By Jehoshaphat (John) Njau 30 March 2022
Does Will Smith actions of smacking Chris Rock across the face constitute a crime of assault? As a point of departure regardless of which side of the proverbial fence you lean on this theatrical slap, provocation does not constitute a general defence in criminal cases. However, it can be used as a mitigating factor to reduce the severity of the crime and the consequences of the crime.
South African criminal law, is primarily found in common law derived from historical sources of law and developed through courts over a period of time.
In terms of our common law, assault is defined as the unlawful and intentional act or omission which results in another’s bodily integrity being directly or indirectly impaired or infringed.
Applying the definition of assault in the context of Will Smith and Chris Rock raises the question as to whether the action of Will smacking Chris constitute assault. Whether or not the court will find Will guilty of such an offense in South Africa will be dependant on the following criterion for assault:
- Will’s intention to cause harm must be proven; as well as
- Directly or indirectly harm on Chris bodily integrity;
Applying the two requirements, it is safe to say that Will’s actions did amount to assault.
However, Will’s actions can be excused should he be able to advance successfully the following defences:
- Chris consented to the smacking / assault; and
- Will was acting in self-defence or defence of another;
From what we could establish at the writing of this article, Chris had not consented or agreed to be smacked nor did Chris physically attack Will to warrant Will’s reaction. However, in mitigating the severity of Will’s actions, it is possible that Will could argue that Chris joke provoked him and filled him with extreme emotions of anger and rage causing him emotional instability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Provocation can however be a double-edged sword, in that, pleading provocation can prove that Will had an intention and motive to commit the assault.
It is important to note that our courts in South Africa are very cautious to acquit accused persons on account of provocation. In the case of S v Eadie 2002 (3) SA 719 (SCA) the Supreme Court of Appeal judge Navsa JA held that the courts should evaluate the subjective circumstances against the judicial expectation of behaviour into the sequence of inferential reasoning, to decide the credibility of the accused’s version.
Therefore, provocation can be raised as a ground to argue mitigation in sentencing, however, the courts have been very cautious to allow an accused person to get away with unacceptable behaviour just because he was provoked.
Besides pressing criminal charges against the perpetrator, the victim of assault in South Africa can also institute a civil claim against the perpetrator for the following:
- Cost of medical attention;
- Loss of earnings if one has suffered such as a result of the injuries;
- Long terms emotional and psychological effects
Our conclusion is that, composure is a classy act. Will’s actions should serve as a cautionary tale in reminding us all that we owe a duty to society to act in accordance with acceptable norms and standards. One should always be prepared to practice self-control in unpleasant circumstances as failure to do so could have you on the wrong side of the law.