The Role of Error in Objecto in South African Criminal Law
State v Pistorius provides an opportunity to consider error in objecto in the context of the broader approach to dolus in South African criminal law. For the last 60 years South Africa has taken a consistently subjective approach to assessing intention, evidenced through the courts’ rejection of versari, the presumption of intent and transferred malice. This upholds individual autonomy and assigns blame on a principled basis, thus it has achieved recognition from the Constitutional Court. By recognising foresight/knowledge of unlawfulness as a component of dolus, De Blom took subjectivity to its logical conclusion in 1977. Consequently, error in objecto likely only applies to dolus directus, is heavily influenced by the now defunct doctrine of transferred malice and has not become an entrenched principle in our law. It must thus yield to the basic principles of criminal law, including subjectivity and the putative defences flowing from De Blom. This was the manner in which it was correctly applied in State v Pistorius, although the reasoning was not evident in the judgment. Reviewing error in objecto in the broader scheme of dolus therefore shows that it is inaccurate to claim that the victim’s identity is always irrelevant to a charge of murder.