In R v Schoonwinkel, an important case in South African criminal law, particularly as it applies to the defence of automatism, the driver of a motor vehicle was charged with culpable homicide, having collided with and killed a passenger in another car.[1] The accused had had an epileptic seizure at the time of the accident, rendering his mind a blank. The nature of his epilepsy was such that he would normally not have realised or foreseen the dangers of driving, having had only two previous minor attacks, the last a long time before the accident. This evidence, distinguishing this case from R v Victor, exonerated him from criminal responsibility. The court found additionally that this was not a case falling under the provisions of the Mental Disorders Act, read with section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act.[2][3]
| R v Schoonwinkel | |
|---|---|
| Court | Cape Provincial Division |
| Full case name | R v Schoonwinkel |
| Argued | 11 March 1953 |
| Decided | 11 March 1953 |
| Charge | culpable homicide |
| Citation(s) | 1953 (3) SA 136 (C) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Steyn J and assessors |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Steyn J |
| Keywords | |
| Criminal law, criminal liability, automatism, epilepsy, culpable homicide | |
See also edit
- Automatism (law)
- R v Victor 1943 TPD 77
- South African criminal law
References edit
- R v Schoonwinkel 1953 (3) SA 136 (C).
Notes edit
 | This article relating to case law in South Africa is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |