S v B.L.

The accused and his sister (the first complainant) resided at their family home owned by their mother. On 5 June 2023, the accused played loud music while the first complainant's children were studying for school exams. The second complainant (the 17-year-old daughter) turned the music down after the accused refused. An argument ensued, during which the accused used the Afrikaans 'p-word' (a vulgar term referring to female genitalia). The accused was charged with contravening a protection order obtained against him by his sister under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998. The relevant condition prohibited him from 'threatening with violence and/or swearing at the applicant and/or related persons.' The accused denied that the word was directed at the complainant, stating instead that he used it in reference to the music player, saying words to the effect of 'leave my mother's p... thing alone.' The magistrate convicted him on count 1 and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment wholly suspended for five years.

• Whether the mere use of the Afrikaans p-word during a domestic dispute constitutes 'swearing at' a complainant in contravention of a protection order issued under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998.
• Whether the grammatical context and function of an offensive word (as noun, verb, or adjective) is relevant in determining if it constitutes verbal abuse.
• Whether the State had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sworn at the complainant rather than used the word as an expletive attributive adjective directed at the music.

The conviction and sentence were set aside and substituted with an order acquitting the accused on count 1, antedated to 23 November 2023. A copy of the judgment was directed to be filed with the Chief Magistrate of Caledon and the Clerk of the Domestic Violence Court.

For a use of offensive language to constitute 'swearing at' a person in contravention of a protection order, the words must be directed at the complainant. The grammatical context and function of the word must be considered: where an offensive word is used as an expletive attributive adjective to describe an object (such as music) rather than as a noun referring to the complainant or as a verb threatening harm, it does not amount to swearing at the complainant. The State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offensive language was directed at the complainant personally, not merely used in the complainant's presence as an emotional intensifier in reference to something else.

The court made extensive observations about the linguistic evolution of the p-word in South African society, including the process of 'delexicalization' where offensive words lose their original taboo meaning. The court referenced academic work on coloured identity and language (Warrick Moses' Harvard dissertation) and Zapiro's 1997 cartoon depicting the phrase 'ATHENS SE MA SE @*#&!!' to illustrate the commonplace cultural use of such expressions within the coloured community. The court noted that had the p-word been used as a noun (referring to the complainant) or as a verb (threatening to assault), the position would have been different and would have constituted a violation of the interdict.

This case provides important guidance on the interpretation of 'swearing at' a person in the context of protection order contraventions under the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998. It establishes that courts must undertake a contextual and grammatical analysis of allegedly offensive language rather than automatically equating the use of a swear word with verbal abuse. The judgment is also significant for its recognition of the sociolinguistic evolution of offensive language within specific South African communities, particularly the coloured community in the Western Cape, and how cultural context can affect the legal characterization of speech.