R v Peverett

R v Peverett is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on March 7, 1940. The appellant's attorneys were Renaud & Mooney, Durban, and Kannemeyer & Jeffreys, Bloemfontein.

R v Peverett
CourtAppellate Division
Full case nameRex Respondent v Peverett Appellant
Decided26 March 1940 (1940-03-26)
Citation(s)1940 AD 213
Case history
Appealed fromDurban and Coast Local Division
Case opinions
Criminal law, Attempted murder, suicide, Intention
Court membership
Judges sittingDe Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA, and Feetham JA.
Case opinions
Decision byWatermeyer JA

Facts

The accused and one Edna Saunders, at the latter's suggestion, decided to commit suicide by introducing into a closed motor car poisonous fumes from the exhaust pipe of the car. The accused made the necessary arrangements. He and Saunders then sat in the car, and the accused started the engine. They both lost consciousness but were later removed from the car and eventually recovered. The accused was convicted of attempted murder. The case came to the Appellate Division as an appeal upon a question of law reserved by Carlisle J, presiding with assessors at the Criminal Sessions of the Durban and Coast Local Division.

Arguments

TB Turner, for the appellant, argued that neither suicide nor attempt to commit suicide is a crime in South Africa.[1][2] If accused was merely an accessory to attempted suicide, he committed no crime.[3] There was no intent to kill; therefore accused did not attempt murder.

LC Barrett, for the Crown, contended that a person cannot in law consent to his life being taken by the other party to a suicide pact. If the other kills him in the execution of such pact, such killing is unlawful.[4][5][6][7][8] The question whether suicide is or is not a crime was irrelevant, he contended; alternatively, he argued that suicide was not a crime in South African law.[9][10][11]

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the fact that Saunders was free to breathe the poisonous gas or not as she pleased did not free the accused from criminal responsibility for his acts. The accused had contemplated and expected that, as a consequence of his acts, Saunders would die; he therefore intended to kill her, however little he may have desired her death.

Watermeyer JA observed that Van der Linden's statement in his notes to Voet seems to differ from his statement in the Institutes.[12][13] As regards a person who attempted to commit suicide, it was doubtful whether he thereby committed a crime in South African law.[14][15][16]

The evidence showed that the accused had the intention to kill. He actually set about encompassing the death of Saunders; his acts went beyond mere preparation.[17] In English law, attempted suicide was a misdemeanour according to Rex v Doody,[18] but according to Rex v Mann,[19] it was a felony.[20] A change of mind after his acts had amounted to an attempt could not avail him.[21]

See also

References
  • R v Peverett 1940 AD 213.

Notes
  1. Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 88; vol. 2, p. 1263).
  2. Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275 and footnote on p. 276 and p. 277).
  3. See Rex v Rasool 1924 AD 44 at p. 47.
  4. See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 85).
  5. Grotius (2.1.43, 44, 46).
  6. Schorer's Note 70 on sec. 44.
  7. Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (4.34.11, p. 277 of vol. 2, Kotze's trans.).
  8. Moorman (van Hasselt) Over de Misdaaden (2.11.4).
  9. See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 1263).
  10. Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275).
  11. Van der Linden's Institutes (2.5.14).
  12. See Carpzovius' Lijfstraffelyke Misdaaden (ch. 2, paras. 13-21).
  13. See the article on suicide in the SA Law Journal (vol. 25, p. 413).
  14. See Moorman (2.11.2 and 4) (not punishable).
  15. See Damhouder Cap. LXXXI (in affirmative).
  16. See Carpzovius (supra) (eh. 2, para. 22 et seq.) (punishable under certain circumstances).
  17. As to what constitutes an attempt see Rex v Sharpe 1903 TS 868; Rex v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485; Rex v Vilinsky and Lipschitz 1932 OPD 218.
  18. 6 Cox 463.
  19. 1914, 2 KB 107.
  20. See also Russell on Crimes (8th ed., vol. 1, pp. 618, 620).
  21. See Rex v Hlatwayo and Another 1933 TPD 441.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.