{"title":"Progressive or regressive rape case law? Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC","authors":"Ropafadzo Maphosa","doi":"10.17159/2413-3108/2022/vn71a12401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Constitutional Court’s decision in Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC is undoubtedly a step in the right direction towards rape law reform in South Africa, however, this article challenges the court’s decision to extend the application of the common law doctrine to common law rape. It is argued that the court could have highlighted the power dynamics at play during the commission of rape without denouncing instrumentality as a central element of the crime. This article further argues that the Constitutional Court, in developing common law rape, should have taken into account that rape is a conduct/instrumental crime under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment 32 of 2007. Instead, the judgment now has the effect of creating different elements for common law rape, in cases where there is more than one perpetrator. ","PeriodicalId":54100,"journal":{"name":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2022/vn71a12401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Constitutional Court’s decision in Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC is undoubtedly a step in the right direction towards rape law reform in South Africa, however, this article challenges the court’s decision to extend the application of the common law doctrine to common law rape. It is argued that the court could have highlighted the power dynamics at play during the commission of rape without denouncing instrumentality as a central element of the crime. This article further argues that the Constitutional Court, in developing common law rape, should have taken into account that rape is a conduct/instrumental crime under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment 32 of 2007. Instead, the judgment now has the effect of creating different elements for common law rape, in cases where there is more than one perpetrator.
宪法法院在Tshabalala诉S;nuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC无疑是朝着南非强奸法改革的正确方向迈出的一步,然而,本文挑战法院将普通法原则的适用范围扩大到普通法强奸的决定。有人认为,法院本可以在不谴责作为犯罪核心要素的工具性的情况下,强调强奸过程中发挥作用的权力动态。这篇文章进一步认为,宪法法院在制定普通法强奸案时,应该考虑到根据2007年《刑法(性犯罪及相关事项)修正案32》,强奸是一种行为/工具犯罪。相反,该判决现在的效果是,在有不止一个犯罪者的情况下,为普通法上的强奸创造了不同的要素。