Analysis of Criminal Law Case: Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer

Running Head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
A) What was the issue in this case? [2 marks]
The issue in this case is the determination of the mental element which has to be established
by the prosecution to obtain a conviction for the alleged statutory offence of a offensive behavior
contrary to the provisions of s7[1] of the Summary Offences Act, 1953["the Act"]. The court has
to analyze in the case that whether the mental element which is required for the commission of
an offence is implied in the case or it is not present, as the parliament does not have the intention
of creating an offence which does not have a requirement of Mens rea or guilty mind1.
b] What had the High Court said in He Kaw Teh v The Queen that was relevant to this
issue? [4 marks]
It had been stated in the case of He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] 157 CLR 523 by
Brennan J [at 565] that when an offence is created or defined by the statue be referring only to its
external elements, the mental element is generally held to be impliedly present in the meaning.
The mental element in context is of a guilty mind or mens rea2,
c] What did Doyle, CJ say in this case had to be determined for the prosecution to know
what it had to prove for the defendant to be found guilty of the offence? [4 marks]
Doyel CJ said that the issue was specifically whether the prosecutors had the duty to
provide that the defendant intentionally gave the offence or had knowledge that his actions
would likely result in giving the offence or whether the prosecutors must only prove that the
defendant did not reasonably and honestly believed that his actions would not result n an offence.
The significant thing in the latter event is that the reasonableness in relation to the belief of the
defendant that his conduct would not result in giving the offence will be an element of offence.
In a addition he said that in order to decided the issue which has been presented, it is mandatory
to give importance to the provisions of the statue, the actual subject matter which in context, the
issues which may arise when adopting any alternative views and the reason for which the
parliament may have considered in taking the latter approach.
d] What had happened in the previous proceedings of this case? [3 marks]
The magistrate court dismissed the complaint in relation to the defendant behaving in an
offensive manner. When an appeal had been made to the single judge of the court, the judge took
into consideration the judgment of the magistrate judge who found the action to be offensive,
however he rejected the complaint based on the fact that the standard or evidence which is
required [beyond reasonable doubt] had not been satisfied in relation to the issue that the
1 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 1]
2 He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] 157 CLR 523 by Brennan J [at 565]

2CRIMINAL LAW
defendant intended to cause harm. Although the reason of the magistrates where not clear in the
report the interpretation of the judge of the decision was correct. When in the course of the
argument it had been conceded by the prosecutor that, where the prosecutors would have been
able to get the main issue in their favor they would not have been asked to remit the case in the
lower court for further proceedings. The question that whether the magistrate had founded in fact
the actions to be offensive and whether it was a correct finding was not pursued by the
defendant. In the previous proceeding the single judge of the court had a view that it was
mandatory for the prosecutor to show that the defendant had the intention of acting in a manner
which is considered offensive. The conclusion had been reached by the judge reluctantly by
taking into consideration the view that as it has been decided so by the judges in earlier cases he
should also have the same decision. He may have also taken the view that intention was not a
requirement for the establishment of an offence as such a view had also been taken by earlier
cases in the court3.
e] What had a single judge of the Supreme Court ‘reluctantly’ decided before it came to the
Full Supreme Court and what would that single judge prefer to have decided? [1 mark]
The judge reluctantly decided that it was mandatory for the prosecutor to show that the
defendant had the intention of acting in a manner which is considered offensive He would have
preferred to decided that intention was not a requirement for the establishment of an offence as
such a view had also been taken by earlier cases in the court4.
f] What were the facts in this case? [2 marks]
In this case the defendant was wearing a t-shirt at about 11.15am in the Elizabeth City
Shopping Mall. There were about 2000-3000 people of all age in the mall as it was busy as found
by the magistrate. The t-shirt had a uniform dark color. There was a printed picture on the front
of the t-shirt of band members. The name of the band Dead Kennedys was no difficult to read.
The T-shirt also has words written on it which read “Too Drunk To Fuck" which were also easily
readable. The evidence which had been provided by the defendant is that the words have been
adopted from Dead Kennedy’s song. Evidence had been provided by the defendant that the T-
shirt had been gifted to him by his mother pursuant to his 19th Birthday which took place shortly
before the mall incident. It was stated by the defendant that he wore the T-shirt because he liked
Dead Kennedys and did not have any intention of offending anyone. The T-shirt had been worn
by him before and he did not know about any adverse action5.
g] What was the relevant legislation and what offence did it specify? [3 marks]
3 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 11-14]
4 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 14]
5 Police v DanielEamon Pfeifer [1997] 68 SASR 285 [at 15-17]