criminal law 171 case prescribed
case summaries whole year
written by
notesattorney
The study-notes marketplace
Buy and sell all your summaries, notes, theses, essays, papers, cases, manuals, researches, and
many more...
www.stuvia.co.za
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
Criminal law 171 case summaries
2017
lecturer:
Dr. M Nel
By Margaux Tison
This document is the intellectual property of the author, Margaux Tison. The unlawful distribution of this document or any part of this document
without the author’s explicit consent is a violation of the author’s intellectual property rights and constitutes plagiarism. Passing these documents
and the included information therein constitutes intellectual property fraud and the perpetrator may be held liable for this in a court of law. All rights
reserved.
0
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
Minister of Police v Ewels 1975:
Facts:
Appeal case to the state’s case
December 1971: Barnard (B)(a policeman) assaulted Ewels(E) on 2 occasions and
sued minster for damages
o First assault: a café in Umtata
o Second assault: At the police station where B worked
Second assault details:
o B assaulted E in the hall of the police station as well as on the steps in front of
the open door at the complaints office (where you report crimes)
o Certain employed policemen at the station were on duty at the time incl.
Sergeant Wood(W) and many constables
o The policemen on duty made no attempt whatsoever to stop the attack or
help E escape the B’s attack
o W had authority over B and could have easily ordered him to stop assaulting E
o All of the police on duty were fully aware of the assault that was taking place
Legal question: Did the policemen on duty at the time of the assault have a legally
enforceable duty to protect Ewels from the assault and if so, were they negligent in their
omission to help him?
Judgement:
The officers had a legal duty to protect E and help him escape when they became
aware of the attack
By omitting to help E, the officers were all negligent
Appeal dismissed
Reasoning:
The duty of police officers is to prevent crimes and violence as well as to protect
society from such conduct
The legally expected conduct of the policeman is to help someone in a situation
where they’re being assaulted, such as E was
o There is a statutory duty to protect
W could have and should have exercised his authority over W and told him to stop,
or made him stop.
Because of their occupation, police officers are under the legal duty to protect
people from certain dangers
Minister of police v Skosana 1977:
This document is the intellectual property of the author, Margaux Tison. The unlawful distribution of this document or any part of this
document without the author’s explicit consent is a violation of the author’s intellectual property rights and constitutes plagiarism. Passing
1
these documents and the included information therein constitutes intellectual property fraud and the perpetrator may be held liable for this in
a court of law. All rights reserved.
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
case summaries whole year
written by
notesattorney
The study-notes marketplace
Buy and sell all your summaries, notes, theses, essays, papers, cases, manuals, researches, and
many more...
www.stuvia.co.za
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
Criminal law 171 case summaries
2017
lecturer:
Dr. M Nel
By Margaux Tison
This document is the intellectual property of the author, Margaux Tison. The unlawful distribution of this document or any part of this document
without the author’s explicit consent is a violation of the author’s intellectual property rights and constitutes plagiarism. Passing these documents
and the included information therein constitutes intellectual property fraud and the perpetrator may be held liable for this in a court of law. All rights
reserved.
0
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
Minister of Police v Ewels 1975:
Facts:
Appeal case to the state’s case
December 1971: Barnard (B)(a policeman) assaulted Ewels(E) on 2 occasions and
sued minster for damages
o First assault: a café in Umtata
o Second assault: At the police station where B worked
Second assault details:
o B assaulted E in the hall of the police station as well as on the steps in front of
the open door at the complaints office (where you report crimes)
o Certain employed policemen at the station were on duty at the time incl.
Sergeant Wood(W) and many constables
o The policemen on duty made no attempt whatsoever to stop the attack or
help E escape the B’s attack
o W had authority over B and could have easily ordered him to stop assaulting E
o All of the police on duty were fully aware of the assault that was taking place
Legal question: Did the policemen on duty at the time of the assault have a legally
enforceable duty to protect Ewels from the assault and if so, were they negligent in their
omission to help him?
Judgement:
The officers had a legal duty to protect E and help him escape when they became
aware of the attack
By omitting to help E, the officers were all negligent
Appeal dismissed
Reasoning:
The duty of police officers is to prevent crimes and violence as well as to protect
society from such conduct
The legally expected conduct of the policeman is to help someone in a situation
where they’re being assaulted, such as E was
o There is a statutory duty to protect
W could have and should have exercised his authority over W and told him to stop,
or made him stop.
Because of their occupation, police officers are under the legal duty to protect
people from certain dangers
Minister of police v Skosana 1977:
This document is the intellectual property of the author, Margaux Tison. The unlawful distribution of this document or any part of this
document without the author’s explicit consent is a violation of the author’s intellectual property rights and constitutes plagiarism. Passing
1
these documents and the included information therein constitutes intellectual property fraud and the perpetrator may be held liable for this in
a court of law. All rights reserved.
Downloaded by: gafsablows |
Distribution of this document is illegal
