Name: Cuan Els
Student Number: 48446181
Title: Meaning of dolus eventualis in South African law and its application in recent case law
Supervisor: Mr Frans Mahlobogwane
Department: Criminal Law
Contents
1. Introduction Page 3
2. Definitions Page 3
2.1: Intention Page 3
2.2 Dolus eventualis Page 3
3. S v Malinga : Locus Classicus Page 4
4. Cognitive and Conative components
Of dolus eventualis Page 4
5. R v Jolly: An example of the application
Of dolus …show more content…
Firstly, common sense dictates that if the accused foresaw the risk of death or serious injury to his passengers, he must have had foreseen the same risk of death or injury to himself. The court found there was no evidence to prove that the accused had reconciled himself to his own death, therefore he had not reconciled himself with the death of his passengers either. He foresaw the possibility of the collision, but he didn’t think it would happen .
Secondly, there was evidence that in the past, the accused had successfully performed the same stunt in the same conditions and circumstances, the fact that the manoeuvre was possible and had been completed previously lead to the suggestion that the accused had subjectively thought he could do it again. Through his “misplaced confidence”, he believed that no harm would flow from his actions . The fact that the accused thought he would easily make it through the crossing served as proof that he had not reconciled himself to the risk of death or injury of the passengers
Student Number: 48446181
Title: Meaning of dolus eventualis in South African law and its application in recent case law
Supervisor: Mr Frans Mahlobogwane
Department: Criminal Law
Contents
1. Introduction Page 3
2. Definitions Page 3
2.1: Intention Page 3
2.2 Dolus eventualis Page 3
3. S v Malinga : Locus Classicus Page 4
4. Cognitive and Conative components
Of dolus eventualis Page 4
5. R v Jolly: An example of the application
Of dolus …show more content…
Firstly, common sense dictates that if the accused foresaw the risk of death or serious injury to his passengers, he must have had foreseen the same risk of death or injury to himself. The court found there was no evidence to prove that the accused had reconciled himself to his own death, therefore he had not reconciled himself with the death of his passengers either. He foresaw the possibility of the collision, but he didn’t think it would happen .
Secondly, there was evidence that in the past, the accused had successfully performed the same stunt in the same conditions and circumstances, the fact that the manoeuvre was possible and had been completed previously lead to the suggestion that the accused had subjectively thought he could do it again. Through his “misplaced confidence”, he believed that no harm would flow from his actions . The fact that the accused thought he would easily make it through the crossing served as proof that he had not reconciled himself to the risk of death or injury of the passengers