Daniels case (1983)
Judges:
Jansen
Trengove
Botha
Van Winsen
Nicholas
Deceased:
Jacobs (J)
Accused:
Andries (A)
Samuel (S)
Factual scenario:
• 2 Brothers in a taxi
• Driven by J
• Instructed J to stop. J and A got out of taxi.
• After argument- A got out pistol and fired 2 shots in the back of fleeing J.
• S followed
• J fell to the ground 100m from taxi- seriously injured- would die within 30 mins
without medical help.
• Another single shot to J’s head- killed instantly
Botha and Nicholas held- there was proof that 2 brothers worked together to kill J.
Applied the Common Purpose Doctrine:
Because both A and S shared the same aim of killing J- didn’t matter
who fired the lethal (head) shot. (Both guilty of murder)
Other 3 judges held- The facts did not show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
brothers had shared a common purpose to kill.
Therefore- need to determine whether there was a factual and legal link
between conduct of either brother and J’s death.
No evidence to prove who fired the headshot (Although it was proven that A fired the
2 back shots)- It could be either one of the 2 brothers.
Majority of court assumed, in favour of A, that S fired the head shot- BUT there isn’t
any proof of this.
S’s participation in J’s murder cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt- Majority
of court held- S was not factual or legal cause of J’s death.
Remaining 3 judges now had to determine whether A’s conduct was the
factual and legal cause of J’s death. How did they apply the legal causation
tests?
1. Van Winsen and Jansen refused to apply one of the Individualisation theory.
This test looks for event closest in time to the death. If this was applied, the
legal cause would then have been the head shot (happened just before J
died). BUT no one knew who fired the head shot.
For policy reasons, it would be unfair to look at just the head shot as the only
cause of death- neither of the brothers would therefore be convicted of
murder.
2. Jansen applied the Adequate cause test and found: shots fired by A into J’s
back were the cause of death.
Conditio sine qua non (factual causation): Back shots, which caused J to
collapse on ground and render him unable to move which made the head shot
possible, were the factual cause of his death.
The back shots rendered J a sitting duck for the subsequent head shots.
Legal causation: According to human experience, the shots in the back were
serious and had the tendency to lead to death.
This was supported by Van Winsen: Because of the secluded location, J
would have died even if he hadn’t been shot in the head (medical help would
have been too far away).
Therefore, Jansen and Van Winsen found A guilty of murder, the back shots
were the factual and legal cause of J’s death: *it is in the nature of mortal
wounds to cause death.*
They did not consider the head shot, which was an intervening event.
3. Trengrove and Nicholas (in obiter dictum) disagreed and thought the better
test to apply is the Novus actus interveniens test. (*something had happened
after the back shots and before J’s death that changed things*).
Agreed that factual causation should be limited by legal causation on policy
grounds but disagreed on how it should be done on the facts.
Although A’s shots in the back could have and likely would have killed J, they
did not, medically speaking, cause his death.
Immediate and ONLY cause of death was the head shot.
Trengrove also assumed that S was responsible for the head shot- this was
therefore a novus actus interveniens (S’s act that killed J, not A).
Still thought A was guilty (back shots) but not of murder, only attempted
murder (circumstance crime, therefore no causation).
Only Botha and Nicholas found: S was guilty of murder (Nicholas agreed with
Trengrove that there was a novus actus interveniens, but it was irrelevant because of
common purpose to kill J)
None of the other 3 judges found S guilty (Van Winsen, Jansen and Trengrove):
not enough proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had fired the gun.
Therefore- S was acquitted (3 judges to 2)
Jansen and Van Winsen found that It was reasonable and fair to find A guilty of
murder, despite the subsequent head shot. Botha and Nicholas also found A guilty of
murder (common purpose). Trengrove- only judge that found him guilty of attempted
murder because there was an intervening event.
4/5 judges found A guilty of murder.
Conclusion:
Judges all had different perspectives on what the fair and
reasonable outcome should be and applied and focused on
different tests to support their perspectives.
