The State v Godfrey Mlalazi

On 8 December 2014, the accused and deceased were returning from a beer drink when they had an altercation. The deceased slapped the accused, and the accused retaliated by striking the deceased with a knobkerrie at the back of his head and neck when the deceased had turned to flee. The deceased collapsed after a short distance and the accused left. The deceased was not seen again until 16 December 2014 when his decomposed remains were found scattered in the bush by a searching party. A postmortem could not ascertain the exact cause of death due to decomposition and missing body parts, likely eaten by wild animals. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder but tendered a limited plea to assault, which the state rejected.

• Whether the accused could successfully raise the defence of self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act
• Whether there was a causal link between the accused's conduct and the death of the deceased under section 53(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act
• Whether the accused was guilty of murder or the lesser charge of culpable homicide
• Whether uncertainty about the cause of death created reasonable doubt

The accused was found not guilty of murder but guilty of culpable homicide as a competent verdict.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act requires that the accused could not otherwise escape or avert the attack, the harm caused must not be grossly disproportionate to that liable to be caused by the unlawful attack, and the conduct must be necessary to avert an ongoing attack - striking a person at the back of the head when they are fleeing does not satisfy these requirements; (2) Under section 53(1)(b) of the Act, where conduct inflicts a mortal or serious injury, there is normally a causal link between the conduct and death, and this can be established through reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence even where decomposition prevents medical determination of exact cause of death; (3) Where an accused negligently fails to realize that death may result from his conduct, the appropriate verdict is culpable homicide under section 49, not murder.

The court observed that a person can only hit another at the back of the head when the other has their back to them, meaning they were not advancing anymore. The court also noted that hearsay information in a postmortem report summary (information the doctor did not personally observe) has no probative value and cannot form the basis of creating reasonable doubt. The court commented that retaliation after an attack has ended does not constitute self-defence.

This case provides important guidance on the application of self-defence provisions under section 253 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, particularly regarding the requirements that the accused could not otherwise escape, proportionality of harm, and the necessity of the defensive conduct. It also illustrates the application of section 53(1)(b) regarding causal link in homicide cases where the exact cause of death cannot be medically established due to decomposition, and demonstrates when culpable homicide rather than murder is the appropriate verdict based on the accused's mental state.