Chapter 9

LOSS OF PROPERTY

The following section considers whether or not the victim’s property was stolen during the incident. The level of reporting on the loss of property in the dockets is usually accurate, as people are expected to report all serious crimes to the police, especially in the case of property crimes for insurance purposes. Other victim surveys have also shown a high degree of accuracy in the reporting of property crimes.14

The greatest incidence of having property stolen occurred in armed robberies. It was found that in 61% of armed robbery incidents property was stolen. Compared to armed robbery, less property was stolen in common robberies and hijackings, at 17.8% and 46.1%, respectively. However, the 46.1% incidence rate of property stolen in hijackings is of serious concern. The smaller rate of items stolen in hijackings, as compared to armed robbery, is broadly attributed to the fact that victims involved in armed robberies are not protecting their own property. Usually, the property of the store, bank or facility where they are employed is stolen. In addition, victims could well make the assessment that they have less chance of escaping, because they would usually be on foot and/or cornered in a building. Victims are less likely to risk their lives to protect someone else’s property. In contrast, victims of hijackings are usually in their own car, or that of a family member, and a higher value is attached to the property as a result.

From the offender’s perspective, hijackings are more arbitrary or random than armed robberies. Usually, in an armed robbery, the target is predetermined and timing is essential, for instance, the case of a cash transfer in a shop. The offender in a hijacking, on the other hand, if met with resistance, can always find another vehicle to steal. Although hijackers appear to target predetermined vehicle types, there is often a greater range of choice than in armed robberies.

In common robberies, offenders do not have the use of a firearm. Victims may calculate their risk on this assumption, and put up more resistance to the theft of their property, thus accounting for the property loss levels in common robberies.

In 46.2% of incidents of the negligent loss of a firearm, victims lost firearms. However, this finding should be utilised for its qualitative contribution as it should be borne in mind that only six dockets recording the negligent loss of a firearm were analysed. It would be useful to compare the loss of a firearm through negligence to the loss of a firearm in robbery incidents. Although the items were negligently lost through the irresponsible management of the weapon by the victim, equally high proportions of firearms leaked into circulation through the negligent loss of these arms in both armed and common robberies. Further research would be useful to verify this finding more firmly.

In other firearm-related crimes, the incidence of having items stolen was lower than in robberies. This can be ascribed to the fact that the primary motive of the crime was not to steal anything. The intention or motive of a murder is not usually robbery, although robbery sometimes does occur. It was found that possessions were stolen in 4.1% of the murders and 1% of the attempted murders. In 15.8% of the assault cases, items were stolen. In three dockets, the type of property stolen was cited as cash.

In none of the incidents of the contravention of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, such as the discharging of a firearm in a built-up or public place, the possession of an illegal firearm, or the possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol, was property stolen. In the case of pointing a firearm, only 2.2% of the cases involved the loss of property. Usually, the intention of pointing a firearm is to intimidate the victim, not to effect a robbery. However, should the opportunity arise for stealing the victim’s possessions, this could occur. For example, when pointing a firearm at a victim, if his or her wallet or cellular phone dropped to the ground, the offender may take advantage of this opportunity.

Type of property stolen

Table 50 provides an outline of all items that were stolen according to each crime type. In the theft of firearm incidents, 65.9% of victims involved had a firearm stolen, while in common robbery incidents, 45.1% of the incidents involved the theft of a firearm.

In absolute numbers, the total number of firearms lost during crimes reflected in dockets that were surveyed numbered 190 out of 787 dockets. This implies that, in every 10 incidents, two legal firearms were lost to the illegal pool of firearms. Further research is required to establish how many of these firearms enter the illegal pool through the negligence of owners. It could be assumed that the loss of firearms in incidents of possession or use of a firearm under the influence of alcohol, the negligent loss of a firearm and the discharging of a firearm in a built-up or public place was as a result of negligent action, since it is the responsibility of licenced owners to safeguard their weapons carefully.

When reasons for the loss or theft of firearms are considered, the question that should be asked is whether or not it could have been avoided. In many crimes, such as armed and common robbery, hijacking, murder, attempted murder, theft of a firearm, the loss of a firearm was beyond the control of victims. However, in cases of the possession or use of a firearm under the influence of alcohol, the negligent loss of a firearm and the discharging of firearm in a built-up or public place, it was the responsibility of owners to safeguard their weapons more carefully.

The negligent loss of firearms could be minimised with better training and greater competence in firearm use, both of which would ensure more responsible firearm ownership.

Further research is required to ascertain the proportion of these firearms that were recovered. All firearms recovered by the SAPS are circulated on the Crime Information Database and the status of a recovered firearm — if the serial number is available — can therefore be checked. This overcomes the problems experienced as a result of the fact that firearms which are recovered are often reported at another police station, to different police units and other state agencies (such as the SANDF).

Further research needs to be undertaken to establish the number of victims who were able to retain their property through the use of a firearm. Regardless of the type of property stolen during the incident, it would be valuable to gain insight into the profile of victims who were able to retain their property at the time of the incident, even though it was damaged.

The remainder of the report provides a summary of the 12 firearm-related crime types explored in the docket research. The data presented below is largely drawn from the tables presented in the first part of this monograph. In those cases where new data is utilised, further statistics are presented in table format.