140915OPJudgment

CC113/2013-mvn 3317 JUDGMENT
2014-09-11
could have easily used a cricket bat for that purpose.
This strange conduct of the accused was explained by Professor
Derman as a fight, as opposed your flight response. This court accepts
that the accused is a fight rather than a flight reaction person, as
Professor Derman testified.
This court also accepts that a person with an anxiety disorder as
described by Dr Vorster, would get anxious very easily, especially when
he is faced with danger. It is also understandable, that a person with a
disability such as that of the accused would certainly feel vulnerable,
10
when faced with danger.
I hasten to add however that the accused is not unique in this
respect. Women, children, the elderly and all those with limited mobility
would fall under the same category, but would it be reasonable if without
further ado, they armed themselves with a firearm when threatened with
danger.
I do not think so, as every case would depend on its own
merits.
The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm and the only way
he could have used it was to shoot at the perceived danger.
The
intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to
20
kill. Depending on the circumstances of each case an accused may be
found guilty of dolus eventualis or culpable homicide. In this case there
is only one essential point of dispute and it is this: Did the accused
have the required mens rea to kill the deceased when he pulled the
trigger? In other words, was there intention? The essential question is
whether on the basis of all the evidence presented, there is a
iAfrica Transcriptions (Pty) Ltd / hvr