R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (2024)

Question

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (1)Answered step-by-step

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (2)

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (3) From the Community

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (4)

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (5)

Image transcription text

Show More R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (6)

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed and killed the deceased in a crowded beer hall. He claimed that the deceased had attacked him with a knife and that he was acting in self-defence. He was convicted of murder but appealed. On appeal, the AD held that no-one is expected to flee, if this does not offer a safe avenue of escape; for example, if it will merely expose one to a stab in the back. In such circumstances, a person is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself. The AD referred to the fact that, in Z's case, the beerhall was packed with people and movement was difficult, thus Z may not have been able to escape safely. His conviction was overturned and he was acquitted.S v Bradbury 1967 (1) SA 387 (A) - Bradbury was a member of an English criminal gang, who was roped in to assist in the killing of another person. He said that he was reluctant to comply, but feared reprisals from the gang, not only for himself, but for his family. The Trial Court held that B's decision to join the gang, knowing its code of conduct, was his own doing and his own fault and that he could not, therefore, rely on it as an excuse. It convicted him of the murder and sentenced him to death. He appealed to the AD against his sentence. The AD had to consider whether the Trial Court had wrongly exercised its discretion in finding that his fear of reprisals was not an extenuating circumstance. The AD held, by a 2 to 1 majority, that it saw no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's reasoning and the sentence imposed.S v Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A) - Goliath and another (Accused 1 in the trial) came upon the deceased. Accused 1 first asked him for a cigarette and then money. The deceased said he had no money. Accused 1 pulled out a knife and told G to tie up the deceased. G objected and Accused 1 said he would stab G if he didn't obey. G then tied the deceased. Accused 1 then stabbed the deceased about a dozen times and the deceased collapsed and died. Accused 1 told G to take off the deceased's shoes; when G hesitated, accused 1 again threatened to kill him and G complied. They were both charged with murder, G as an accomplice. The Trial Court convicted No 1, but acquitted G on the basis that he had acted under compulsion. The state however reserved certain questions of law for decision by the AD, most pertinently whether the defence of compulsion could ever constitute a defence to murder. In reply, the AD confirmed that G had been rightly acquitted; that is, it accepted that necessity, in the form of compulsion, can be a complete defence to killing of innocent 3rd party. It is a defence that will not be lightly accepted though - it will depend on all the surrounding circumstances. In G's case, the decisive factor was that No 1 had the means and will to carry out his threat to stab G there and then if G did not comply with No 1's demands. It also weighed heavily with the court that G was not the instigator or the main perpetrator, merely a reluctant accomplice; nor did he profit in any way from the crime.S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A) - Chretien had been to a party, where he had a few drinks. The party broke up 'in circumstances of some discontent'. Whilst mildly under the influence of alcohol, Chretien drove his car into a crowd of party-goers standing in the street. He killed one of them and injured five others. When tried on one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder, his defence was that he did not intend to kill/injure anyone - he thought they would move out of the way. He was acquitted of murder and attempted murder, but was convicted of one count of culpable homicide (only).S v Eadie 2002 (3) SA 719 (SCA) - Eadie killed a fellow motorist in a fit of road rage.

Answer

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (7)Solved

Answer

The answer is S v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A).

Explanation

Option 1: S v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A)

In this case, Zikalala was initially convicted of murder after stabbing and killing a person in a crowded beer hall. He claimed self-defense, stating that the deceased had attacked him with a knife. On appeal, the Appellate Division (AD) held that Zikalala was not expected to flee if it did not offer a safe avenue of escape. Given the crowded conditions of the beer hall, the AD found that Zikalala may not have been able to escape safely. Consequently, his conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted.

Option 2: S v Bradbury 1967 (1) SA 387 (A)

Bradbury was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for his involvement in a gang-related killing. He appealed, arguing that his fear of reprisals from the gang should be considered an extenuating circumstance. The AD upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that Bradbury's decision to join the gang was his own doing, and his fear of reprisals did not constitute an extenuating circumstance.

Option 3: S v Goliath 1972 (3) SA 1 (A)

Goliath was acquitted of murder on the grounds of compulsion. He was forced by Accused 1 to tie up the deceased and later remove the deceased's shoes under threat of being stabbed. The AD confirmed that compulsion can be a complete defense to the killing of an innocent third party, depending on the surrounding circumstances. In this case, Goliath was not the instigator or main perpetrator and did not profit from the crime.

Option 4: S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A)

Chretien was acquitted of murder and attempted murder after driving his car into a crowd of party-goers while mildly under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted of one count of culpable homicide instead. His defense was that he did not intend to kill or injure anyone, believing that the crowd would move out of the way.

Option 5: S v Eadie 2002 (3) SA 719 (SCA)

Eadie killed a fellow motorist in a fit of road rage. The details of the case and the court's decision are not fully provided in the text, so it is not relevant to the question at hand.

Conclusion

The case that best fits the description of a conviction being overturned on appeal due to self-defense in a crowded environment is S v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A).

This problem has been solved!

You'll get a detailed solution from Solvely that helps you learn core concepts.

See Answer - It's Free

🔥Questions asked by other users

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (8)Answered

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (9)Answered

Discuss section 174 of Criminal procedure act,referencing with case laws

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (10)Answered

For each of the scenarios given in Exercises 1 - 6,- Find the amount $A$ in the account as a function of the term of the investment $t$ in years.- Determine how much is in the account after 5 years, 10 years, 30 years and 35 years. Round your answers to the nearest cent.- Determine how long will it take for the initial investment to double. Round your answer to the nearest year.- Find and interpret the average rate of change of the amount in the account from the end of the fourth year to the end of the fifth year, and from the end of the thirty-fourth year to the end of the thirty-fifth year. Round your answer to two decimal places.1. $\$ 500$ is invested in an account which offers $0.75 \%$, compounded monthly.2. $\$ 500$ is invested in an account which offers $0.75 \%$, compounded continuously.3. $\$ 1000$ is invested in an account which offers $1.25 \%$, compounded monthly.4. $\$ 1000$ is invested in an account which offers $1.25 \%$, compounded continuously.5. $\$ 5000$ is invested in an account which offers $2.125 \%$, compounded monthly.6. $\$ 5000$ is invested in an account which offers $2.125 \%$, compounded continuously.7. Look back at your answers to Exercises 1 - 6. What can be said about the difference between monthly compounding and continuously compounding the interest in those situations?

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (11)Answered

$h(x)=-7 x ; h(x)=63$

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (12)Answered

< Previous Next >

R v Zikalala 19532 SA 568 (A) - Zikalala stabbed a (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Dean Jakubowski Ret

Last Updated:

Views: 6122

Rating: 5 / 5 (70 voted)

Reviews: 85% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dean Jakubowski Ret

Birthday: 1996-05-10

Address: Apt. 425 4346 Santiago Islands, Shariside, AK 38830-1874

Phone: +96313309894162

Job: Legacy Sales Designer

Hobby: Baseball, Wood carving, Candle making, Jigsaw puzzles, Lacemaking, Parkour, Drawing

Introduction: My name is Dean Jakubowski Ret, I am a enthusiastic, friendly, homely, handsome, zealous, brainy, elegant person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.