FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT

ECJ: 178 PARTIES:

THESTATE and LUDWEMASHUMPAACCUSEDNO1 DAVIDALEXANDERBESTACCUSEDNO2

Registrar: Magistrate:

CC27/2007

High Court: EASTLONDONLOCALCIRCUITDIVISION

DATE HEARD: DATE DELIVERED: JUDGE(S):

11/05/2007

Froneman J

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Appearances: for the Appellant(s): for the Respondent (s): Instructing attorneys: Appellant(s): Respondent(s): CASE INFORMATION Nature of proceedings

: Criminal case

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFSOUTHAFRICA (EASTLONDONLOCALCIRCUITDIVISION) Inthematterbetween

THESTATE and LUDWEMASHUMPAACCUSEDNO1 DAVIDALEXANDERBESTACCUSEDNO2

JUDGMENT

Killingofanunbornchildnotmurdernoprospectivedeclarationtoextendcurrentdefinitionor applicationofmurdertoincludesuchkillingmadelegislaturebettersuitedtoreformlawinthat regardifconsiderednecessaryinjurytounbornchildcanbedealtwithatsentencingstagewhere assaultperpetratedonmother.

FronemanJ(sittingwithtwoassessors).

[1]Onthemorningof14February2006Ms.MelissaShelver,ayoungpregnantmother,andthe babysfather,Mr.DavidBest,consultedthegynaecologistmonitoringMs.Shelverandthe babysprogressatamedicalfacilityinSouthernwood,EastLondon.Theyhadbeendoingso regularlyduringthepregnancy.Theexaminationrevealedthatthingsweregoingwellwithboth motherandbaby.ThewouldbeparentshadbeenfollowingtheprogressofthebabyinMs. Shelverswombbywayofmoderntechnologyandtheyknewitwouldbeadaughter.Theyhad th decidedtonameherJennaMay.Thebabywasinthe38 weekofpregnancyandherbirthwas imminent.Therewerenocomplicationsduringthepregnancyandanuneventfulbirthwas anticipated.

[2]Theyreturnedtoandenteredtheircaraftervisitingthegynaecologist.Havingdoneso,Mr. LudweMashumpaalsogotintothebackofthecar.Hethreatenedthemwithagunandordered Mr.BesttodrivetoanisolatedareanearFortJacksonoutsideEastLondon.ThereheandMr. Bestgotoutofthecar.Mr.BestwasthenshotintheshoulderbyMr.Mshumpa.Mr.Mshumpa returnedtothedriverssideofthevehicleandshotMs.Shelvertwicethroughthestomachfrom herrightsidetoherleft.HethenmadeoffwithcertaingoodsofMr.Best,namelyhiswatch,

walletandcellphone,withouttakinganythingfromMs.Shelver.Mr.Bestgotbackintothecar andwithsomedifficultymanagedtodrivetoanemergencymedicalaidstation.BothheandMs. Shelverweretakenfromtheretohospital.Theywerefortunate.Bothofthemsurvived.Theshot toMr.Bestsshouldermissedhislungsbyacoupleofmillimeters.Ms.Shelverwouldhavedied hadshenotreceivedmedicaltreatment. [3]TheunbornchildinMs.Shelverswombwasnotsofortunate.Despiteapparentlyexcellent immediateemergencytreatmentbytwoteamsofdoctors,treatingbothmotherandchild,the babydidnotsurvive.Aceasariansectionwasperformedintheatre,butdespitevalianteffortsat resuscitationthebabyslifecouldnotbesaved.Shewasstillborn,aresultofthetwogunshots firedintoMs.Shelversstomachshatteringpartsofhercervicalspine.Poignancywasaddedto thistragedybythefactthatMs.Shelverheldthebabyafterbirth,thinkingthatshewasalive, onlytobetoldlaterthatshehadindeedbeenstillborn.

[4]Thekindofattackperpetratedon14February2006isunfortunatelynotsouncommonto SouthAfricans,buttheshootingofababyinthemothersstomachaspartoftheexerciseis neverthelessquiteunusualandshocking.Theshootingofanunbornchildinthemotherswomb raisesthevexinglegalquestionofwhethersuchakillingconstitutesaseparatecrimeofmurder, besidestheoffenceaimedatthemothercarryingtheunbornchild.So,evenontheundisputed factsthusfardescribed,thecasewouldhavebeenoutoftheordinary.TheprosecutionofMr. Mshumpaalonewouldhaverequiredtheconsiderationofunusualfactualandlegalissues.Itis nosurprisethatheisindeedanaccusedinthematterAccusedno1.But,intrueAlicein Wonderlandterms,thingsonlygetcuriouserandcuriouser.Mr.Best,himselfavictimofthe shooting,isalsoanaccusedAccusedno2.Thisisbutthebeginningofaverystrangetale. [5]Theindictmentisagoodplacetostartthetale.BothMr.MshumpaandMr.Bestarecharged withthemurderoftheunbornchildinthewombofitsmother(count2),theattemptedmurders ofMs.ShelverandMr.Best(counts3and4),attemptingtodefeatorobstructthecourseof justice(count6)andtheunlawfulpossessionofafirearmandammunition(counts7and8).Mr. Bestalonefacestwofurtherchargesofstatutoryconspiracy,incitement,instigationor procurementofotherpersonstocommit,firstly(ascount1),theoffencesjustsetoutthatis, counts2to8and,secondly,unrelatedtotheincidentthattookplaceon14February2006,to killMrs.HesterJacobyandMr.RichardSchultz(count9). [6]BrieflystateditistheStatescasethatasaresultofpersonalreasonsresultingfromMr. BestsentangledloverelationshipswithMs.Shelverandanothergirlfriend,Ms.TanyaJacoby, heapproachedastatewitness,Mr.AndileTukani,forassistanceingettingridoftheunborn child.Mr.TukaniinturninvolvedMr.Mshumpa,accusedno1,intheplot.Theeventualplan entailedobtainingagun,whichwasthentobeusedinastagedshootingandrobbery.Tomake thingsconvincingtotheoutsideworldMr.Bestwouldhimselfbeshotintheshoulderduringthe socalledrobbery.CarealsohadtobetakentoshootMs.Shelverthroughthestomachsothatthe unbornchildshouldbekilledandnotMs.Shelverherself.Novaluablesweretobetakenfrom hereither.EffectwasgiventotheplanwhenMr.Tukani,inthecompanyandwiththe knowledgeofthetwoaccused,procuredagunandammunitioninthetownship.Mr.Mshumpa thencompletedtheexecutionoftheagreedplanbytheshootingandrobberyon14February 2006,inthemanneralreadydescribed. TheplantokillMrs.JacobyandMr.Shultzneverreallygotoffthegroundbeyonddiscussion betweenMr.BestandMr.Tukaniofsomebizarre,evenfarcical,schemesofhowtogiveeffect thereto. [7]Bothaccusedpleadednotguiltytotherespectivechargesagainstthem.Duringthetrialit emergedthatMr.Mshumpadidnotdisputehisparticipationintheeventsof14February2006,

buthisdefencewasthathedidsoundercompulsionandthreatsfromMr.Tukani.Hisevidence confirmedtheexistenceofaplaninvolvinghimself,Mr.BestandMr.Tukani,butdifferedin somedetailsfromtheschemealreadydescribed. [8]Mr.Bestdeniedanyinvolvementintheoffenceshewaschargedwith.HeclaimsthatMr. TukanifalselyimplicatedhiminaplotprobablyhatchedbyTukani,withtheconnivanceofMr. Mshumpa.HeattributedtheneedforMr.Tukanitodosotothelattersdesperategreedfor moneyandthenecessityofhimhavingtosettlesomeunderworlddebt. [9]Themainfactualissuesthatweneedtodeterminethusrelatemainlytotherespective involvement,ifany,ofthethreemainprotagonists(Mashumpa,BestandTukani)intheevents leadinguptowhathappenedon14February2006.Whathappenedonthatfatefuldayafter Mshumpagotintothecarislargelycommoncause.Itiswhathappenedbeforethenthatwill determinetheguiltorotherwiseofthetwoaccusedbeforecourt. [10]Whatevertheoutcomeofthatfactualenquiry,Mr.Marais,whoappearsfortheState,also arguedthatourlawhasreachedthestateofdevelopmentwheretheintentionalkillingofan unbornchildinthewombofthemotherconstitutesmurder,acontentionstrenuouslyopposedby Mr.CilliersandMr.Price,counselwhoappearedfor,respectively,Mr.MshumpaandMr.Best. Inadditiontheyalsoraisedcertainotherpointsoflawrelatingtothevariouschargesbrought againsttheaccused.Duringthecourseofthetrialwealsomadecertainrulingsonthe admissibilityofstatementsmadetoaclergymanandaseniorpolicemanbyMr.Bestaftertrials withinatrialonthoseissues,andIalsomadearulingabouttheproprietyofattemptingto obtainarulingontheadmissibilityofthestatementtothepoliceofficerbeforeadecisionwas madebythedefenceonwhethertocallMr.Bestasawitnessinthatparticulartrialwithina trial.Weindicatedthatreasonsfortheserulingswouldbegiveninthisjudgment. [11]WhatIintendtodoistodealfirstwiththereasonsforthetworulingsonthetrialswithina trial,whichwillincludereasonsfortheproceduralrulingthatthedefencehadtodecidewhether tocallMr.Bestasawitnessinthesecondtrialwithinatrialbeforetheadmissibilityofthe statementcouldbedetermined. Wewillthendealwiththefactualissuesthataroseinthemaintrialitself.

OncewehavesetoutourfactualfindingsIwillthendealwiththelegalissuesraisedduring
argumentandtheeffectofthisonthefinalfindingsrelatingtotheguiltorotherwiseofthetwo accused.

TheadmissibilityofMr.BestsstatementtoReverendGernetzky
[12]ThestatecalledDirectorMcLaren,InspectorCoetzeeandReverendGernetzkyaswitnesses inthistrialwithinatrial.Mr.Bestelectednottogiveevidence.Hisfailuretotestifyand challengethefactualcorrectnessofwhatthestatewitnessestestifiedtomeantthattherewasno materialbasistorejectthefactualcorrectnessoftheirtestimony.McLarenandCoetzeetestified thatBestfreelyandvoluntarilyagreedtoseeReverendPate.WhyitwasnecessaryforReverend GernetzkytoaccompanyReverendPateinseeingBestisnot,ontheevidence,entirelycleartous, butitmatterslittlebecauseitwasconcededincrossexaminationofReverendGernetzkybyMr. PricethathesoughtpermissionfromandwasgivenitbyBesttoattendthemeeting.Perhaps

becauseofhisunfamiliaritywithcourtprocedureReverendGernetzkydidnotappearaltogether convincingtousinsomeofhisresponsestoquestionsposedincrossexaminationbyMr.Price, butintheendhisevidencethatBestaskedhimtoconveythecontentsoftheconversationtoMs. Shelverandhisownfamilyremaineduncontestedinthetrialwithinatrial(wewilldealwithMr. Bestsevidenceinthemaintrialaboutthislaterinthisjudgment).Whetherthispermission justifiedReverendGernetzkytotellhiswholecongregationabouttheconversationfromthe pulpitthefollowingSundayisirrelevanttothelegalenquirywhethertheReverendwasobliged bylawtodivulgetothiscourtthecontentsofthatconversation.Undisputedinthetrialwithina trialwasthefactthatBestaskedforthecontentsoftheconversationtobedivulgedtoothers.For thepurposesoflegallyprotectedprivilege(assumingwithoutdecidingforpresentpurposesthat suchaprivilegemayexistinrespectofspiritualadvisorsunderourConstitution,or independentlyasanaspectoftheconstitutionalrighttoprivacy),thatuncontestedfactof relinquishingtheconfidentialityorprivacyoftheconversationmeantthatReverendGernetzky wasobligedandentitledinlawtodivulgetoacourtwhatwassaidduringtheconversation (compareZefferttandothers,TheSouthAfricanLawofEvidence,at585to587).Withnobasis tochallengethatthestatementwasmadefreelyandvoluntarily,orwithoutundueinfluence,it wasadmissibleinevidence.Mr.Pricesoughttomakesomethingofthefactthatthepoliceonly becameawareofthecontentsoftheconversationbyitslaterpublicdisclosurebyReverend Gernetzkyinchurch,andthattheyinitiallyregardedtheconversationasprivate.Hesubmitted thatthesefactsmadethestatementssubsequentadmissionasevidenceconstitutionallyunfair. TheshortanswertothissubmissionisthatitwasMr.Bestsuncontestedinitialpermissionto makethecontentoftheconversationknowntootherswhowerenotpresentatthemeetingthat destroyeditsconfidentialityorprivacyforlegalpurposes,notthesubsequentdisclosurein church.

TheadmissibilityofMr.BestsstatementtoCaptainDewing

[13]DirectorMcLaren,CaptainDewingandDr.Wingreentestifiedforthestate,andMr.Best andMr.MickeyWebb,alocalattorneyandprobationalministerofreligion,forthedefencein thistrialwithinatrial.Thestatementwastakenatmiddayon23February2006.The backgroundtoitstakingwasthatbothMr.MshumpaandMr.Tukanihadbeenarrestedinthe earlyhoursofthatmorning.Bothadmittedtotheirinvolvementintheplan,allegedlyhatched withMr.Best,toshoothim,Ms.Shelverandtheunbornbaby.Mr.TukaniagreedtomeetMr. BestattheEastLondonlibrary.Theirconversationwasrecordedontape.Afterhearingthe contentoftheconversationDirectorMcLarenconsideredthatthereweresufficientgroundsfor thearrestofMr.Best.HewasarrestedbyInspectorMiddleton.MiddletontoldMcLarenthathe hadarrestedBestandthathehadbeenwarnedofhisrights.Mr.Bestwasaskedwhetherhe wishedtomakeawrittenstatementtoaseniorpoliceofficialoramagistrate.Accordingto DirectorMcLarenhechosetheformerandCaptainDewing,apoliceofficernotinvolvedinthe

investigationofthematter,andconnectedtoanotherunitofthepoliceservices,wasphonedto comeandtakedownthestatement.Hedulydidso.

[14]OnDirectorMcLarensownversionMr.Bestwastolduponhisarrivalatthepolicestation thatMr.TukaniandMr.Mshumpahadmadestatementsimplicatinghim.Hewasalsotoldthat hisconversationwithMr.Tukaniearlierinthedayhadbeenrecorded.Hewasinvitedto respondandgivenafurtherwarningofhisconstitutionalrights.Afterindicatingadesireto makeastatementtoapoliceofficialhemadethestatementtoCaptainDewing. [15]AttheconclusionofthetestimonyofthestatewitnessesMr.Pricesoughttoarguetheissue ofadmissibilityofthestatementonthebasisofthatevidence,beforedecidingwhethertocall evidenceonbehalfoftheaccused.Itwas,tome,anovelprocedurethathesuggestedshouldbe followed.Mr.Pricereadilyconcededthathehadnoauthorityineitherthecaselaworthe CriminalProcedureAct51of1977tosupporttheproposeduseofthisprocedure.Idisallowedits use,indicatingthatIwillgivereasonsformyrulinginthisjudgment.Theynowfollow. [16]Section174oftheCriminalProcedureActprovidesthatif,atthecloseofthecaseforthe prosecutionatatrial,thecourtisoftheopinionthatthereisnoevidencethattheaccused committedtheoffencethecourtmayreturnaverdictofnotguilty.Suchasituationisinmyview notanalogoustothesituationwhereanaccusedmustdecidewhethertotestifyinatrialwithina trialwheretheobjectiontotheadmissibilityofthestatementismadeonthebasisthatthe requirementsofsection217oftheActhavenotbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtnamely thatitwasnotmadefreelyandvoluntarilyandintheabsenceofundueinfluence.Inasection 174situationtheunderlyingconsiderationforadischargeisthatapersonshouldnotbe prosecutedintheabsenceofaminimumofevidencemerelyintheexpectationthatheorshe mightatsomestageincriminatehimorherself(SvLubaxa2001(2)SACR703(SCA)),or, perhapstoo,becauseafailuretodischargeanaccusedinthatkindofsituationwould compromisetheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence,theaccusedsrighttoremainsilent andnottotestify,andtheincidenceoftheonusofproof(compareDuToitandothers, CommentaryontheCriminalProcedureAct,at2232I).Theseconsiderationsdonotnormally ariseinatrialwithinatrialdeterminingtheadmissibilityofanallegedvoluntarystatement, madewithoutundueinfluence,bytheaccused.Theissueinsuchatrialisnottheaccusedsguilt, butthevoluntariness(inabroadsense)ofthestatement.Theevidencepresentedinsuchatrial shouldnormallynottouchuponthecontentsofthestatementinparticularortheguiltofthe

accusedingeneral.Theunderlyingrationaleforaproceduresimilartothesection174 procedure,namelysafeguardinganaccusedsconstitutionalrightsorthatheshouldnotbe expectedtoincriminatehimself,doesnotexistinasituationsuchastheonethatpresenteditself here.

AfurtherconsiderationinthepresentcontextisthatMr.Pricereliedonanallegedbreachof Rule10oftheJudgesRulesforhisargumentthatthestatementshouldbeheldinadmissible evenbeforetheaccuseddecidedwhethertotestify.Inthisregardhereliedheavilyonthe decisionofKroonJinSvColtandothers1992(2)SACR120(E),especiallythepassageat133h i,whereKroonJstates,withreferencetotheparticularfactsbeforehim,thattheplayingoffof oneaccusedagainstanotherwithoutadministeringtheusualcautioninanefforttoelicita statementisapracticerepugnanttotheprinciplesuponwhichourcriminallawisbased.Ido notunderstandKroonJscommenttomeanthatthemereinfringementofthatparticular JudgesRuleisobjectivelysufficienttoexcludeastatementmadeafteritsinfringementwithout enquiringintoitssubjectiveeffectontheaccusedatall.Earlier,at127fg,inasummaryofthe approachofourcourtsinthisregard,hestated:

Theobjectoftheenquiryistoevaluatethefreedomofvolitionoftheaccusedandthisofitsverynatureisanessentially
subjectiveenquiry.Whetherhiswillwasaffectedbyoutsideinfluenceistheconcern.Ofcourse,evidenceofafactor whichisobjectivelycalculatedtoinfluencethewillofapersonwill,fromapragmaticpointofview,renderitdifficultto persuadeacourtthatthereisnoreasonablepossibilitythatthatthefactorinfactsubjectivelyinfluencedtheparticular accusedand,conversely,afactorwhichisnotobjectivelycalculatedtoinfluenceanaccusedwill,practicallyspeaking,not readilybeacceptedasfoundingareasonablepossibilitythatthewilloftheaccusedwasinfactsubjectivelyinfluenced.

Icanseenoprejudicetotheaccusedinacasesuchasthepresentfordisallowingtheuseofthe proceduresuggestedbyMr.Price.Thesameargumentforinadmissibilitymayberaisedafter theaccusedhadmadehisdecisiontotestifyornot.Ifthepointcaninfactbedeterminedonan objectivebasisalonetheaccusedstestimony,orlackofit,willnotchangetheposition.Ifthe

enquiryalsohasasubjectivesidetoit,asinmyviewitobviouslyhashere,thereasonfora purelyobjectiveenquiryfallsawayentirely.Eitherwaytheaccusedwillnotsufferanyprejudice. Ifanythingbearingupontheissueofhisguilt,andnotthemerevoluntarinessofthestatement, arisesfromhisevidence,anyprejudiceorunfairnessflowingfromthatmaybeaddressedbythe presidingjudgebyorderingthattheevidenceshouldnotbeusedinanymannertothedetriment oftheaccusedinthemaintrial.

[17]IntheeventMr.Bestdidtestifyinthetrialwithinatrial.Theversionhetestifiedtowasnot, inourjudgment,credibleorcoherent.DuringcrossexaminationMr.Bestineffectconcededthat neitherthefactthathewasgiventhestatementsofMr.TukaniandMr.Mshumpa,northe allegedfailuretowarnhimofhisrighttoconsultanattorneyofhischoice,wouldontheirown haveinfluencedhimtomakeastatement.ThisrenderedtheevidenceofMr.Webbirrelevant. Thecrucialfeature,onhisversion,wastheallegedthreatmadetohimbyDirectorMcLaren,to theeffectthathehadtwochoices,namelytoplayalongandmakeastatement,ordisappear.Had henotbeenthreatenedinthismannerhewouldnothavemadethestatement.But,hesaid,the statementhemadewasnotanincriminatingone:CaptainDewingwrotecertainthingsdownthat hedidnotsayandheonlynoticedthisatthebailhearing(thecontentsofwhatwascontainedin thestatementwasnotdisclosedinthetrialwithinatrial).Thisissimplybeingtoocleverbyhalf. Iftheadmissibilityofaconfessionischallengedundersection217ashavingbeingmadeunder undueinfluenceandnotfreelyandvoluntarilyitimpliesthattheaccusedmadeanincriminating statement.Itoftenhappensthatanaccusedstatesthathewasforcedtomakeanuntrue incriminatingstatement,somethingwhichnotionallyandsometimesplausiblymayhave happened.Buttostate,asMr.Bestdid,thathewasforcedbyDirectorMcLarensthreatsto makeatruestatementwhichwasnotincriminatingmakeslittlesense.Headdedatsomestage duringcrossexaminationthathealsosaidnothingincriminatingtoMiddletonorMcLaren either.ThenotionofMcLarenthreateninghimwithdisappearanceinordertorepeatan exculpatorystatementtoaseniorpoliceofficersimplybeggarsbelief. [18]WefoundnomaterialreasontorejecttheevidenceofDirectorMcLarenandCaptain Dewing.Theywerenotseriouslychallengedincrossexaminationtotheextentthatmaterial inconsistenciesorimprobabilitieswereshownupinthatquestioning.Itwouldhavebeenvery unwiseandfoolishforaseniorpoliceofficialinthepositionofDirectorMcLarentothreatenMr. BestwithdisappearanceincircumstanceswherethepublicofEastLondonwasbeingkept informedbythemediaofdevelopmentsintheallegedshootingofMr.BestandMs.Shelver.Such conductwouldhaveputthepossiblesuccessfulinvestigationofthematteratriskfromavery earlystage.Italsoappearsimprobabletousthat,evenhadsuchathreatbeenmade,thatan intelligentpersonsuchasMr.Bestwouldhavebelievedit,ornotraisedthethreatwithCaptain DewingorDr.Wingreenimmediatelyafterwardswhenhehadtheopportunitytodoso.The suggestionthatCaptainDewing,whowasnotinvolvedintheinvestigationofthecase,somehow fabricatedincriminatingdetailsofMr.Bestsinvolvement,issimilarlyunconvincing.We concludefromthecontentsoftheJ88formscompletedbyDr.Wingreenafterexaminingthetwo accusedandMr.Tukanithathemighthavebeenoverhastyinhisexaminationandquestioning ofthem,butthiscriticismdoesnotbearmateriallyonhisintegrity,norontherealissuesatstake inthetrialwithinatrial. [19]ForthesereasonswefoundthatthestatementmadetoCaptainDewingwasprovedbythe

State,beyondreasonabledoubt,tohavecompliedwithrequirementsforitsadmissibilityunder section217oftheAct.InadditionwefindthatDirectorMcLarensevidenceofthemannerin whichMr.TukanisandMr.MshumpasstatementsweremadeknowntoMr.Best,aswellas makingknownthatataperecordingofhisconversationwithMr.Tukaniexisted,constitutedno materialbreachofRule10oftheJudgesRules.Mr.Bestwaswarnedofhisconstitutionalrights byMiddletonandMcLaren.ThedecisioninSvColt,referredtoearlier,isthusclearly distinguishableonthefactsfromthepresentmatter.

Determinationoffactsinmaintrial [20]DuringargumentattheendofthemaintrialMr.Priceurgedustoreconsidertherulingswe madeearlierontheadmissibilityofthetwostatements.Thisispermissible,asourearlierrulings wereinterlocutoryinnatureandshouldbereconsideredincircumstanceswherenewevidence hasemergedorwheretheevidencepresentedcouldbeviewedinadifferentlight(SvMkwanazi 1966(1)SA736(A)at743).Wewilldoso,butinthecontextofviewingtheevidenceasawhole andnotasaseparateissue.Thelawrequiresustoconsidertheevidenceasawhole,andnotina piecemealfashion.Italsorequiresustoassesstheevidenceinthismannerinordertodetermine whethertheStatehasproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt.Theaccusedbearnoonusif theirrespectiveversionsmayreasonablypossiblybetruetheyareentitledtoanacquittal.

[21]Muchwassaidinargumentaboutthecautionwithwhichweshouldapproachtheevidence ofMr.AndileTukani:withjustification,asheisanadmittedaccomplice(andoncertainaspects asinglewitness)andhasmuchtogainifheisgrantedimmunityfromprosecutionundersection 204oftheAct.(Imayinterposeheretoemphasizethattheissueofindemnitystandsseparate fromdeterminingwhethertheevidenceestablishestheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondreasonable doubt.Theissueofindemnitywillnotbeaddressedinthisjudgment,butonlyatalaterstage whenMr.Tukanislegalrepresentativewillbeaffordedtheopportunitytomakerepresentations inthatregardonhisbehalf.)Inconformitywithsuchacautiousapproachitappearsnecessary toustoconsider,first,whatevidencethereisagainsteachoftheaccused,independentofMr. Tukanisevidence. [22]Factsthatarecommoncauseorundisputed Mr.BestandMr.Tukanikneweachotherwell.Theywereatschooltogether,atsomestagelived

incloseproximitytoeachother,andsawandspoketoeachotheronaregularbasisthroughout theyear2005upuntil23February2006.Duringthelatterpartof2005Mr.Bestwasintroduced toMr.Mshumpaaswell.Althoughthenumberandpurposeofsuchoccasionsarecontested,itis alsocommoncausethatthethreeofthemtraveledtovariousplacesinMdantsaneduringthat timeinMr.Bestscar.Theimportantpoint,forpresentpurposes,isthatby14February2006 theyallkneweachotherquitewell.

[23]Onthemorningof14February2006Mr.BesttraveledtoMdantsaneandbroughtMr. MshumpaandMr.Tukanitotowninhisvehicle. [24]LaterthatsamemorningMr.MshumpagetsintoMr.Bestscarwithoutanyattemptto disguisehisidentityandorderedMr.BesttodrivetoFortJacksonwheretheeventsthatwas describedrightattheoutsetofthisjudgmentoccurred.Mr.Bestdidnotprotestatwhatwas donetohimandMs.ShelverbyMr.Mshumpa. [25]Intheearlyhoursofthemorningof23FebruaryfirstMr.MashumpaandthenMr.Tukani werearrested.Theyadmittedtheirinvolvementandcooperatedwiththepolice.Thelatter agreedtomeetMr.BestatthePostOfficeandtheconversationbetweenthemwastaped.The transcribedcontentsoftheconversationwereadmittedbyMr.Bestasbeingcorrect,but incomplete.Howeverincompletethetranscriptionmaybeitiscommoncausethathenever protestedhisinnocenceduringtheconversation.HeexpressednosurprisethateitherMr. TukaniorMr.Mshumpawereinvolvedinwhathappenedon14February2006.HeurgedMr. TukanitoensurethatMr.Mshumpamustgetridofthecellphoneandwatch,andthathehadto leavetownthatnight.Healsoenquiredastowhathappenedtothegun.Heexpressedconcern thatMr.Mshumpamightsaysomethingandindicatedthathewouldorganizetwophonesfor himwhenhegetstoPlettenbergBayafterleavingEastLondon.HearrangedforMr.Tukanito phonehimandtomeetwithhimagainthatevening.HepromisednottoidentifyMr.Mshumpa. OutofhisownaccordhementionedthatR8000.00hadbeendepositedintohisbankaccountand thatthereasonwhyhewasnotabletogotothebankearlierwasbecauseMr.Mshumpahad takenhiswalletaswell.HepromisedtolookafterMr.Mshumpaandalsopromisedthathe wouldhavethemoneyforMr.Mshumpareadythatnight.HeurgedMr,TukanitotellMr. Mshumpatosayitwasnothim,Mshumpa.Hestatedthattheywillburnallthatstuffafter beingreferredtotheitemstakenfromhim.HealsosoughtreassurancefromMr.Tukanithatthe latterwouldnotsayanything. [26]OntheseundisputedfactsthecaseagainstMr.Mshumpa,Accusedno.1,isdamning,and thecaseagainstMr.Best,Accusedno.2,prettyclosetothat.Wewilldealnowwitheachones responseordefencetothecaseagainstthemontheseundisputedfacts. [27]Mr.Mshumpasdefenceamountstooneofconfessionandavoidance.Hedoesnotdispute hisinvolvementinascheme,plottedwithbothMr.BestandMr.Tukani,toshootMr.Bestand Ms.Shelver.NordoeshedisputethattheprimarypurposeofshootingMs.Shelverwastokillthe baby,hencetheshotsthroughherstomachfromrighttoleft.TheshootingofMr.Bestwasto makethekidnappingandrobberylookreal.HereceivedaweaponandammunitionfromMr. Tukaniwithoutthenecessarylicences.Theavoidanceconsistedofanattemptatcomplete absolution,and,asanalternative,partialabsolution.

TheattemptatfullabsolutionrestedonthecontentionthatheactedundercompulsionfromMr. Tukani.Tukanihadthreatenedhislifeandthatofhisclosefamilyifhedidnotexecutethe agreedplan.Mr.Tukanideniedthisinhistestimony,butforthemomentweareassessingthe strengthoftheStatecaseindependentlyofTukanistestimony. InourviewthereissufficientreasontorejectMr.Mshumpasexplanationofactingunder compulsionevenwithoutbringingMr.Tukanisdenialofthosethreatsintoplay.Thedefenceof compulsionisanafterthoughtonMr.Mshumpaspart.Hefirstmadementionofitinhisletter totheprosecutingauthoritiesinAugust2005.Hisexplanationforthisdelaywasthathestillfelt underthreatfromMr.Tukaniuntilthen.Thathowever,didnotpreventhimfromdisclosingMr. Tukanispartintheplottothepolicealmostimmediatelyuponhisarreston23February2006. ItwashiscooperationwiththepolicewhichledtoMr.Tukanisarrestonthesameday.Thereis nocoherentexplanationwhyhedidnotdisclosethecompulsiondefencetothepoliceatthat stage.Laterhewrotealettertohisfamily,apologizingforwhathedid.Ifcompulsionwashis excuseitwastheidealopportunitytostatesoinconfidencetohisfamilywithoutfearofits disclosuretoMr.Tukaniinanyway.Buthedidnotdoso.Hiscomplaintintheletterwasnot thatMr.Tukaniforcedhimtodotheevildeeds,butthatMr.Tukaniwaswalkingawayscotfree withthespoilsofthescheme,namelytherewardforwhatwasdone,whichwasrightfullyhis. Nordoeshehaveanycredibleexplanationwhy,whenhehadtheguninhispossessionandthey, thethreeoccupantsinMr.Bestsvehicle,wereoutofsightfromMr.Tukanion14February 2006,hedidnotthereandthengotothepolicetopreventwhatwashappening,orwhyhedidnot askhisfriendSugartoreportthistothepolicewhenhereturnedhomeaftertheincident. Wethushavelittledifficultyinrejectinghisversionasfalseandnotreasonablypossiblytrue,for thereasonsalreadygiven. Whatremainsisthealternative,theattemptatpartialabsolution,namelythatevenonan acceptanceoftheStatecaseagainsthimheisnotguiltyofalltheoffenceswithwhichhewas charged.Iwillleaveconsiderationofthosetothestageinthisjudgmentwhendealingwiththe legalargumentsrelatingtowhattheaccusedmaycompetentlybefoundguiltyofafterthefactual disputeshavebeenresolved. [28]InhisevidenceMr.BeststatedthathedidnotrecognizeMr.Mshumpawhenhegotintothe caronthemorningof14February2006,nordidherecognizehiminthecaroroutsidewhenhe wasshot.ItisanincredibleassertionforsomeonewhoonhisownadmissionknewMr.Mshumpa andadmittedbringinghimtotownfromMdantsanethatverymorning.Inthecrossexamination ofMr.MshumpabyMr.Bestscounselitwasneversuggestedtohimthathesomehowdisguised hisappearanceafterbeingdroppedoffearlierbyBestthatmorning,anexplanationbelatedly givenbyBesthimselfwhenaskedabouttheincongruityofnotidentifyingMshumpathat morning. [29]Mr.BestsexplanationforthecontentsoftheconversationhehadwithMr.Tukanionthe morningof23February2006issimilarlybold,butalsototallyimplausibleandimprobable.He saysthatalmostimmediatelyuponmeetingwithMr.TukaniherealizedthatTukanihadgiven effecttoanearlierthreatthathemadetoBest,namelythatifhedidnothelpTukaniinobtaining moneyTukaniwouldharmMr.Bestsbrotherschild.AccordingtoMr.Best,Mr.Tukani alludedtothisimmediatelyuponmeetinghimthatmorning,butthispartoftheconversationwas nottranscribed.Asaresultofthishe,Best,playedalongwithMr.Tukanibynotprotestinghis owninvolvementinthescheme.Evenifoneacceptsforthepurposesofthisargumentthatthis improbablebitoftheconversationindeedtookplacetheexplanationofplayingalongcanstill notbetrue. Mr.BestdidnottestifythatpartoftheconversationincludedanexplanationbyMr.Tukaniof

thedetailsoftheplotandwhatBestsowninvolvementinitwouldhavebeen.Fromthecontents oftheconversationalreadyreferredtoearlierinourjudgmentitisquiteapparentthatMr.Best volunteered,withoutpromptingorcoaching,manydetailsofthescheme.Howcouldheplay alongwithaplotofwhichhesaysheknewnothing?Thetrueexplanation,ofcourse,isthathis knowledgeofthedetailsoftheplotasdisclosedinthestatementshemadehimselfinthe conversationshowsthathenotonlyknewwhattheplotentailedandthatpartofhisobligation underitwastopayMr.MshumpaforthejobhedidforMr.Best. [30]WehavenohesitationinrejectingMr.Bestsattemptstoexplainawayhisincriminating statementsandbehaviourinthismannerasfalseandnotreasonablypossiblytrue.Our observationsandassessmentinthisregardalsohaveabearingonthenextpartofthejudgment whichwilldealwithareconsiderationoftheadmissibilityofthestatementshemadetoCaptain DewingandReverendGernetzky,butforthemomentwesimplywishtorecordthatinour assessmentoftheundisputedfactsandMr.Bestsuntruthfulresponsetheretowehavecometo theconclusionthatevenonthisnarrowandcircumscribedbasistheStatehasprovedbeyond reasonabledoubtthatMr.Besthadpriorknowledgeof,andinvolvementin,aschemewithMr. MshumpaandMr.Tukani,toshootBest,Ms.Shelverandtheunbornchildinamannerwhich wouldmakeitlooklikeakidnappingandrobbery.

[31]ReconsiderationoftheadmissibilityofMr.Bestsstatements
Followingthechronologyofeventson14February2006wewilldealfirstwiththestatement madetoCaptainDewingbyMr.Best.Earlierinthisjudgmentwegaveourreasonsforadmitting thisstatementafterthetrialwithinatrial.WetherefoundDirectorMcLarenandCaptain DewingtobecrediblewitnessesandMr.Bestnot.Mr.Pricesubmittedthattwofurtherfactors castdoubtonDirectorMcLarensassertionthathedidnotthreatenMr.Bestinanyway.The firstwastheallegedunlikelihoodofMr.Bestchanginghismindwithinfifteenminutesofhis arrest,andthesecondtheallegedsimilarmodusoperandiofMcLareninhisdealingearlierwith Mr.Tukani.Neithersubmissionwithstandsscrutiny.

[32]ThesocalledchangeofmindrestsontheassumptionthatupuntilhisarrestMr.Best assertedhisinnocence.Thatassumptionisunfounded.MomentsbeforehisarrestbyMiddleton heindicatedhiscomplicityintheeventsinthetapedconversationwithMr.Tukani.His subsequentconductinadmittinghisinvolvementinthestatementmadetoCaptainDewingis consistentwithwhatheadmittedtoinhisconversationwithMr.Tukani.Werejectedhisversion thatheonlydidsoinordertoplayalongwithMr.Tukani.Furtherconfirmationthathis versionofplayingalongisfalseistobefoundinhisfailuretoimmediatelytelleitherMiddleton orMcLarenthatheplayedalongbecauseofTukanisearlierthreats.Itbecomesalmosttedious tomentionevenmorereasonsshowingupthefalsityoftheplayingalongstory,butafurther reasonisthattheallegedthreatmadeearlierbyMr.TukaniwastoharmMr.Bestsbrothers child.ForwhatreasonwouldMr.Tukaninowchangehismindandassistingettingtheunborn childkilledandriskkillingthemanhewantedmoneyfrom?AndwhywouldMr.Mshumpaget involvedinsuchaschemewhichwouldhavenoconceivablefinancialrewardforhim?Once againtheansweristhattheseimprobabilitiesdisappeariftherealplotwasdevisedbyandonthe insistenceofMr.Besthimself.

[33]ThesocalledsimilarmethodofinducingstatementsbyMcLarenisnotsimilaratall.Itis truethatAndilesaidthatMcLarentoldhimnottomessaround,buthedidnotsaythat McLarenthreatenedhiminanyway,nordidhesaythatheperceivedMcLarensconductas constitutinganyundueinfluenceonhim.Mr.PricecandidlyconcededthatMr.Bestsevidence thatCaptainDewingwrotedownincriminatingdetailswhichBestnevertoldhimwasalie,but arguedthatweshouldnotbecauseofthatsummarilydismisshisevidenceofathreatmadeby McLaren.Thatisnotwhatwehavedone.Fromwhathasbeenstatedearlierwehaveconcluded thatMr.Bestscentralassertionsofinnocencearedemonstrablyfalse.Thatinevitablyhasa bearingonfurthersimilarassertionsbyhim.Insummarynonewevidenceornewperspectives havecometolightwhichconvincesusthatourearlieradmissionofMr.Bestsstatementto CaptainDewingshouldbereversed.OnhisownversionMr.Bestwaswarnedofhisrightto silence.WeacceptthatDirectorMcLarenwarnedhimofhisconstitutionalrights,includingthat oftherighttosilenceandtolegalrepresentation,asdidCaptainDewing.Mr.Bestisan intelligent,articulatepersonandhewellknewwhathisrightswereifhewantedtoexercisethem. TheevidenceofMr.Webbtakesthematternofurtherinhisfavour. [34]ItwasnextsubmittedbyMr.PricethatthestatementmadetoCaptainDewingwasnot reliable,becausecertainoftheassertionsmadeinthestatementdidnotaccordwith,forexample, theevidenceofMs.ShelverthattherewerenoproblemsbetweenthemwhilstMr.Best mentionedsuchproblemsinthestatement.FirstlyitisdebatablewhetherMs.Shelversevidence wassounambiguous.However,inviewofhisconcessionthatCaptainDewingwrotedownwhat Mr.BesttoldhimthissubmissionamountstosayingthatMr.Bestliedinthestatementtoo.We arenottoosurewhattherealimportofthissubmissionwas,butsufficeittosaythatitconfirms theexistenceofaplanbetweenMr.Best,Mr.TukaniandMr.Mshumpatoobtainagun,toget ridofthebaby,thattheplancouldnotbeexecutedintheQuigneyoratGame,andthatitwas thendecidedtodoitatthescan,afterwhichtheeventsontheroadandatFortJacksontook place.Whateverthedifferenceindetailmaybe,thecontentsofthestatementunambiguously implicateMr.Bestintheseevents. [35]ThestatementtoReverendGernezkywasmadeafterMr.Besthadalreadymadehis confessiontoCaptainDewing.ReadinthatcontextthestatementissimplyacontinuationofMr. Bestsconsistentbehaviouronthatday,namelyanacknowledgementofhisinvolvementinthe eventspreceding,andthosethattookplaceon,14February2006.Mr.Pricessecondbiteatthe cherryinregardtotheadmissibilityofthisstatementrestedontheallegedunfairnessin ReverendGernetskyaskingMr.Besttoelaborateonwhathappenedbeforehehad,onhisown, admittedcomplicity,andthefurtherallegationthattheReverendwentbeyondhismandatein whathewasallowedbyMr.BesttodisclosetoMs.Shelverandthetwoaffectedfamilies. [36]ThefundamentaldifficultywiththesesubmissionsliesinMr.Bestsresponseinevidenceto theseallegations.Itisnothisevidencethathewouldnothavemadetheincriminatingpartofthe statementtoReverendGernetzkyiftheReverenddidnotaskhimtoelaborate.Hesaysthathe nevermadethestatementandthatthegoodReverendislying.Inevidenceinthemaintrial ReverendGernetzkytestifiedthathewasrequestedtoconveywhatwassaidtohimbyMr.Best tothepeopleconcerned.Thatisalsowhathisstatement,readinpropercontext,says.Hewas askedtoconveyMr.Bestsapologyforhiscomplicityinthecrimes,astoldtoReverend Gernetzky,tothefamilies,andthathehadbeenarrested.WecommentedearlierthatReverend Gernetzkydidnotalwaysappearcomfortableinthewitnessbox,butcomparedtothequalityof Mr.Bestsevidenceinthisregardthereisnoreasontorejecthisversionofwhathappenedin thatroom.Itfitsincomfortablywithwhathadhappenedbeforeonthatdayandwhatstateof mindMr.Bestwasinattheendofadaywherehehadconsistentlyadmittedtohiscomplicityin theshootingsandwhatprecededit.

[37]Iwanttoemphasizealastaspectagainbeforeendingthediscussionontheadmissibilityof thestatementtoReverendGernetzky.Weexpressednoviewonthequestionofwhetheralegally protectedprivilegeexistsbetweenaspiritualadvisorandacongregant,orinrespectofprivate conversationsgenerally.TheConstitutionmaywellallowtheextentionofprivilegetothose situations(compareSvBierman2002(2)SACR219(CC)),butadecisiononthatissueneednot bemadeinthiscaseOurconclusionisbasedonthefactualfindingthatMr.Bestauthorizedthe disclosureofwhathesaidtoReverendGernetzkytootherpeopleandthatitisthatpermissionto disclosewhichdestroysanylegalprivilegethatmayattachtosuchaconversation.Wedoubtthat ourfactualfindingwillhavethedireconsequencespredictedbyMr.Priceinargument,namely thatpeoplewillasaresultofsuchafindingbereluctanttoconfideintheirreligiousleaders.

[38]Thereisthus,again,novalidnewreasonforustoexcludethestatementmadebyMr.Bestto ReverendGernetzky. [39]TheincriminatingstatementsmadetoCaptainDewingandReverendGernetzkyinour judgmentsimplyaddsanothernailtothecoffinintheStatescaseagainstMr.Best,stillwithout anyrelianceontheevidenceofMr.Tukani.Werepeatthatinourjudgmentthefactual involvementofMr.Bestintheconceptionoftheplantoshoothimself,Ms.Shelverandthe unbornchildhasbeenshownbeyondreasonabledoubt,withoutrelianceontheevidenceofeither Mr.TukaniorMr.Mshumpa.Itisagainstthisbackgroundorcontextthatwenowturntothe evidenceoftheseaccomplices. [40]Accompliceevidence Itistritelawthattheevidenceofanaccompliceshouldbeapproachedwithcaution,formany andvariedreasons.Anaccompliceisaselfconfessedcriminal;hemayhavemanyreasonsto falselyimplicatetheaccused:forexample,inordertominimizehisownculpabilityorthatof anotherperson;andbyreasonofhisinsideknowledgehemayconvincinglyanddeceptivelyturn thedescriptionofeventsthatoccurredtohisownadvantage(SvHlapezula1965(4)SA439(A) at440DE).Webelievethatthecautiousapproachthatwehaveadopted,namelytoinitially assessthecaseagainsttheaccusedbythinkingawaytheaccompliceevidence,goesalongwayin addressingtheconcernsaboutrelyingonaccompliceevidence.

[41]Furthergeneralconsiderationsthatmilitateagainstthefalseimplication,bybothMr. MshumpaandMr.Tukani,ofMr.Bestarethefollowing.OnMr.Bestsversiontheywouldhave hadtohatchthedetailsoftheplottoshoothimandMs.Shelveronthenightof13February2006 becauseonlythenweretheytoldoftheimpendingvisittothedoctorinSouthernwoodthenext morning.Itseemsinconceivable,oratleastincrediblystupid,tothenriskdetectionbyMr.Best ofMr.Mshumpasidentitybythelatterwearingnothingtodisguisehimself.Mentionhas alreadybeenmadeofthelackoffinancialincentiveforsuchaplotoftheirown.Minordetails alsoaddconvincinglytotheveracityoftheplot.Bothmentionanincidentwhereanattemptto

executetheplanwouldbemadewhilstMr.Bestsmotherwouldalsobeinthecarandthatthey actuallysawher,oratleastanotherwoman,inthecaronthatfailedattempt.Mr.Bestadmits thatheoncetookMs.Shelverandhismothertoaroadhouseinthevicinity.Thesekindof coincidences,intheend,simplybecomestoomuchtoexplainawayconvincingly. [42]Havingsaidthat,however,weacceptthatMr.Tukanisevidencemayvalidlybecriticized onanynumberofgrounds.Tostartoffwithheisanadmittedaccomplice,liar,fraudster, braggartandcoward.Hecontradictedhimselfonmanyoccasionsinthewitnessbox,bothin regardtoearlierevidenceaswellaswithregardtoearlierextracurialstatementshemade.But behindtheblusterandunconvincingexplanationsofcontradictionsindetail,relatingtotimes andplaces,thereisinourjudgmentacredibleconsistencyintheessentialsofhisstory. [43]LetusstartwithwhatIwillcalltheJacobyplot,whichappearsbygeneralconsensusto haveoriginatedbeforethebabyplot.ItisundisputedthatMr.Bestwrotehandwrittennotes providingfalseandalmostbizarreinformationonMrs.Jacobyandtheboyfriendofher daughter,Tanya,acertainMr.RichardSchultz,andthathehandedthesenotestoMr.Tukani. Mr.TukanisaysMr.BestgavehimthesenotesaspartofaplantokillbothMrs.JacobyandMr. SchultzbecauseMr.BestwasangrywithMrs.Jacobyforherdisapprovalofhisrelationship withTanya,andresentfulofTanyassubsequentrelationshipwithMr.Shultz. EarlierevidencebyMrs.Jacobyconfirmedthatsheindeeddisapprovedofherdaughters relationshipwithMr.Best.Ms.TanyaJacobyalsoconfirmedthatshehadarelationshipwith Mr.Bestfromayoungage,butthatshebrokethisoffwhenshelearnedofMs.Shelvers pregnancyandthefactthatMr.Bestwasthefather,somethingwhichhedeniedtoher.They remainedincontact,eventotheextentthatMr.Bestphonedherfromprisonontwooccasions afterhisarrestanddetention. ItwasputtoMr.TukanibyMr.Priceincrossexaminationthatthesenotesweretheresultof Tukanisdesperateneedformoney(whichhealwayssoughtfromMr.Best),andthathe,Mr. Best,wasafraidofTukani.ToalleviatemattersMr.BestthensuggestedextortionofMrs.Jacoby andMr.Tukanithenaskedfordetailsfromhim,whichheprovided.InhisevidenceMr.Best statedthathewascoercedbyMr.Tukanitoprovidehimwiththesenotes.Mr.Tukanitookouta gunandplaceditonhislapwhilsttheconversationaboutthisaspectwasgoingon.Mr.Tukani thencameupwiththesuggestedextortion,notMr.Best. DespitethecontradictionsandalmostsurrealaspectsoftheplandeposedtoinevidencebyMr. Tukaniwehavenodoubtthathisversionoftheoriginoftheplotismorecrediblethanthatof Mr.Best.ItfitsinwiththeotherbackgroundevidencerelatingtoMr.Bestsrelationshipwith theJacobys,bothmotheranddaughter,andhisprobableantagonismtoMr.Schultz,whilstMr. Bestsversionisnotonlyfundamentallycontradictorytowhatwasputonhisbehalf,butalso undulycontrivedintryingtoexplainawaycollateraldetails. [44]ThesameappliestotheconflictingversionsofMr.TukaniandMr.Bestaboutthelatters involvementintheallegedplotrelatingtotheshootingofMr.Best,thebabyandMs.Shelver. TheessentialsofthatplotastestifiedtobyMr.Tukaniarecorroboratedbyotherevidence:(1)by manyoftheundisputedfactssetoutearlierinthisjudgment,suchasMr.Mshumpas introductiontoMr.Best,thevarioustripsinMr.Bestscardrivingtovariousplacesin MdantsaneandthefactthatMr.BestpickedbothMr.MshumpaandMr.Tukanionthe morningof14February;(2)bythecontentsofwhatMr.BesttoldMr.Tukaniwhentheymeton 23February2006;(3)bytheevidenceofMr.Mshumpaincourt;(4)bytheadmissionsof complicityinMr.Bestsownstatementsadmittedinevidence,and(5)alsobytherecordof continuousphonecallsbetweenMr.TukaniandMr.Bestoveralongperiodoftime.

[45]WehavealreadycommentedadverselyonMr.Bestscredibilityinthisjudgment.Wedonot thinkitisnecessarytoprovidemoredetailinsupportofouradversefinding.Heisanintelligent, articulateandonthefaceofitaffableperson.Havingseenhiminthewitnessboxitbecomes easiertounderstandwhypeoplewouldbeconvincedofeventhemostimprobablethingshe mightsay.Hisoutwardappearanceisthatofanabsoluteconvictionofthetruthofhis statements.Theevidenceinthiscasehassometimesbeenofanalmostsurrealquality,far removedfromtherealitiesoftheworldofmostpeople.Mr.Pricehasarguedthatthereisno apparentmotiveforMr.BesttohavebeeninvolvedintheoffencesinvolvingMs.Shelverinview oftheunchallengedevidenceofhisconcernforMs.Shelverandthebabyduringthepregnancy. ThelegalanswertothatcontentionisthattheStateneednotprovemotive.Thesubstantive answeristhat,yes,Mr.BestdidappeartotreatMs.Shelverandthebabywithgenuineconcern andrespect,butatthesametimeheremainedincontactwithhiserstwhilegirlfriend,Ms.Tanya Jacoby,nottellingherofMs.Shelverspregnancyanddenyingfatherhoodwhenthatfact becameknown.Wehavenohesitationinfindingthatbeneaththeapparentlyopenandgenuine exteriorexhibitedbyMr.Bestingivingevidence,hehasbeenshownupasascheming,dishonest anduntruthfulwitness. [46]InourviewtheevidenceestablishesoverwhelminglythatMr.Best,Mr.TukaniandMr. MshumpaarrivedataplanwherebybothMr.BestandMs.Shelverwouldbeshottheformer intheleftshoulder(perhapsalsointheleftlegbuttheremaywellbesomereasonabledoubton thatscore)andthelatterfromrighttoleftinherstomachwiththeprimarypurposeofkillingthe unbornbaby.ThisnecessitatedgettingafirearmwhichwaseventuallyprocuredinMdantsane withthefullknowledgeofthethreemainprotagonists.Theplanwouldbeexecutedinamanner thatwouldmakeitlooklikeagenuinekidnappingandrobbery.Therewasatleastone unsuccessfulattemptintheQuigneyareabeforetheplanwasexecutedinitsfinalformon14 February2006. OnthebasisofthereasonsalreadygivenwealsofindthatMr.BestalsoinvolvedMr.Tukaniin another,prior,schemetokillMrs.JacobyandMr.RichardSchultz. [47]Whatremainsistodeterminewhatoffencesthetwoaccusedareguiltyofonanacceptance ofthesefacts.OurfindingsonthefactsareunanimousandIwishtorecordtheinvaluable assistanceIreceivedfrommyassessorsintheconsiderationofthesefactualissues.Theyalso assistedmegreatlyintheresearchanddiscussionofthelegalissuesthatfollow,butintermsof thelawIcarrysoleresponsibilityfordecidingtheseissuesoflaw. Thekillingoftheunbornchild [48]AtthestartofthisjudgmentIreferredtotheuncontestedevidencethatbothmotherand babyweredoingwellbeforetheshootingon14February2006.TheevidenceofDr.Kirsten,a neonatalmedicalexpert,establishedthatthebabywasviable,inthesensethatitwasalmost absolutelycertainthathadshebeendeliveredbyceasareanbirthonthedayoftheincident,she wouldhavebeenbornaliveandhealthy.Generallyspeakingmedicalsciencenowconsidersa th foetusviableinlayterms,considersitababybythe25 weekofpregnancy.Dr.Kirstens

evidencegraphicallyillustratedthatthebabywasaliveinthewombofhermotheratthetime oftheshootingincident,inthesensethatshewouldhaveexperiencedpaininthesamemanneras anormallivingbabythathadalreadybeenbornandwasaliveintheworldoutsidehermothers womb.Herreactiontothepaininflicteduponherbythetwobulletwoundsthatenteredher bodycausedareactionthatwouldnormallymanifestonlyitselfinnormalbirthuponbeing expelledfromthewomb,byababyinhalingair.Whenalivingpersonisshotandexperiences greatbloodlossoneofthecompensatorymechanismsofthebodytocopewiththiscrisisis acceleratedbreathinginanefforttoobtainmoreoxygen.ThesamehappenedtothebabyinMs. Shelversstomach.Inreactiontothepaincausedbythebulletsshetriedtobreathe,but obviouslyshewasunabletobreathinoxygen.Instead,theevidenceofherattemptatbreathing wasthefactthatamnioticfluidandredbloodcellswerefoundinherlungsafterwardsitmeant thatinherdistresscausedbythepainofthebulletwoundssheinhaledsomeofherownblood.In medicaltermsshewasaliveinthewombofhermotheranddiedthereasaresultofthegunshot woundstoherbody.Medicallyspeakingherlifeanddeathinsidethewombdidnotdifferin naturefromlifeanddeathofanormalpersonlivingintheoutsideworld,butonlyinthelocation wherethatlifeanddeathoccurred.

[49]BothMr.MshumpaandMr.Best,whenaskedtheirviewsonwhatsuchakillingamounted to,repliedthattheyconsideredittobemurder.IhavenodoubtthatifIhavetogiveexpression towhatisdescribedinlegallanguageasthelegalconvictionsofthecommunityitmightresult intheviewthatthekillingofanunbornchildnotbythemother,butbyanoutsiderinthe circumstancesdescribedinthiscase,amountstomurder.Whetherthekillingofanunbornchild bythemotherwouldalsoberegardedasmurdertoo,isamuchmorecontestedissue,because heretherightsofthemothertoherphysicalandpsychologicalintegritycomesinto countervailingplay. [50]Inapassionate,eloquent,andtemptinglypersuasiveargument,Mr.Maraisurgedthatthe timehascomeforthelawtogiveproperreflectiontomedicalrealityandcommunityconviction, andtodeclarethatthekillingofanunbornchildincircumstancessuchasthepresentconstituted thecrimeofmurderinourlaw.Hecandidlyconcededthatthereareformidableobstaclesinthe wayofdoingthis,butneverthelessarguedthattheseimpedimentscouldlegitimatelybe overcome. [51]ArgumentinthismatterwasheardonWednesday(8May2007)andweindicatedthatwe wouldhanddownourjudgmenttoday,Friday(10May2007).Yesterdayjudgmentwas

deliveredintheConstitutionalCourtinthematterofMasiyavDirectorofPublicProsecutions andothers,CaseCCT54/06.Althoughitdealtwiththedefinitionofrape,itisajudgmentthat hasamaterialbearingonthelegalissueofwhetheritiscompetentandproperformetodevelop thecommonlawtoincludethekillingofanunbornchildunderthedefinitionofmurder.Inview ofitsoutcomeitisnotnecessaryformetodealinthesamedetailasIwouldotherwisehavedone withthedifficultiesstandinginthewayofthedevelopmentofthecommonlawinthemanner advocatedbyMr.Marais.

[52]Inbriefsummarysomeofthemostimportantimpedimentsarethefollowing. [53]Thepresentdefinitionofthecrimeofmurderisthatitconsistsintheunlawfuland rd

intentionalkillingofanotherperson(Burchell,PrinciplesofCriminalLaw3

ed.,at667;

th Snyman,Strafreg,5 ed.,at423(diewederregtelikeenopsetlikeveroorsakingvandiedoodvan nandermens)).Thathasalwaysbeenunderstoodasrequiringthatthepersonkilledhadtobe bornalive.Intermsofthepresentapplicationofthedefinitionofmurder,thekillingofan unbornchildbyathirdpartythusdoesnotamounttomurder.

[54]Theextentionofthedefinitionofacrime,ortheextentionitsapplicationtonew circumstanceswasfrowneduponeveninourpreconstitutionalcommonlaw,primarilyuponthe basisthatitoffendedagainsttheprincipleoflegality(RvSibiya1955(4)SA247(AD)at256H 257A);SvVonMolendorffandanother1987(1)SA135(T)at169C170D).Intextbooksitis statedthatthecourtsdonothavethepowertocreatenewcrimesanymore(Snyman,Srafreg, th rd 5 ed.,at45;Burchell,PrinciplesofCriminalLaw,3 ed.,at96).

[55]AlthoughtheConstitutionexpresslyexpectsthehighercourtstodevelopthecommonlawin ordertobringitintolinewiththefoundationalvaluesstatedintheConstitution(forexamplein sections8,39and173oftheConstitution),theprincipleoflegalityisenshrinedinsection35(3)

(l)oftheConstitution.Thissectionprovidesfortheinclusion,aspartofthefairtrialrightsofan accused,therightnottobeconvictedforanactoromissionthatwasnotanoffenceundereither nationalorinternationallawatthetimeitwascommittedoromitted.Itisonethingtodevelop thecommonlawincivilmatterstoeradicatepatternsofunequalpersonal,socialandeconomic dominationonthegroundthatthesepatternsoffendagainstthefoundationalvaluesofthe Constitution,butitisquiteanotherthingtobringaboutthisdevelopmentinthefaceofthe legalityprincipleexplicitlyrecognizedasafundamentalrightitselfinsection35(3)(l)ofthe Constitution. [55]TheConstitutiondoesnotexpresslyconferanyfundamentalrights,mostimportantlythe righttolife,onanunbornchild.AsfarasIamawarenoSouthAfricancourthaseverheldthat anunbornchildthatwasnotbornaliveholdsanyrightinitsunbornstate(anextensive discussionof,andreferenceto,thecaselawandliteratureonthesubjectbothhereandinother countriesiscontainedinRoadAccidentFundvMtati2005(6)SA215(SCA)).

[56]ThebornaliveprinciplehasneverbeendiscardedordevelopedinthemannerMr.Marais suggests,inthosecountrieswheremurderisacommonlawcrime(compareAttorneyGeneralss Reference(No.3of1994)[1997]3AllER936(HL)).Nor,asfarasIamaware,havethecourts developedorinterpretedstatutoryhomicidelawstodoawaywiththebornaliveprinciple wheretheydidnotcontainexpresswordstothateffect(comparetheCaliforniancaseofKeelerv SuperiorCourt2Cal.3d619).Thedominanttrendwhereunbornbabykillinghasbeen criminalizedhasbeentoenactspecificfeticidelawsaimedatkillingbythirdpartiesandnotthe mother,andnottochangethedefinitionofthecrimeofmurdertoaccommodatesuchinstances.

[57]Failuretodevelopthelawinordertoincludethekillingofanunbornchildasmurderwill notleavesuchanactunpunishedandthusbringthelawintodisrepute.Theactmaystillbe punishedaspartoftheoffencecommittedagainstthemother,whetherthatmaybemurder, attemptedmurderoranyotherkindofassaultuponthemother.Theaggravationoftheassault onthemother,intheformofharmtothefoetusinherstomach,maysuitablybetakeninto considerationatthesentencingstage. [58]Therearepracticaldifficultiesinformulatingareasonablypreciseextendeddefinitionof murdertoincludethekillingofanunbornchild.Theseissuesincludewhetherthedefinition shouldrequiretheviabilityofunbornbabiesasaprerequisite,whetheritshouldberestrictedto onlythirdpartykillingsandexcludethemother,andtowhatextentandhowitfitsinwiththe

criminaloffenceandsanctionforillegalabortionunderTheChoiceonTerminationofPregnancy Act92of1996.

[59]TheConstitutionalCourtjudgmentinMasiya,referredtoabove,hasnowfortunatelymade mytaskmucheasierbyitsclarificationoftheextenttowhichtheConstitutionallowsourHigh Courtstodevelopthecriminallaw.AsIunderstandthejudgmentitstates,inanutshell,that suchadevelopmentofthecommonlawofcrimesmustbedoneincrementallyandcautiouslyin accordancewiththedictatesoftheConstitution(paras.[30]to[33]);thatthedevelopment shouldnothaveretrospectiveeffect,dealingwiththepast,becausethatwouldoffendthe principleoflegality,butthatitiscompetenttoeffectthedevelopmentprospectively,tooperate onlyinfuture(paras.[47]to[51]).

[60]Theapplicationoftheseprinciplestotheparticularfactsofthematterbeforeitinthe Masiyacaseisalsoinstructiveforpresentpurposes.Althoughinissuethere,wastheextended meaninggiventothedefinitionofthecrimeofrape,theeffectoftheapplicationoftheextended definitiontotheaccusedthereissimilartothepositionoftheaccusedhere.Theactofthe accusedinMasiyaconstitutedindecentassaultundertheolddefinitionofrape,butfellwithinthe newextendeddefinitionofrape,whichnowalsoincludesanalpenetrationofafemalewithout herconsent.TheConstitutionalCourtheldthatbecauseoftheprincipleoflegalityassetoutin section35(3)(l)oftheConstitutionMr.Masiyacouldonlybefoundguiltyofindecentassault andnotofrapeundertheextendeddefinition(para[71]).Italsocommentedthatthefactthathe hasbeenconvictedofindecentassaultdidnotautomaticallymeanthatthesentenceimposed uponhimshouldbemorelenientthanifhehadbeenconvictedofrape(para[72]).

[61]OnanapplicationoftheMasiyajudgmenttothepresentcaseitseemsclearthatIcannot retrospectivelydeclarethekillingofanunbornchildtoconstitutethecrimeofmurder.Normay Ifindtheaccusedguiltyofmurder,forthesimplereasonthatitwouldoffendtheprincipleof

legalityenshrinedinsection35(3)(l)oftheConstitution.Whentheunbornchildwaskilledon14 Februarylastyeartheactsoromissionsoftheaccuseddidnotconstitutetheoffenceofmurder atthetime.Theaccusedcannotthereforebeguiltyofmurderoncount2.

[62]TheonlyremainingissueonthisaspectiswhetherIshouldmakeaprospectivedeclaration thatthedefinitionofmurdershouldbeextendedtoincludethekillingofanunbornchild.Ithink not.Thefirstreasonfordecliningtodosoissubstantiveinnature,theothersperhapsbased moreonpragmaticconsiderations. [63]TheprospectiveextensionofthedefinitionofrapeinMasiyaeffectivelyextendedtheambit ofprotectionfromthecrimetoanexistingclassofpersonsinsociety,namelywomen.rapeisa crimewhichimpingesuponthefundamentalrightsofdignity,privacyandphysicalintegrityof womaninabrutalanddegradingmanner.ThereisnocounterpartintheConstitutionforthe protectionoftherightsofanunbornchild.WhatisprotectedintheConstitution,however,is everyonesrighttobodilyandpsychologicalintegrity,whichincludestherighttomakedecisions concerningreproduction,andtosecurityandcontroloveronesbody(section12(2)(a)and(b)). Thecaseofanassault,inwhateverform,byathirdpartyonapregnantwomanwithaviewto injuringthechildinherwomb,isanoutrageevenifviewedsimplyfromtheperspectiveofthe injurytothemother.Thewonderofpregnancyliesnotintheseparatenessofthemotherandthe childinherwomb,butintheiruniquetogethernessduringthatperiod.Anassaultbyanoutsider ononeisatthesametimeanassaultonboth,intheirtogetherness.Ourexistingcommonlawof crimesofassault,initsvariousforms,alreadyprovidesprotectioninthisregard.And,aspointed outinMasiya,theextentandnatureoftheparticularassaultinanygivencasemayhaveamore importantroletoplayindetermininganappropriatesentence,ratherthantheformalname giventotheparticularcrimeinvolvingtheassault.Theappropriatedevelopmentinrespectof appropriatelypunishingthirdpartieswhointentionallyharmorkillunbornbabiesmaythusin myjudgmentbedonewithintheambitofexistingcrimesofassaultagainstthepregnantmother. Suchanapproachwouldnotonlyavoidtheformaldifficultiesofformulatingaprecisedefinition foranextendedcrimeofmurder,butwouldalsonotmakethepunishmentofaninjuryorkilling

ofanunbornchilddependentonthestagethepregnancyhasreached.

[64]ThepragmaticconsiderationsincludetheproblemofprecisedefinitionthatIhavejust referredto.Anotheristhepossibleuncertaintythataprospectivedeclarationofanewor extendedcrimebyaHighCourtoffirstinstancewillcreate.Thereisnoprovisioninthe ConstitutionforanautomaticreferralforconfirmationbytheConstitutionalCourtinsucha case,asthereiswhennationalorprovinciallegislationortheconductofthePresidentisdeclared constitutionallyinvalid(section172oftheConstitution).Iamnotsayingthatthereisnomeritin makingthekillingofanunbornchildacrime,eitheraspartofthecrimeofmurderorasa separateoffence,onlythatinmyviewtheLegislatureis,asthemajorengineforlawreform( Masiya,para[33],referringtoCarmichelevMinisterofSafetyandSecurityandanother2001(4) SA938(CC)),bettersuitedtoeffectthatradicalkindofreformthanthecourts.

Theotheroffences [65]Onthebasisofourfactualfindingsitremainstodeterminewhichoftheotheroffencesthe accusedmaybeguiltyof.

[66]AttemptedmurderofMsShelver(count3) Inourjudgmentbothaccusedareguiltyonthiscount.Anypersonwillknowthatthereisa foreseeableriskofdeathbyshootinganyone,includingapregnantwoman,inthestomach.The medicalevidencethatMs.Shelverwouldhavediedhadtherebeennoemergencytreatmentwent unchallenged.Thedirectintenttokillthechilddoesnotexcludeintentionintheformofdolus eventualisinrespectofthemother.Theegregiouskillingoftheunbornchildisanaggravating featureoftheassaultandwillreceiveproperconsiderationatthesentencingstage.

[67]AttemptedmurderofMr.Best(count4) Suicideorattemptedsuicideisnotacrimeinourlaw(ExparteDieMinistervanJustisie:InreS vGrotjohn1970(2)SA355(AD)),soitappearsthatMr.Bestcannotbeguiltyonthiscountasa coperpetrator.Mr.Mshumpais,however,guilty,onthesamebasisasthatinrespectofthe

attemptedmurderofMs.Shelver,namelythathemusthavesubjectivelyforeseentheriskof deathresultingfromshootingMr.Bestintheshoulder,butthatheneverthelessproceededin acceptanceofthatpossibleconsequence.Mr.Bestsconsenttotheattemptonhislifedoesnot renderhisconductlawfulinourlaw(SvRobinson1968(1)SA666(AD).

[68]Robberywithaggravatingcircumstances(count5) Onthebasisofthefactsacceptedbyuswehavetoacceptthattheaccusedneverhadthe intentiontostealthevaluableshandedoverbyMr.BesttoMr.Mshumpainthecarontheway toFortJackson.NothingwastakenfromMelissa.Mr.Mshumpadidhoweverthreatenherwith rape,inexecutionoftheinstructiontoactaggressivelysoastoconvinceherofthegenuinenessof theevent.ItisclearthatMs.Shelverwasterrified:shebelievedthatforcewasgoingtobe appliedtoherinthatrespect.Thatissufficienttoconstituteassault(Burchell,Principlesof rd CriminalLaw,3 ed.,at680).Bothaccusedmusthaveanticipatedthatresult.Wefindbothof themguiltyofassaultunderthiscount.

[69]Attemptingtodefeatorobstructthecourseofjustice(count6) Thewholepurposeoffakingakidnappingandrobberywastomisleadthepoliceandpreventthe detectionofthetruecrimes.Thatconstitutesthecrimewithwhichtheaccusedarechargedon thiscount(SvDaniels1963(4)SA623(E)).InadditionMr.Bestgaveafalsestatementabout whathadhappenedtothepolice(SvBurger1975(2)SA601(C)).Theyarebothguiltyonthis count.

[70]Unlawfulpossessionofafirearmandammunition(counts7and8) Mr.Mshumpaadmittedthatheknewthatoneneededalicencetopossessafirearm,butwas unawareoftheneedforalicenceforthepossessionofammunition.Thisevidenceissounusual that,strangely,itcarriesthereasonablepossibilityofbeingtrue.Mr.Besthasnosuchexcuse.He isguiltyofbothcounts,Mr.Mshumpaonlyofcount7.

[71]Statutoryconspiracyorincitement(counts1and9) Undercount1Mr.Best,Accusedno.2,ischargedwithstatutoryconspiracywith,orincitement of,Mr.MshumpaandMr.Tukani,tocommittheoffencessetoutincounts2,3,4,5,6,7and8, incontraventionofsection18ofAct17of1956.ItwouldamounttoaduplicationtoconvictMr. Bestofthisoffenceinadditiontohisconvictionoftheactualoffencesundertheothercounts th (Snyman,Strafreg,5 ed.,at295).Wehavefoundhimguiltyundercounts3,5,6,7and8,but notofcount2(becauseIheldthatthecrimeofmurderdoesnotencompassthekillingofan unbornchild),norofcount4.Thelatterfindinginrespectofcount4wasbasedonthefactthat inourlawsuicideorattemptedsuicideisnotacrime.However,itseemstomethatnothingin principlepreventsfindingMr.Bestguiltyundercount1ofstatutoryincitementofMr.Mshumpa tocommitattemptedmurderinrespectofcount4.

WefoundearlierthatMr.BestdidinciteMr.TukanitokillMrs.JacobyandMr.Schultz.The factthatMr.Tukanididnotactuallyagreetodoit,orthatthesuggestedwaystogiveeffect

theretowereimpractical,constitutesnodefencetoachargeofincitement(SvNkosiyane1966(4) SA(AD)).Heisthusguiltyofcount9.

Summary [72]Insummary: Mr.Mshumpa,Accusedno1,isfoundguiltyaschargedinrespectofcount3(attemptedmurder ofMs.Shelver),count4(attemptedmurderofMr.Best),count6(attemptedobstructionof justice)andcount7(unlawfulpossessionofafirearm),andofassaultinrespectofcount5. Mr.Best,Accusedno2isfoundguiltyaschargedoncount3(attemptedmurderofMs.Shelver), count6(obstructionofjustice),counts7and8(unlawfulpossessionofafirearmand ammunition),count9(statutoryincitementtomurderMrs.JacbyandMr.Schultz),guiltyof assaultundercount5,andguiltyofstatutoryconspiracyinrespectofthecompletionofthe offencesetoutincount4,undercount1.