure crime control and safety in communities and there are no effective less restrictive means available to achieve this purpose. While misapplication of the doctrine is a legitimate concern, this does not make the doctrine itself unjust. It is incumbent upon courts to scrutinise the evidence against each accused and only convict them under the doctrine where a common purpose can be proved. The recent Constitutional Court judgment in Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 (3) BCLR 307 (CC) expresses the importance of the doctrine in combating crimes (especially those of a sexual nature) committed by persons acting in concert. The doctrine ensures prosecution of collective criminal activity, and liability thereunder can be avoided where an accused effectively dissociates from a common purpose. It is submitted that the doctrine is a proportionate means to achieve justice and is in fact necessary in a country like South Africa, ravaged by high levels of collective criminal activity. 2022-03-30T10:13:30Z 2022-03-30T10:13:30Z 2021 2022-03-22T14:01:58Z Master Thesis Masters LLM http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36239 eng application/pdf Department of Private Law Faculty of Law |
| spellingShingle | Private Law Willis-Smith, Catherine Tara In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| thesis_degree_str | Master's |
| title | In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| title_full | In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| title_fullStr | In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| title_full_unstemmed | In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| title_short | In Defence of the Doctrine of Common Purpose |
| title_sort | in defence of the doctrine of common purpose |
| topic | Private Law |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36239 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT willissmithcatherinetara indefenceofthedoctrineofcommonpurpose |