Progressive or regressive rape case law? Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC

Authors

  • Ropafadzo Maphosa South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and Internation Law, a center of the University of Johannesburg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5375-555X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2022/vn71a12401

Abstract

The Constitutional Court’s decision in Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC is undoubtedly a step in the right direction towards rape law reform in South Africa, however, this article challenges the court’s decision to extend the application of the common law doctrine to common law rape. It is argued that the court could have highlighted the power dynamics at play during the commission of rape without denouncing instrumentality as a central element of the crime. This article further argues that the Constitutional Court, in developing common law rape, should have taken into account that rape is a conduct/instrumental crime under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment 32 of 2007. Instead, the judgment now has the effect of creating different elements for common law rape, in cases where there is more than one perpetrator. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ropafadzo Maphosa, South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and Internation Law, a center of the University of Johannesburg

Ropafadzo Maphosa is a researcher at the South African Institute for Advanced Public, Human Rights and International Law, a centre of the University of Johannesburg and co-founding editor of the African Law Matters Blog. She holds an LLB and LLM in Human Rights Law (With Distinction) from the University of Johannesburg and is currently pursuing an LLD in Public International Law. Her expertise spans international human rights law, human rights in Africa, gender equality and women’s rights. 

Downloads

Published

2022-11-26

Issue

Section

Case notes