Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v Masingili and Others

The respondents were convicted in the Cape Town Regional Magistrate’s Court of robbery with aggravating circumstances after a shop robbery in Table View, Cape Town. Two respondents entered the shop and threatened the owner with a knife, while Ms Masingili acted as a scout and Mr Volo waited in a car and drove the group away after the robbery. On appeal, the Western Cape High Court upheld the convictions of the direct perpetrators but questioned the convictions of Masingili and Volo, treating them as accomplices. The High Court held that section 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which defines ‘aggravating circumstances’ as including conduct by ‘the offender or an accomplice’, created strict liability by allowing accomplices to be convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances without proof that they intended or foresaw the aggravating circumstances. It therefore declared the phrase ‘or an accomplice’ unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court refused to confirm the High Court’s declaration of constitutional invalidity. Section 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act was held to be constitutional, and the appeal by the Minister of Justice and the National Director of Public Prosecutions succeeded.

The judgment clarifies that robbery with aggravating circumstances is not a distinct crime but a form of robbery relevant primarily for sentencing and certain procedural consequences. It affirms that minimum sentencing schemes based on aggravating circumstances do not offend constitutional principles of culpability or the presumption of innocence. The case is important for confirming that accomplices need not have intent regarding aggravating circumstances to be convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances, thereby safeguarding the effectiveness of prosecutions for serious violent crime.