|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Armed Robbery | Com- mon robbery |
Hi-jacking | Murder | Attempted Murder |
Theft of Firearm | Point- ing a firearm | Dis- charging firearm in Built-up place | Pos- session of illegal firearm | Assault |
| Prior to 1993 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 3.8 | 7 | 0 | 12.7 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 23.3 | 6.9 | 3.8 | 21.1 | 2.2 | 9.5 | 16.3 | 12.5 | 35.3 | 11.1 |
| 1994 | 17.5 | 16.1 | 11.3 | 15.8 | 17.2 | 22.2 | 15.2 | 9.4 | 29.4 | 22.2 |
| 1995 | 23.3 | 17.2 | 21.3 | 22.8 | 6.5 | 22.2 | 28.3 | 12.5 | 11.8 | 0 |
| 1996 | 9 | 17.2 | 13.8 | 19.3 | 3.2 | 6.3 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 0 | 27.8 |
| 1997 | 9.9 | 20.7 | 6.3 | 12.3 | 22.6 | 17.5 | 12 | 21.9 | 5.9 | 5.6 |
| 1998 | 12.1 | 19.5 | 37.5 | 1.8 | 45.2 | 7.9 | 21.7 | 37.5 | 17.6 | 27.8 |
| 199911 | 1.8 | 0 | 2.5 | 0 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.6 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Cases (n) | 223 | 87 | 80 | 57 | 93 | 63 | 92 | 32 | 17 | 18 |
Among the random selection of firearm-related dockets, the growth of hijacking as a form of robbery is demonstrated when considered per year when the incident occurred. Of the 80 hijacking dockets analysed, 37.5% occurred in 1998. During a similar period, this can be contrasted to the 12.1% of armed robbery incidents that occurred and the 19.5% of common robbery incidents. Common robbery did not show significant fluctuations over time. There was a marginal increase in the number of cases of common robbery from 16.1% in 1994 to 19.5% in 1998.
Among the remaining crimes analysed, the year when the incident occurred did not provide significant information on trends. This could be informed by the relatively few dockets available from which to draw such information across the five-year period represented by the sample.
Time of the incident
Although crime is often described as unpredictable in South Africa, there are certain periods when it is more likely to occur. Certain firearm-related crimes were more prevalent during the day, while others peaked at night. Discharging a firearm in a built-up place most commonly occurred between 00h00 and 04h00 in the morning (34.4%). The theft of a firearm appears to be a daytime crime, which is more likely to occur between 08h00 in the morning and 16h00 in the afternoon (63.6%). This is an ideal time for home burglaries to occur since the occupants are at work. Hijacking is most likely to occur between 12h00 and 20h00 in the evening (51.3%), while armed robbery occurs mostly between 08h00 in the morning and 20h00 in the evening (67.7%).
Table 10: Time of incident (percentage)
Year
Armed Robbery
Com- mon robbery
Hi- jacking
Murder
Attempt- ed murder
Theft of firearm
Point- ing a firearm
Dis- charging firearm in built-up place
Pos- session of illegal firearm
Assault
00h00-03h59
6.6
12.9
5.1
8.9
20.7
5.5
11.1
34.4
0
22.2
04h00-07h59
8.5
8.2
9
10.7
6.5
12.7
6.7
6.3
7.7
5.6
08h00-11h59
20.7
20
12.8
12.5
7.6
32.7
20
3.1
23.1
0
12h00-15h59
23.5
14.1
26.9
12.5
10.9
30.9
14.4
15.6
7.7
16.7
16h00-19h59
23.5
29.4
24.4
21.4
15.2
10.9
30
21.9
38.5
16.7
20h00-23h59
17.4
15.3
21.8
33.9
39.1
7.3
17.8
18.8
23.1
38.9
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases (n)
213
85
78
56
92
55
90
32
13
18
Location where incidents occurred
The place where the incident occurred largely coincides with the fact that a crime is usually reported to the police station in the area where the crime was committed. Hence, this aspect is reflected in the dockets selected at the three sampling points. Two of the three police stations were at inner city locations, while the third was in a residential area. However, the high incidence of the discharge of a firearm in a built-up area (54.8%), murder (35.1%) and attempted murder (35.6%) on private residential property (on the actual residential property, or in the residential building, such as the house or flat) is of concern. This is further exacerbated by the high incidence of specific firearm-related crimes in public residential areas (such as streets or parks within the residential area), for instance, the discharge of a firearm in a built-up area (16.1%), murder (26.3%) and attempted murder (33.3%) on private residential property. More specifically, these reflect crimes that occurred in an area where the firearms used were in the possession of individuals residing in the same area.
Table 11: Location where incident occurred by crime type (percentage)
Location
Armed robbery
Common robbery
Hijacking
Murder
Attempted murder
Theft of firearm
Pointing a firearm
Discharging fireamr in built-up place
Possession of illegal firearm
Assault
Inner city/CBD
64.2
80.2
67.1
10.5
22.2
74.6
44.9
16.1
58.8
33.3
Residential property (priv)
5.5
4.7
2.5
35.1
35.6
9.5
15.7
54.8
5.9
27.8
Residential area (public)
7.3
7
19
26.3
33.3
3.2
19.1
16.1
35.3
0
Place of work/education
6.9
2.3
0
1.8
2.2
7.9
6.7
3.2
0
0
In transit – public/private
8.7
0
5.1
5.3
2.2
1.6
11.2
0
0
11.1
Place of enter-tainment/recreation
4.1
4.7
3.8
12.3
3.3
1.6
0
6.5
0
22.2
Commercial area
3.2
1.2
2.5
8.8
1.1
1.6
2.2
3.2
0
5.6
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases (n)
218
86
79
57
90
63
89
31
17
18
Crime reporting
The person reporting the crime differs across crime types. Property crimes were usually reported by the victim, as were certain crimes that contravened the Arms and Ammunition Act. In these cases, the victim was clearly defined as the person against whom the crime was committed, and the need for restitution often appears to be the more obvious motive for reporting the crime. It appeared that reporting was linked to a strong sense of ‘being wronged’ or ‘hard done by’.
It was found that 23.7% of attempted murder incidents were reported or recorded by a police officer. This would occur in cases where the victim was unable to report the crime, for example, if hospitalised as a result of the crime. It was found that in 3.5% of murders, the victim was able to report the incident before expiring.
In the case of discharging a firearm in a built-up area, such crimes are often reported anonymously to the police, who then follow-up on the lead. For example, a person from a neighbourhood might contact the police to complain about someone discharging a firearm in the vicinity. In these cases, there is not always a clear victim.
Table 12: People who reported crime (percentage)
Person
Armed
robberyCommon
robberyHijacking
Murder
Attempted murder
Theft of firearm
Pointing a firearme
Discharging firearm in built-up place
Possession of illegal firearm
Assault
Victim
91.9
97.7
95
3.5
68.8
92.1
84.8
31.3
17.6
77.8
SAPS
3.2
2.3
0
68.4
23.7
6.3
6.5
50
70.6
0
Family/friend/
relative of victim0
0
0
10.5
3.3
0
1.1
0
0
5.6
Bystander
0.4
0
0
7
1.1
0
0
6.3
0
0
State
0.4
0
0
5.3
0
0
0
6.3
5.9
0
Vehicle owner
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
3.1
0
5.6
Crime Stop/Neighbour-hood Watch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5.9
0
Unknown
4.1
0
5
5.3
3.1
1.6
5.4
0
0
11
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases (n)
223
223
80
57
93
63
92
32
17
18
Outcome of the incident
The outcome of the incident reflects the information recorded in the police docket. Murder cases were usually detected, while property crimes were not, as there are usually very few leads to investigate. The highest level of police investigation followed incidents of murder. It was found that only 25.5% of the murder cases were undetected or withdrawn.
The possession of an illegal firearm is a straightforward case to investigate and prosecute, since the retrieval of the illegal firearm occurs with the perpetrator present. What is alarming, is the high percentage of cases withdrawn that are supposed to be simple and clear-cut. It is recommended that further research should be undertaken to establish the dynamics underlying this trend. There were only 17 cases analysed, too few on which to base a valid conclusion.
Table 13: Outcome of incident (percentage)
Outcome
Armed robbery
Com- mon robbery
Hi- jacking
Murder
Attempt- ed murder
Theft of firearm
Pointing a firearm
Dis-charging firearm in built-up place
Pos- session of illegal firearm
Assault
Negligent loss of firearm
Pos- session/ use of firearm under influence of alcohol
Guilty
5.9
7
5
42.1
4.3
9.7
3.3
0
29.4
5.6
15.8
14.3
Acquitted
1.4
0
2.5
35.1
4.3
0
3.3
0
5.9
0
0
14.3
Withdrawn
5
14
5
19.3
37.6
17.7
57.6
90
52.9
44.4
15.8
57.1
Undetected
87.7
79.1
87.5
3.5
53.8
72.6
35.9
10
11.8
50
68.4
14.3
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases (n)
219
86
80
57
93
62
92
30
17
18
6
7
There are practical reasons for the finding that such a high number of police dockets remain undetected. Certain crimes have fewer leads to investigate than other crimes. For example, in a murder case, there are leads such as spent cartridges, fingerprints, blood samples, witnesses, and many others. Detectives cannot investigate cases with no leads or spend too much time on cases where there are no substantial leads. Also, complainants or victims often cannot be traced by the investigating officer resulting in the closure of the dockets as ‘undetected’.
Clearly, the lack of leads hampers police investigation. Improved information collection, as a result of greater involvement by the community, could help in addressing this situation. In addition, it was felt that greater effort by the investigating police officer could have led to better results in the investigation.
Amount of fines
The amounts of the fines imposed on offenders contravening the Arms and Ammunition Act were small. This does not serve as a deterrent to people using firearms negligently or in the commission of crime.
Outcome
Armed robbery
Common robbery
Murder
Attempted murder
Theft of firearm
Point- ing a firearm
Pos- session of illegal firearm
Negligent loss of firearm
Possession /use of firearm under influence of alcohol
>R1 000
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
3
0
R1 000-R1 999
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
R2 000-R2 999
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
R3 000-R3 999
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
R4 000-R4 999
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
R5 000< more
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
1
Duration of imprisonment
Very few offenders received a prison sentence for the crimes committed. Of the 671 offenders for whom information was available in the dockets, only 47 received prison sentences (7%).
Table 15: Duration of prison sentences imposed
Sentence duration
Common Robbery
Hijacking
Murder
Attempted murder
Theft of firearm
Pointing a firearm
Possession of illegal firearm
Assault
>1 year
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
1-2 years
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3-4 years
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
5-9 years
2
1
2
5
2
0
0
0
0
10-14 years
2
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
15-19 years
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
20-25 years
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Total
11
5
4
17
3
1
2
3
1
Declaration of unfitness
Very few procedures were filed to declare a person unfit to possess a firearm. The numbers of dockets surveyed were insufficient to draw any valid conclusions. Of the entire sample of 787 dockets, there were only seven unfitness procedures instituted or filed.
Of these seven cases, one person was found not guilty, and three were found guilty. In the other three cases, there was no indication in the docket about the outcome of the procedures. The legislation should make this an automatic case for disqualification of the offender to possess a firearm.
