Women and Justice: Court: Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl)

Domestic Case Law

Dlanjwa v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Property and inheritance rights

The appellant was shot by her husband, who subsequently committed suicide. Her husband was employed by the South African Police Service, so she sued the Minister of Safety and Security for general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of support arising from her injuries and the deceased’s suicide. She also sued for loss of support on behalf of her infant triplets with the deceased. The appellant alleged that the shooting and suicide were caused by, inter alia, the negligence of the station commander and/or certain police officials. The appellant claimed that these police officers failed to (a) dispossess the deceased of the firearm, (b) initiate disciplinary steps against him, and (c) have him criminally charged despite her previous requests and their knowledge that the deceased abused alcohol, had a violent temper and suicidal tendencies, had assaulted her, pointed a firearm at her and threatened to shoot her and thereafter kill himself, which led her to obtain a protection order against him under the Domestic Violence Act 1998. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that: (a) the police had a legal duty to investigate the appellant’s complaints once she reported that she feared for her safety; (b) the police negligently breached that duty by failing to take measures to protect the appellant from being injured by the deceased (and prevent the deceased from killing himself); and (c) the appellant had established wrongfulness on the part of the police due to the causal connection established between the police’s negligent breach of duty and the harm suffered by the appellant. The court therefore upheld the appeal.

Die appèllant is deur haar man geskiet waarna hy selfmoord gepleeg het. Haar man het vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens gewerk daarvolgens het sy die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit gedagvaar vir algemene skadevergoeding, mediese uitgawes, verlies van verdienste, en die verlies van ondersteuning wat voortspruit uit haar beserings en die oorledene se selfmoord. Die appèllant beweer dat die skietery en selfmoord veroorsaak is deur, onder andere, die nalatigheid van die stasiebevelvoerder en/of sekere polisiebeamptes. Die appèllant beweer dat diè polisiebeamptes versuim het om (a) die oorledene se vuurwapen te verwyder, (b) dissiplinêre stappe teen hom te inisieer, en (c) om hom strafregtelik aan te kla ten spyte van haar vorige versoeke en hul kennis dat die oorledene alkohol misbruik het, 'n gewelddadige humeur het en selfmoordneigings gehad het, haar aangerand het, 'n vuurwapen op haar gerig het, en haar gedreig het dat hy haar gaan skiet en daarna selfmoord pleeg, wat daartoe gelei het om 'n beskermingsbevel teen hom onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 te verkry. Die Appèlhof het bevind dat: (a) die polisie 'n wettige plig gehad het om die appèllant se klagtes te ondersoek nadat sy berig het dat sy vir haar veiligheid gevrees het; (b) die polisie was nalatig was deur hul plig ter versuiming om maatreëls te tref om die appèllant te beskerm teen die oorledene (en om te verhoed dat die oorledene selfmoord pleeg); en (c) die appèllant het die onregmatigheid aan die kant van die polisie bewys as gevolg van die verband tussen die polisie se nalatige pligssversuim en die skade wat die appèllant gely het. Die hof het die appèl dus goedgekeur.

Naidoo v. Minister of Police Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

The plaintiff attempted to bring a charge of assault against her former husband under the Domestic Violence Act of 1998 (“the DVA”). She was incorrectly advised by a police officer that she required a protection order from the Magistrate Court before she could receive police assistance. She was then told by a second officer that her former husband would bring a similar charge of assault against her if she persisted. The plaintiff, along with her former husband, was arrested. She filed a claim for damages against, inter alia, the Minister of Police, arguing that (i) the officials involved were acting in the course and within the scope of their employment and (ii) the Minister of Police was vicariously liable for failing to comply with the DVA. The court agreed that the DVA requires the police to assist and provide the maximum protection possible to victims of domestic abuse.

Die eiseres het probeer om 'n klag van aanranding teen haar voormalige man onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 ("Die DVA") te bring. 'n Polisiebeampte het haar verkeerdelik aanbeveel dat sy 'n beskermingsbevel van die Landdroshof moes kry voordat sy polisiehulp kon ontvang. 'n Tweede polisiebeampte het vir haar gesê dat haar voormalige man 'n soortgelyke klag van aanranding teen haar sou bring as sy aanhou met haar klagte. Die eiseres, asook haar voormalige man, was gearresteer. Sy het 'n eis vir skadevergoeding teen, onder andere, die Minister van Polisie ingedien en het aangvoer dat (i) die betrokke beamptes volgens en binne die bestek van hul werk opgetree het en (ii) die Minister van Polisie onmiddellik aanspreeklik was vir die versuiming om die DVA te volg. Die hof het saamgestem dat die DVA vereis dat die polisie hulp en die maksimum moontlike beskerming vir slagoffers van huishoudelike mishandeling moet gee.

Egglestone v. The State Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2008)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

A high school teenage girl from an impoverished neighborhood consented to undergo job training as a receptionist at the appellant's escort agency. She alleged that during her training, the appellant held her against her will, and raped and sexually assaulted her. The appellant argued that his conviction should be overturned because the victim had consented. The court dismissed the kidnapping charges, but upheld the rape and sexual assault charges. The court acknowledged that although the victim consented to parts of the training (i.e. wearing lingerie and taking up residence at the employer's compound), she did not consent to sexual intercourse with the appellant. The court also noted that because of the appellant's age (twice that of the victim) and his promise of employment, he exercised a dominant position over the victim that made it difficult for her to refuse his advances.

'n Tienermeisie op hoërskool uit 'n verarmde woonbuurt het toegestem dat sy as ontvangsdame by die escort-agentskap van die appellant werksopleiding sal kry.. Sy beweer dat appellant haar tydens haar opleiding teen haar wil vasgehou het, en haar verkrag en seksueel aangerand het. Die appellant het aangevoer dat sy skuldigbevinding omgekeer moet word omdat die slagoffer toestemming gegee het. Die hof het die aanklagte van ontvoering van die hand gewys, maar die aanklagte van verkragting en seksuele aanranding bevestig. Die hof het erken dat hoewel die slagoffer toestemming gegee het vir dele van die opleiding (d.w.s. om onderklere aan te trek en in die werkgewer se verblyf in te woon), sy nie tot seksuele omgang met die appellant toestem het nie. Die hof het ook opgemerk dat weens die ouderdom van die appellant (twee keer die van die slagoffer) en sy belofte vir indiensneming ,'n dominante posisie oor die slagoffer uitgeoefen het, wat dit vir haar moeilik gemaak het om sy aanvoeringe te weier.

Media 24 Ltd. & Another v. Grobler Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2005)

Gender discrimination, Sexual harassment

The respondent won a judgment against the appellant for 13 by a manager trainee employed by the appellant. On appeal the appellant claimed (1) it could not be held liable for its employee's actions that occurred off work premises, (2) it had no knowledge of the harassment incidences, and (3) the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. The court held that employers have a legal duty to protect their employees from physical and psychological harm caused by co-employees.

Die respondent het 'n vonnis teen die appellant vir 13 gewen deur 'n bestuurder-leerling in diens van die appellant. Op appèl het die appellant beweer dat (1) dit nie aanspreeklik gehou kan word vir die optrede van sy werknemer wat nie op die perseel plaasgevind het nie, (2) hy het geen kennis van die voorvalle van teistering gehad nie, en (3) die werknemer het nie binne die omvang van indiensneming opgetree nie . Die hof het beslis dat werkgewers 'n wetlike plig het om hul werknemers te beskerm teen fisiese en sielkundige skade wat medewerkers veroorsaak.

State. v. Jackson Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (1998)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

The appellant, a 24-year-old police officer at the time of the charged conduct, was convicted of the attempted rape of a 17-year-old girl. She fought him off and managed to escape the car. The examining physician found some evidence of unlubricated sexual contact, but no conclusive evidence of penetration. He appealed on the grounds of the cautionary rule, encouraging the court to handle accusations of rape cautiously to prevent false convictions. The Court held that the cautionary rule was based on outdated stereotypes against women and that in criminal cases, the burden is on the State to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, without an application of a general cautionary rule. The Court adopted the formula used in England whereby a judge could choose, on a case by case basis, to use caution only in cases where it was proven that the complainant was untrustworthy for some reason, e.g. had made previous false complaints or bore the defendant a grudge.

Jackson is aangekla van poging tot verkragting van S., 'n 17-jarige meisie, toe hy haar polse vasgebind het en gepoog het om met haar gemeenskap te hê. Sy het hom afgeveg en daarin geslaag om uit die motor te ontsnap en is daarna deur 'n dokter ondersoek wat bewyse van ongeoorloofde seksuele kontak gevind het, maar geen geweldige bewys van penetrasie nie. Jackson het appèl aangeteken op grond van die versigtigheidsreël en aangemoedig dat beskuldigings van verkragting versigtig hanteer moet word om vals skuldigbevindings te voorkom. Die hof het beslis dat die versigtigheidsreël gebaseer is op verouderde stereotipes teen vroue en dat in strafregtelike gevalle dit die las van die Staat is om die skuld van die beskuldigde bo alle redelike twyfel te bewys sonder die toepassing van 'n algemene versigtigheidsreël. Die Hof het die formule wat in Engeland gebruik is aanvaar waardeur 'n regter, van geval tot geval, kon kies om versigtig te wees in gevalle waar daar bewys is dat die klaer om een of ander rede onbetroubaar was, bv. het vorige vals klagtes gemaak of teen die verweerder 'n wrok gehad het.

State. v. J.M. Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

The appellant, M., was tried before a regional magistrate for the rape of his six-year-old daughter during 1989. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which he appealed. The Court held that, especially given the age of the complainant at the time, the question of a consensual sexual relationship is moot and further stipulated that the sexual history of the complainant is not relevant in a charge of rape, unless the Court specifically judges it to be so.

Die appellant, M., is voor 'n streeklanddros verhoor weens die verkragting van sy sesjarige dogter gedurende 1989. Hy is skuldig bevind en gevonnis tot tien jaar gevangenisstraf, waarop hy appèl aangeteken het. Die hof het beslis dat die vraag na 'n konsensuele seksuele verhouding, veral gegewe die ouderdom van die klaagster destyds, verkeerd is en verder bepaal dat die seksuele geskiedenis van die klaer nie relevant is op 'n aanklag van verkragting nie, tensy die hof dit spesifiek beoordeel om so te wees.

State. v. Mahomotsa Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

The accused was charged and convicted on two separate counts of rape for raping two 15-year-old girls more than once and sentenced to six years imprisonment for the first count and 10 years imprisonment for the second. On appeal, the defense argued that the sentence was too severe because of mitigating circumstances, specifically that the victims did not suffer serious physical or psychological injuries and that both victims had previously been sexually active. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the sentences were, in fact, too lenient, especially as the victims' previous sexual history was irrelevant and also that the extent of harm to the victims matters less because rape is a basic violation of dignity. The sentence was increased to 8 years for the first count and 12 years for the second.

Die beskuldigdes is op twee afsonderlike aanklagtes van verkragting aangekla en skuldig bevind vir die verkragting van twee 15-jarige meisies meer as een keer en gevonnis tot ses jaar gevangenisstraf op die eerste en tien jaar gevangenisstraf op die tweede. Op appèl het die verdediging gesê dat die vonnis te ernstig was weens versagtende omstandighede deurdat die slagoffers nie ernstige liggaamlike of sielkundige beserings opgedoen het nie en dat albei die slagoffers voorheen seksueel aktief was. Die hof het die appèl van die hand gewys en beslis dat die vonnisse in werklikheid te versagtend was, veral omdat die vorige seksuele geskiedenis van die slagoffers nie van belang was nie en dat die skade aan die slagoffers minder belangrik is omdat verkragting 'n basiese waardigheidskending is. Die vonnis is verhoog tot 8 jaar vir die eerste en 12 jaar vir die tweede.

V. v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2002)

Sexual violence and rape

The appellant was assaulted, raped, and robbed by Andre Gregory Mohamed, who had escaped from prison where he was facing 22 charges for indecent assault, rape and armed robbery. The appellant sued the State for damages, arguing that the police owed her a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Mohamed from escaping and causing her harm and that they had negligently failed to comply with such duty. The Constitutional Court applied its recent holding in Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security, finding that the state is obliged both by the Constitution and by international law to protect women from violence. Thus, the police should be held liable for their negligence in not taking reasonable action to prevent Mohamed's escape, especially in light of the fact that they knew that Mohamed was a dangerous serial rapist who was likely to commit further offenses against women should he escape. The court affirmed the state's liability for any damages suffered by the applicant.

Die appellant is aangerand, verkrag en beroof deur Andre Gregory Mohamed, wat uit die tronk ontsnap het waar hy op 22 aanklagte teregstaan vir onsedelike aanranding, verkragting en gewapende roof. Die appellant het die Staat vir skadevergoeding gedagvaar, met die argument dat die polisie is aan haar 'n wettiglike verpligting skuldig om redelike stappe te neem om te verhoed dat Mohamed ontsnap en haar skade te berokken en dat hulle nalatig was en versuim het om aan hierdie plig te voldoen. Die Konstitusionele Hof het hul onlangse beslissing in Carmichele v. Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit toegepas en het bevind dat die staat deur die Grondwet sowel as die internasionale reg verplig is om vroue teen geweld te beskerm, en die polisie moet aanspreeklik gehou word vir die nalatigheid daarvan deur hul nie redelike stappe te doen het om die ontsnapping van Mohamed te voorkom nie, veral in die lig van die feit dat hulle geweet het dat Mohamed 'n gevaarlike reeksverkragter is wat waarskynlik verdere misdrywe teen vroue sou pleeg as hy sou ontsnap. Die Hof het die staat se aanspreeklikheid bevestig vir enige skade wat die applikant gely het.