RECONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION OF VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME: DN V MEC FOR HEALTH 2014 (3) SA 49 (FB); MEC FOR HEALTH V DN 2015 (1) SA 182 (SCA)

Abstract

In Parts 1–4 of this article, the facts, legal question and judgments delivered in DN v MEC for Health 2014 (3) SA 49 (FB) and MEC for Health v DN 2015 (1) SA 182 (SCA) is briefly described. Part 5 of this article provides a critical evaluation of some of the aspects of the judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal, and focuses on the role which the court assigns to motive and risk in establishing whether the injury sustained by the plaintiff was an “accident” arising “out of and in the course and scope of employment”. Furthermore, a brief comparative overview is provided of the legal position of victims of violent crime in New Zealand (as an example of a jurisdiction that offers compensation to crime victims by means of a general social-security system) and England (as an example of a jurisdiction that offers compensatory relief via a tailor-made no-fault based-compensation scheme for crime victims).