Clarification of criminal capacity

MARK Donovan Ramdass, who appeared in the Durban High Court last week, accused of the murder of his girlfriend, Merebank resident Ashika Singh, was acquitted because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (Ramdass) had criminal capacity at the time of the incident.

Ramdass had consumed alcohol and crack cocaine prior to killing his girlfriend, and stated that he could not remember killing his girlfriend in the home they shared in south Durban.

Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel said in his ruling: “I am satisfied that the evidence justifies the inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was the accused who strangled and killed Ashika.

“It is important in this case to explain that in our law a person who kills another is only punished if he did so with criminal capacity and with the intention to kill or negligently. Criminal capacity in this context means the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of one’s conduct and the capacity to act in accordance with that appreciation. If a person lacked such capacity then it cannot be said that he acted unlawfully and the issue relating to intention or negligence does not arise”.

Van Amstel also took into account the lack of a clear motive for the murder, as one of the factors in arriving at his judgment.

In his judgment he said: “The motive suggested by counsel for the State was that the accused ( Ramdass) resented the deceased (Singh) because of her controlling and abusive behaviour, or that they may have argued because he wanted more money to buy drugs.

“I see no merit in these contentions. The accused agreed that there were problems in their relationship but was adamant that they were working on them and were planning to get married. This was consistent with Mrs Singh’s (Ashika’s mother) evidence. The possibility of an argument over money is mere speculation and there is no evidence to support it.

“It does not seem likely that if the accused was in control of his senses he would have killed the deceased for one of the reasons suggested by counsel, especially not in the manner in which he did. In my view no motive to kill the deceased was established even as a reasonable possibility.”