Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

when they were acting in the course and scope of their employment with the State. In
order to succeed, the applicant would have to establish at the trial that :
(1) Klein or the prosecutors respectively owed a legal duty to the applicant to
protect her;
(2) Klein or the prosecutors respectively acted in breach of such a duty and did so
negligently;
(3) There was a causal connection between such negligent breach of the duty and
the damage suffered by the applicant.”
268
In wese maak die eiseres beswaar teen die feit dat beide die verhoorhof en die Hoogste
Hof van Appèl nagelaat het om relevante bepalings van die Interim-Grondwet en die
Finale-Grondwet (met ander woorde die reg wat haar regte op lewe, menswaardigheid,
vryheid en sekuriteit, privaatheid en vryheid van beweging verskans) toe te pas by die
bepaling of die polisie en aanklaers ʼn regsplig om haar te beskerm, aan haar verskuldig
was.
Daar rus ʼn grondwetlike verpligting op beide howe om die gemenereg in hierdie verband te
ontwikkel, met inagneming van die gees, strekking en oogmerke van die Handves van
Menseregte. Die eiseres het aangevoer dat beide howe moes beslis dat daar ʼn regsplig
was om haar te beskerm. Sodoende moes die gemenereg ontwikkel word.
Vir hierdie standpunt steun die eiseres op Artikel 215 van die Interim-Grondwet, wat onder
andere ʼn plig op lede van die polisiediens plaas om misdaad te voorkom, asook op die
verpligting wat op die staat rus om vroue teen geweldsmisdade, veral verkragting, te
beskerm583 .
Die Konstitusionele Hof bevind dat sowel die Verhoorhof as die Hoogste Hof van Appèl nie
die bepalings van Artikel 39(2) van die Finale-Grondwet nagekom het, om te verseker dat
die gemenereg ontwikkel moet word met inagneming van die gees, strekking en oogmerke
van die Handves van Menseregte nie. Andersyds moet daar nie uit die oog verloor word
dat dit veral die wetgewer is wat ʼn plig het om regshervorming daar te stel deur nuwe
wetgewing die lig te laat sien nie. 584
Aansluitend hierby verklaar die hof dat die algemene verpligting om die gemenereg te
ontwikkel, nie beteken dat ʼn hof in elke geval waar die gemenereg ter sprake is, ʼn
onafhanklike ondersoek moet loods, of die gemenereg ontwikkel moet word, of nie (955H).
583 Hoofregter Mahomed verklaar in S v Chapman 1997(3) SA 341 (HHA) 344-345 soos volg: “Rape is a very serious offence, constituting as it does a
humiliating, degrading and brutal invasion of the privacy, the dignity and the person of the victim. The rights to dignity, to privacy and the integrity of every
person are basic to the ethos of the Constitution….and to any defensible civilisation. Women in this country are entitled to the protection of these rights.”
584 “The Major engive for law reform should be the Legislature and not the Judiciary. In this regard it is worth repeating the dictem of Lacobucc J in R v
Salituro 1992(8) CRR (2D) 173, which was cited by Kentridge A J in Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another 1996(3) SA 850 (CC) PARAGRAAF 61:
‘Judges can and should adapt the common law to reflect the changing social, moral and economic fabric of the country. Judges should not be quick to
perpetuate rules whose social foundation has long since disappeared. Moretheless there are significant constraints on the power of the judiciary to change
the law … In a constitutional democracy such as ours, it is the Legislature and not the Courts which has the major responsibility for law reform. The
judiciary should confine itself to those incremental changes which are necessary to keep the common law in step with the dynamic and evolving fabric of our
society’.”