THE DOCTRINE OF

COMMON PURPOSE
COMMON PURPOSE
🞆 DEF (NB!): Where two or more people agree to commit a
crime OR actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise,
each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct
committed by one of their number which falls within their
common design. Liability arises from their ‘common
purpose’ to commit the crime.
🞆 Established:
🞆 -they all agree to commit a particular crime
🞆 -or ACTIVELY associate themselves with the commission
of the crime BY one of their number with the requisite
fault element (mens rea).

🞆 IF THIS IS ESTABLISHED – then the conduct of the

PARTICIPANT WHO ACTUALLY CAUSES THE
CONSEQUENCE is imputed to the other participants.
NECESSITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF
COMMON PURPOSE?
Examine:

A group of 26 individuals (A-Z) head to Brad’s home who

has been accused of raping A’s sister. A, B and C enter
Brad’s home and throw him in front of the crowd who
begin hurling accusations at him. Brad tries to run away
but the crowd starts to pelt him with rocks and sticks.

Brad is hit with a large stone on his head and dies instantly.
Q
Who (specifically) contributed causally to Brad’s death?

Roughly apply the ordinary principles of liability (5)

Conduct?
Causation?
Fault?

What problems do you run into?

Conduct = throwing rocks at Brad

Causation - factual? legal?

Fault = DE sufficient. If K foresees the possibility that the

acts of the participants with whom he associates himself,
may result in Brad’s death AND reconciles with this
possibility, then intention is present.
CONDITIO SINE QUA NON
If A’s or Q’s or T’s actions are thought away would Brad
still have died?
What if T was the one who threw the rock that ultimately
killed Gary?

Would the other 25 people escape liability?

IMAGINING A WORLD WITHOUT THE
DOCTRINE OF COMMON PURPOSE
APPLYING MGEDEZI
Thato and Thandi have a child named Sibu. Sibu is 6
years old. Sibu is playing outside one Saturday morning
when she meets Dina. Dina invites Sibu over to play at
her house. Sibu has been warned by her parents (Thato
and Thandi) not to go and play at Dina’s house. Sibu
does not understand why her parents do not let her play
at Dina’s house. Dina and Sibu are having a lot of fun
playing in the street. Dina decides that it won’t be so bad
to go to Dina’s house. Dina’s mom is home and gives
them lunch. Sibu forgets about the time and her parents
begin phoning the neighbours to see if they know Sibu’s
whereabouts.
Albert, the neighbour from up the road says that while he
was walking to the shops he saw Sibu playing with Dina.
Thato and Thando are furius when they hear this. They are
convinced that Dina’s mom practices witchcraft. Many of
the neighbours think this too. However, this is not true.
Thato and Thandi start telling the neighbours that Dina’s
mom has kidnapped their daughter. Many of the
neighbours begin grouping together to discuss how much
they despise Dina’s mom. The group grow in size and they
march toward Dina’s moms house. When they arrive at the
house a few neighbours begin throwing stones at the
windows and shouting ‘kill the witch!’
Dina’s mom runs outside to tell the crowd to please leave
her alone. Dina and Sibu also exit the house to see what is
happening. Albert kicks the small gate over, grabs Dina’s
mom by the arm and throws her in front of the crowd
saying ‘this witch must die for bringing evil to our
community’! The crowd cheers. Albert, Thato and a few
others begin throwing rocks at Dina’s mom at close
proximity. She is hit by one of the rocks on the head and
dies.

It is not certain who in the crowd threw the rock that

ultimately killed Dina’s mom.
CAN ALBERT AND THATO BE HELD
LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF DINA’S
MOM? (10)
Yes.

Ordinary principles of liability (Albert).

Thato (Try ordinary principles first, can’t = CP)

Q.
F, a person in the crowd is seen throwing rocks at Dina’s
mom.

Can F be found liable for the murder of Dina’s mom?

ANSWER:
1) Yes.
2) Under the doctrine of common purpose.
3) DEF (NB!): Where two or more people agree to commit a crime OR
actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be
responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their
number which falls within their common design. Liability arises from
their ‘common purpose’ to commit the crime.
4) On the facts, there is no evidence that F agreed to murder Dina’s mom.
5) A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons
in a common purpose is not dependent upon proof of a prior
conspiracy. Such a finding may be inferred from the conduct of a
person.
1) A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons
in a common purpose may be based upon the first-mentioned person’s
active association in the execution of the particular criminal act of the
other participants.
2) This requires that F comply with the Mgedezi rule.
3) 5 Requirements MUST be complied with.
“It is sufficient if his intention to kill be present in the form of dolus
eventualis - in other words if he foresees the possibility that the acts of the
participants with whom he associates himself may result in Dina’s moms
death and reconciles himself to this possibility.” - Snyman
 Example from Snyman Criminal Law workbook

X, P and Q decide to rob money from Y, a shopkeeper. X

tells P and Q that he knows that Y does not have a
firearm. He also tells them that, although not one of them
has a firearm, he (X) has a toy pistol with which he will
threaten Y. They decide that the three of them will go to
the shop and that X will point the toy pistol at Y and
threaten to shoot him if he does not hand over the money
in the cash register to them. Before going to the shop, P
sees X concealing a sharp knife under his clothes.
However, he does not mention the knife to Q and
voluntarily accompanies the others to the shop. Q does
not know that X has a knife concealed under his clothes.
X, P and Q go into the shop.
X points the toy pistol at Y and threatens to
shoot him if he refuses to hand over the money.
Y, however, charges at X. A scuffle ensues,
and while this happens, P and Q remove the
money from the cash register. In the course of
the scuffle between X and Y, X draws the knife
from under his clothes and stabs Y in the chest.
X, P and Q run away with the money. Y dies as
a result of the stab wound, X, P and Q are
charged with murder. Discuss the question
whether they ought to be convicted of these
crimes.
 NB!!! Add your
other case law!
-Shezi
-Nkwenja
-Gedezi
-Nzo

When common purpose is proven,

what is imputed? Fault, conduct?
CONDUCT WITNESSED IN THEBUS &
NZO. IS IT SUFFICIENT ‘ACTIVE
ASSOCIATION’ IN THE CRIME TO
SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT THAT IS
NECESSARY BEFORE THE DOCTRINE OF
IMPUTATION CAN BE INVOKED?
CONDUCT WITNESSED IN (CASES
BELOW). IS IT SUFFICIENT ‘ACTIVE
ASSOCIATION’ IN THE CRIME TO
SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT THAT IS NECESSARY BEFORE
THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION CAN BE
INVOKED?

SAFATSA?
MGEDEZI?
GEDEZI?
NKWENJA?
SHEZI?
SAFATSA?
1. (1) The deceased (mayor) tried to to escape the crowd holding a pistol. Before
he reaches the fence he is attacked by accused 1. He wrestles with the
deceased for possession of his pistol. He is identified (by a key witness) as the
first person to throw a stone at the deceased which felled him.
2. (4) She was heard shouting repeatedly, “He is shooting at us, let’s kill him.” -
after the deceased fired a shot into the angry crowd. When the deceased was
set alight, a woman remonstrated not to burn him. Accused 4 slapped this
woman.
3. (3) Accused 3 was with accused 1 in the scuffle over the pistol by the fence.
He successfully removed the pistol from the deceased.

IS IT SUFFICIENT ‘ACTIVE ASSOCIATION’ IN THE

CRIME TO SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT THAT IS NECESSARY BEFORE THE
DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION CAN BE INVOKED?
SHEZI?

IS IT SUFFICIENT ‘ACTIVE ASSOCIATION’ IN THE CRIME TO

SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT THAT IS
NECESSARY BEFORE THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION CAN BE
INVOKED?
🞆S is a member of an organisation called ‘Faceless
Anonymous’ – a social justice group fighting for social
justice on campus. This organisation has been banned on
campus as their policies include the use of violence if
necessary. The organisations’ leader J organisers a march
on campus. S does not attend because of an exam that he
needs to study for. The march gets violent when the
‘Faceless Anonymous’ clashes with students and campus
security. T is fatally wounded by a knife stabbing by a
member of ‘Faceless Anonymous’.

🞆Can S be held liable for this crime as he is actively

associated with the group?
ANSWER?
IS IT SUFFICIENT ‘ACTIVE ASSOCIATION’ IN THE CRIME TO
SATISFY THE ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT THAT IS
NECESSARY BEFORE THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION CAN
BE INVOKED?

Let’s have a look at Nzo!

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE DECISION
IN NZO ANSWER?
ANSWER?
If X merely actively associated with the general activities
of a group of persons, in this case, being part of the same
organisation (that sanctions ‘violence in necessary’) does
not inevitably amount to active association in a specific
killing that another member of the group may commit in
the name of the group.
Memani (1990) = where the deceased had been killed in the
blast from an explosive device, the mere presence of the
accused in the company of the co-accused when the latter
‘planted the wires’ was NOT SUFFICIENT to establish
active association in the killing on the part of the accused
Mgedezi = It was emphasised that a mere spectator in a
crowd cannot be held liable for violence committed by
others in the crowd and that a court must carefully
examine the individual role of each alleged participant in a
common purpose (see Le Roux!!).
Dewnath = ‘such active association must be significant
and not a limited participation removed from the actual
execution of the crime.

Mbanyaru =
1. X shoots Y in the chest and Y falls down and dies. Z then stabs Y
in the chest.

2. X and Z agree to kill Y. X shoots Y and Y dies instantly. Z arrives

much later and then stabs Y in the chest.

3. X shoots Y in the chest and Y falls over. While Y is still alive, Z

stabs Y in the chest hastening/causally contributing to his death).

4. Z pushes Y over and say’s to X “shoot him now”. X shoots Y

dead.

5. X shoots Y in the chest. While Y is still alive, Z comes along and

stabs Y in the leg. This wound does not causally contribute to Y’s
death. Y dies a few minutes later from the wound inflicted by X.
JOINING-IN CASES

🞆‘The term ‘joining-in’ is used to describe a person

who, in the absence of common purpose to kill, but
with intent to kill, joins in a murderous attack after
the victim has been fatally wounded, but while he or
she is still alive, and whose conduct does NOT
causally contribute to the death of the victim.
🞆Uncertainty as to whether such a person can be found
guilty of the murder of a person.
🞆Motaung
Billy decides to break up with his long time girlfriend Sally
after getting involved with another woman at work. Sally is
heartbroken and decides that if she can’t have Billy, no one
can. She plots his murder with her side lover Thabang.
Thabang and Sally patiently wait for Billy outside his
home in Braamfontein. When Billy opens the gate to leave
for work they confront him. When Billy tells them that he
has no time for this and is late for work, Sally pulls out a
gun and shoots him in the chest. Billy falls to the ground
and cries out in pain. Cally sees the incident and decides
that she wants part of the action. She pulls a knife out of
her sock and stabs Billy in the back.
JOINING-IN CASES

🞆‘The term ‘joining-in’ is used to describe a person

who, in the absence of common purpose to kill, but
with intent to kill, joins in a murderous attack after
the victim has been fatally wounded, but while he or
she is still alive, and whose conduct does NOT
causally contribute to the death of the victim.
🞆Uncertainty as to whether such a person can be found
guilty of the murder of a person.
🞆Motaung
ANSWER:
1) Cally acceded to the common purpose to kill Billy only
after he had been fatally injured by Sally.
2) Intention to kill present.
3) If Cally’s conduct did not causally contribute the death
of Billy, she can be considered a ‘joinder-in’.
4) She would then be found guilty of attempted murder on
the strength of Motaung.
5) If Cally’s conduct causally contributed to Billy’s death,
causation would be proved and she would be liable for
murder. (No imputation necessary).
BUT SURELY CALLY STABBING BILLY
PROVES THAT SHE CAUSALLY
CONTRIBUTED TO BILLY’S DEATH?
No that straightforward!
ANSWER? PRIOR AGREEMENT. D IS
LIABLE FOR MURDER.

BUT… IF D JUST PITCHED UP AT THE

SCENE (IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR
AGREEMENT, HOW WOULD YOUR
ANSWER CHANGE?
Pay attention to the other
facts!!!
 DISSOCIATION OR WITHDRAWAL FROM
A COMMON PURPOSE
🞆Liability under the common-purpose
principle is based on association –
converse of association is dissociation
🞆Value judgement to determine whether
disassociation from common-purpose
can exculpate one from a crime
🞆Factors have emerged in case law too –
🞆-Singo and Musingadi (discussed in
class).
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
1) X must have a clear and unambiguous intention to withdraw from
such common purpose.
2) X must perform some positive act of withdrawal (mere passivity
not sufficient).
3) Withdrawal must be voluntary.
4) The withdrawal will amount to a defence only if it takes place
before the course of events have reached what may be called the
“commencement of the execution” - that is, the stage when it is
no longer possible to desist from or frustrate the commission of
the crime. Burchell = timeous withdrawal. See Nzo, Ndebu, Singo
5) Has intention been abandoned?
REVISION FOR TODAY:
1. Perps vs. accomplices (Msomi)
2. Common purpose & participation in crime revision
3. The Le Roux case.
Anakin loves his wife Padme very much. Padme falls ill while giving birth to twins.
When the doctors cannot save Padme, Anakin plots to kill the doctor who he believes
did not do his best to save his wife’s life.

Anakin seeks the assistance of his new friend, Palpatine, to help him plan the doctor's
death. Palpatine arranges 3 storm troopers (A, B and C) to assist Anakin with their
murder plot. Together they all plan how they will kill the doctor.

On the night of the murder, Anakin decides to stay home and let the Storm Troopers do
the ‘dirty work’. A, B and C enter into the hospital and locate the doctor’s operating
room. Through the window, the Storm Troopers see the doctor operating on General
Grievous who has recently lost a few limbs during a battle. Storm Troopers A and B
enter the room and begin strangling the doctor with some rope. Storm Trooper C
stands guard outside the door, keeping watch for any Jedi Knights who may come to
the doctor's assistance. Darth Maul and Count Dooku see the commotion in the
operating room as they are passing by to visit General Grievous.
The prospect of a fight entices them to join-in on the action. Count Dooku
enters the room while Darth Maul hurries to the parking lot to fetch his
lightsaber from his starship. Upon entering the room, Count Dooku sees the
doctor break free from the attack by A and B and attempt to escape the attack
through a window. Count Dooku, A and B draw out their guns and fire a shot
at the doctor. One of these shots hits the doctor and he falls to the ground.
Darth Maul arrives a few minutes later to find the doctor bleeding profusely
but not yet dead. Darth Maul proceeds to cut off the doctor's head with his
lightsaber, expediting his death. Count Dooku then hides the body inside
Darth Maul's starship to prevent the Jedi from finding out.
 Q1) CAN ANAKIN BE HELD LIABLE FOR
THE MURDER OF THE DOCTOR EVEN
THOUGH HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME?
(3)
ANSWER: YES!

Murder: Murder is the unlawful and intentional causing of the death of

another human being.

Without Anakin’s contribution, the doctor would not be dead. Anakin

initiated the murderous plot.

Also guilty as a perpetrator through the doctrine of common purpose

(prior agreement)
Q2) CAN STORM TROOPER C BE HELD
LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF THE
DOCTOR EVEN IF HIS CONDUCT ONLY
AMOUNTED TO GUARDING THE
ENTRANCE TO THE OPERATING ROOM?
Perp or accomplice?

We must test for perpetrator liability first! (authority?)

Is C a perpetrator in his own right (satisfies def elements of the crime) or

through imputation (CP)?

Def of murder = unlawful and intentional causing of the death of another human
being.

Does C satisfy legal and factual causation?

But for test?

Ordinary course of human experience? Is the doctor's death entirely

independent of C’s conduct?

Even if causation could not be proven = perpetrator through CP.

Intention satisfied.
HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR
ANSWER REGARDING C’S LIABILITY IF
ANAKIN ONLY INSTRUCTED THEM TO
BEAT UP THE DOCTOR.

BUT:
1. C is aware that A and B have brought their guns along
and that they are likely to use them if a struggle ensues.
THINK ABOUT:
Agreement to commit crime A (assault) but crime B
(murder) is also committed?

Dolus eventualis?

Nzo
DuRand
Shezi
Nkwenja
Nhlapo
Q3) FROM THE FACTS, IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHO LETHALLY SHOT THE DOCTOR.
WITHOUT THIS KNOWLEDGE CAN WE
STILL HOLD COUNT DOOKU LIABLE
FOR ANY CRIME?
ANSWER:
1) Yes.
2) Even though we are not sure that Count Dooku was the one who felled
the doctor with a bullet (causation an issue for ordinary principles) we
can still find him liable as a perp.
3) Under the doctrine of common purpose.
4) DEF (NB!): Where two or more people agree to commit a crime OR
actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be
responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their
number which falls within their common design. Liability arises from
their ‘common purpose’ to commit the crime.
5) On the facts, there is no evidence of a prior agreement to murder. (For
Count Dooku).
6) A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons
in a common purpose is not dependent upon proof of a prior
conspiracy. Such a finding may be inferred from the conduct of a
person.
1) A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons
in a common purpose may be based upon the first-mentioned person’s
active association in the execution of the particular criminal act of the
other participants.
2) This requires that Count Dooku comply with the Mgedezi rule.
Q4) ASSUME THAT COUNT DOOKU IS
WITNESSED TO BE PRESENT AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME ONLY HOLDING A
GUN (BUT NOT USING IT). COULD HE
STILL BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER?
(3)
• At the trial, a witness for the state testified that
he had seen the 1st appellant standing near a
vehicle holding a pick handle, while the 2nd
appellant retrieved spent cartridges
discharged from the firearms of other
members of the group.
• He further testified that he had seen the 2nd
appellant holding a gun BUT NOT USING
IT.
Q5) CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT
DARTH MAUL ARRIVES AFTER THE
DOCTOR HAS ALREADY BEEN
WOUNDED, WHAT CRIME COULD WE
APPROPRIATELY CONVICT HIM OF? (5)
ANSWER:
1) Intention to kill present.
2) Darth Maul’s conduct did causally contribute/expedite
the death of the doctor.
3) NOT a ‘joinder-in’ as envisaged in Motaung.
4) He would be found guilty of murder (causation is proved
here).
5) No imputation necessary.
BONUS Q: 1000 MARKS
Anakin flees the Galaxy and is never brought to justice for
murdering the doctor. He changes his name and proceeds to
build a formidable weapon known as the death star. The
death star is capable of destroying entire planets with the
press of a button.

Anakin tests this weapon by firing it at a planet called

Alderaan. The entire plant explodes and all its inhabitants
are destroyed.

Q) What type/form of intention has Anakin exhibited?

ANSWER
Dolus indeterminatus - or general intention. See page 352
in Burchell.