R v Peverett is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on March 7, 1940. The appellant's attorneys were Renaud & Mooney, Durban, and Kannemeyer & Jeffreys, Bloemfontein.

Facts The accused and one Edna Saunders, at the latter's suggestion, decided to commit suicide by introducing into a closed motor car poisonous fumes from the exhaust pipe of the car. The accused made the necessary arrangements. He and Saunders then sat in the car, and the accused started the engine. They both lost consciousness but were later removed from the car and eventually recovered. The accused was convicted of attempted murder. The case came to the Appellate Division as an appeal upon a question of law reserved by Carlisle J, presiding with assessors at the Criminal Sessions of the Durban and Coast Local Division.

Arguments TB Turner, for the appellant, argued that neither suicide nor attempt to commit suicide is a crime in South Africa.Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 88; vol. 2, p. 1263).Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275 and footnote on p. 276 and p. 277). If accused was merely an accessory to attempted suicide, he committed no crime.See Rex v Rasool 1924 AD 44 at p. 47. There was no intent to kill; therefore accused did not attempt murder.

LC Barrett, for the Crown, contended that a person cannot in law consent to his life being taken by the other party to a suicide pact. If the other kills him in the execution of such pact, such killing is unlawful.See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 1, p. 85).Grotius (2.1.43, 44, 46).Schorer's Note 70 on sec. 44.Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (4.34.11, p. 277 of vol. 2, Kotze's trans.).Moorman (van Hasselt) Over de Misdaaden (2.11.4). The question whether suicide is or is not a crime was irrelevant, he contended; alternatively, he argued that suicide was not a crime in South African law.See Gardiner and Lansdown on SA Criminal Law (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 1263).Van Leeuwen's Roman-Dutch Law (Kotze's trans, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 275).Van der Linden's Institutes (2.5.14).

Judgment The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the fact that Saunders was free to breathe the poisonous gas or not as she pleased did not free the accused from criminal responsibility for his acts. The accused had contemplated and expected that, as a consequence of his acts, Saunders would die; he therefore intended to kill her, however little he may have desired her death.

Watermeyer JA observed that Van der Linden's statement in his notes to Voet seems to differ from his statement in the Institutes.See Carpzovius' Lijfstraffelyke Misdaaden (ch. 2, paras. 13-21).See the article on suicide in the SA Law Journal (vol. 25, p. 413). As regards a person who attempted to commit suicide, it was doubtful whether he thereby committed a crime in South African law.See Moorman (2.11.2 and 4) (not punishable).See Damhouder Cap. LXXXI (in affirmative).See Carpzovius (supra) (eh. 2, para. 22 et seq.) (punishable under certain circumstances).

The evidence showed that the accused had the intention to kill. He actually set about encompassing the death of Saunders; his acts went beyond mere preparation.As to what constitutes an attempt see Rex v Sharpe 1903 TS 868; Rex v Nlhovo 1921 AD 485; Rex v Vilinsky and Lipschitz 1932 OPD 218. In English law, attempted suicide was a misdemeanour according to Rex v Doody,6 Cox 463. but according to Rex v Mann,1914, 2 KB 107. it was a felony.See also Russell on Crimes (8th ed., vol. 1, pp. 618, 620). A change of mind after his acts had amounted to an attempt could not avail him.See Rex v Hlatwayo and Another 1933 TPD 441.

See also Crime Law of South Africa South African criminal law

References R v Peverett 1940 AD 213.

Notes