VANDERBIJLPARK TAXI CRASH: MURDER OR CULPABLE HOMICIDE?

The school transport tragedy in Vanderbijlpark has sparked a debate as to who should be held accountable for the deaths of the pupils. The article analyses whether extreme negligence in fatal motor vehicle accidents can justify murder charges, focusing on the aspects of intention (dolus eventualis) versus negligence in South African law.

On Monday, 19 January 2026, 14 (fourteen) school children tragically lost their lives when their minibus taxi collided with a truck in Vanderbijlpark. Reports say that the accident occurred as a result of the minibus having taxi driven into oncoming traffic in an attempt to overtake several vehicles.

The Accused was initially charged with culpable homicide, however, during his first appearance at Vanderbijlpark Magistrate’s Court, it was announced that he would be charged with 14 (fourteen) counts of murder, 3 (three) counts of attempted murder and several other counts for contravening the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.

The purpose of this article is not to adjudicate on the matter at Vanderbijlpark Magistrate’s Court, but rather to analyse how an accused in a motor vehicle accident of this nature is tried for the crime of murder as opposed to that of culpable homicide, and what that means for road users in general.

Difference between murder and culpable homicide

Under the common law, murder is the unlawful, intentional killing of another. Whereas, culpable homicide is defined as the unlawful, negligent killing of another, without intent.

Impact of intention

One’s intention is the defining factor.

Roman-Dutch jurists have been helpful in assisting society in creating a framework within which we gauge intentionality. We discern between dolus eventualis and dolus directus. These Latin phrases sound complicated, but they simply mean the following:

• Dolus directus: the accused intended to cause the deceased’s death; and

• Dolus eventualis: the accused ought to have foreseen that death could be a possible outcome and has reconciled himself/herself with this possibility. Ie. Proceeded with the action despite the possibility of death.

Dolus eventualis therefore consists of two requirements, namely:

1. The Accused ought to have known that his/her action could result in death and/or serious injury; and

2. The Accused accepted this possibility and proceeded anyway despite holding this knowledge.

In the case of S v Humphreys, Judge Henney created a helpful image to explain this concept by comparing the action to that of someone playing Russian Roulette, a potentially lethal game of chance in which a player places a single round in a revolver, spins the cylinder, places the muzzle against their opponent's or their own head and pulls the trigger.

Why would someone be charged with murder instead of culpable homicide?

There is a concept in our law called a “Competent Verdict”. In the event that the State cannot prove all of the elements of an offence, but the State can prove the elements of a specific similar but lesser offence, the Accused will be found guilty of the lesser offence.

In other words, if the State is unable to convict an Accused of a certain charge, such as murder, because they are unable to prove intention, the State may still be able to convict the Accused on a lesser charge, such as culpable homicide or reckless and negligent driving.

If the State is of the view that it can prove all of the elements of the offence of murder, and, even if they fall short of proving intention, the accused can still be found guilty of culpable homicide because it is listed as a Competent Verdict.

Murder charges for motor vehicle accidents

A trend emerged in the 2010’s whereby the State takes a more aggressive approach against those responsible for severe negligence in motor vehicle accidents. The hope is that these steps would have a deterrent effect and keep society safer as a whole.

In the case of S v Humphreys, the High Court found a driver of a minibus taxi that had collided with a train whilst carrying 14 (fourteen) school children guilty of murder and attempted murder. The Accused had overtaken multiple stationary vehicles and had driven around a boom in an attempt to cross a railway when the collision occurred. This accident resulted in 10 (ten) children losing their lives and another 4 (four) injured.

The reason that the High Court found the Accused guilty was because the State could prove intent in the form of dolus eventualis. The accused had previously worked for Transnet and reasonably ought to have been aware of the possibility of death and injury in crossing the railway when it was not safe to do so.

However, the Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this decision and instead only found the Accused guilty of 10 (ten) counts of culpable homicide instead of murder.

The Court found that although the Accused had objectively foreseen the death or injury of the passengers as a possible outcome, they did not find that he had the intention to expose the children in the vehicle to the risk of death. They reasoned that the Accused did not have a desire to endanger himself and so his behaviour is more akin to that of extreme negligence than intentional killing.

Further, that the accused had previously crossed this railway in this manner and that he therefore believed that no harm would result from his actions. The Accuseds’ sentence was lessened from 20 (twenty) to 8 (eight) years.

What does this mean for motorists?

The significance of S v Humphreys, however, is that there exists case precedent that places a heavier burden on the State to prove that the Accused had knowledge of the risks and intentionally proceeded with their action anyway. Extreme negligence is not synonymous with the concept of dolus eventualis, nor should it be.

In the case of S v Qeqe a motorist was involved in a high-speed chase when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into pedestrians. This incident resulted in the death of 3 (three) children. The Accused was found guilty on 3 (three) counts of murder as the State was able to make out a case of intention via dolus eventualis.

It is not only fair, but necessary, for the State to prosecute motorists who drive in an extremely negligent manner, including and especially when it results in the loss of lives of innocent civilians. However, it is up to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Courts to discern between instances where the Accused had reconciled himself/herself with the risk of death and/or harm, and instances where the risk of death and/or harm were not considered.

To find an Accused guilty of murder in circumstances where intention cannot be proven, would be an injustice and go against the best interests of society at large.

By Clarisse Scheepers

(Associate Designate)

29 January 2026

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this article, neither the writer/s of the article nor the publisher shall bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information and/or recommendations contained herein. The URA article material is for informational and educational purposes only.

This content is the property of URA. Whilst we encourage the sharing of our content for informational purposes, if you wish to copy and/or reproduce our content on your own platform and/or website, kindly ensure that proper credit is given to URA.