IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the appeal of:-
ADAM ADAMS  	 appellant
 versus
 THE STATE 	respondent
Coram: CORBETT, VILJOEN, BOTHA, JJA, GALGUT et NICHOLAS, AJJA.
Date of hearing: 13 May 1986 Date of judgment: 26 Aug.1986
JUDGMENT
CORBETT JA:
 The appellant, a 32-year-old teacher from Riebeeck West, was convicted in the Wellington Magistrate's Court of being in possession of certain dangerous weapons. to wit a pair of scissors, a wheel spanner and a broken cake knife, in contravention of sec. 2(1) of the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968 ("the Act"). He was sentenced
 / to 	

2
 to a fine of R120 or 60 days imprisonment. He appealed against the conviction to the Cape Provincial Division, but his appeal was dismissed and that Court refused leave to appeal. Such leave was, however, granted on appellant 's petition to the Chief Justice.
At appellant's trial before the Magistrate
the only persons to give evidence were Const. W M van Zyl of the South African Police, who was called by the State, and the appellant himself, who testified in his own defence,
Const. Van Zyl's evidence was shortly to the following effect. On a Sunday evening in November 1983 and while he was on duty he received a complaint of a disturbance in Flamingo Street in Wellington. He went there and on arrival found the appellant in the street. It appeared to Van Zyl that appellant had been involved in a fight. His shirt was torn. In his right hand he held a wheel spanner, a pair of scissors and the handle and blade
 / of	

3
 of a broken cake knife. Appellant was under the influence of liquor and very boisterous ("baie oproerig") and began shouting at persons in the house nearby, evidently upbraiding them for calling the police for "sulke nonsens" . Van Zyl took possession of the articles held in appellant's right hand and arrested him. The appellant was also found to have certain pills in his possession.
 As to appellant's condition on the evening in  question, Van Zyl conceded that he was very drunk and at one stage leant against a fence. He could nevertheless walk; and did walk when Van Zyl took him to the police van. Appellant spent the night in the police cells and Van Zyl saw him again the following morning, by which time he had sobered up. Appellant then asked Van Zyl why he was in gaol (He did not appear to know or remember why he had been arrested.) Van Zyl told him that he had been arrested for being in possession of dangerous weapons. Appellant did
 / not	

4
not know what weapons he had had in his possession and asked to see them. Van Zyl gained the impression that appellant's ignorance was genuine and he showed appellant the alleged weapons. Appellant further told Van Zyl that he could recall drinking the previous evening with friends who lived in Flamingo Street, but could recall nothing thereafter.
In regard to possession of the alleged weapons, Van Zyl testified that when he walked up to the appellant the latter was holding all three articles in his one hand. He made no attempt to hide them; and did not resist or attempt to retain the articles when Van Zyl took them from him. The following passage in Van Zyl's evidence under cross-examination is of considerable importance:
"V. Sou u se besk. het geweet dat hy die wapens kan gebruik, bewustelik geweet het?
A. Hy het goed in sy hand gehad, maar niemand gedreig daarmee nie, maar kon dit in hand gehou het en nie be-wus daarvan gewees het nie."
 / Prior	

5
Prior to that, in evidence- in- chief, Van Zyl had said:
 "Besk. was onder invloed van drank op  daar die stadium. Hy kon die volgende dag niks onthou van wat hy gehad het by horn nie. Besk. was bewus van wat hy gedoen het, maar volgende dag kon hy niks onthou nie."
And in reply to questions by the Magistrate Van Zyl opined that on the evening in question appellant had understood what he, Van Zyl, had said to him.
 In his evidence appellant described visiting friends in Flamingo Street on the day in question and drinking a large amount of intoxicating liquor. He also took certain pills, medication for bronchial asthma, from which he is a sufferer. At a certain stage his host produced a bottle of K.W.V. brandy and poured him a drink. From there on he could not remember what happened or how many tots of brandy he consumed. He vaguely remembered seeing Const. Van Zyl and being taken away by him; but he could not remember what he and the policeman said to one another, nor that he had
 / shouted	

6
shouted to the people in the house. He slowly came to in the police cells, but could not understand why he was there or why his shirt was torn. The following morning he asked the police why he had been arrested and was told that he was being charged with the possession of dangerous weapons. He asked what the weapons were and was shown them. He stated in this regard:
 " Ek onthou nie dat ek in besit was van wapens voor hof nie - ek was nie bewus van wat ek by my gehad het nie, kon enige iets wees, moes polisieman glo. Ek weet self nie wat ek met die wapens wou maak nie. Ek weet nie of ek die wapens in my hand gehad het nie."
As to his state of intoxication he testified that he had never before drunk so much on one occasion. The pills which he took made him drowsy, but he was unable to say whether they aggravated his state of intoxication.
Under cross-examination he admitted that the
wheel spanner belonged to him and was normally kept in the
 / boot	

7
 boot of his motor-car, which had been parked in front of his friend's house; but he was unable to explain from where the pair of scissors and the broken cake knife had come. He was unable to say how any of these articles had come into his possession. He normally kept the keys of his motor-car on his person.
 In his reasons for judgment the Magistrate said that Const. Van Zyl made a good impression on the Court and  found him to be a credible witness. The appellant, on the other hand, was found to be an unimpressive witness, who, although intelligent, attempted to evade questions and, in the Court's judgment, did not tell the whole truth. In advancing reasons for this latter conclusion the Magistrate stated, firstly, that he could not accept that if the appellant was as drunk as he alleged and could not remember anything the next day, he would have been able to unlock the boot of his motor-car and take out the wheel spanner.
 / There	

8
There is, of course, no evidence that on this particular occasion the wheel spanner was in the boot of appellant's motor-car; nor was there any evidence to show that, if it was, appellant took it out; or that, if he did take it out, at what stage of the day in question and in what state of insobriety he did so.
Secondly, the Magistrate found it very strange under the circumstances that the appellant could vaguely remember Const. Van Zyl being there, but could not remember anything further. Without proper expert evidence I do not think that evidence of a vague partial recollection, or conversely a patchy amnesia, induced by alcohol can be summarily rejected.
Thirdly, the Magistrate said:
 "Besk. het dreigend teenoor die ander mense  daar opgetree volgens die Konstabel, maar nie teenoor hom (die Konst.) nie."
 / In	

9
 In this regard the Magistrate misdirected himself. What Van Zyl actually said, as appears from one of the above-quoted passages from the record, was that the appellant had the articles in his hand, but threatened no-one with them. A similar misdirection appears later in the Magistrate's reasons, when he said:
 "Sy optrede daar dui duidelik op 'n man wat  moeilikheid gehad het met mense daar vir wie hy kwaad was en sou aanrand volgens Konstabel". (My italics.)
Const. Van Zyl is recorded as having merely said —
 "As ek hom daar gelos het, kon hy iemand seergemaak het". (My italics.)
 The same misdirection is to be found in the Magistrate' s  summing up of Van Zyl's evidence.
The Court further made the points:
(a) that had the appellant not known what was happening he would have behaved differently to the constable and would not have co-operated with him; and (b) that it could be accepted that the appellant
 / did	

10
did not drink as much as he alleged in evidence. The Magistrate accordingly concluded:
 "Die hof is oortuig dat die besk. wel onder  die invloed van drank was, maar ook bo redelike twyfel oortuig dat besk. baie goed geweet het wat hy doen."
 The relevant portion of sec. 2(1) of the Act  provides:
 "Any person who is in possession of any dange
rous weapon	 shall be guilty of an offence,
unless he is able to prove that he at no time
had any intention of using such weapon.... for
any unlawful purpose	"
And sec. 1 defines a "dangerous weapon" as meaning:
"	 any object, other than a firearm,
 which is likely to cause serious bodily in jury if it were used to commit an assault."
 The width of this definition has from the beginning caused much difficulty in the interpretation and practical application of the Act (see eg. the discussion in
 / S v Matseare	

11
S v Matseare and Others  1978 (2) SA 931 (T), at pp 934-8) and it is surprising that in the 18 years since its enactment no endeavour has been made by the Legislature to amend the Act in such a way as to meet these difficulties. Taken literally, the definition results in virtually everyone in South Africa being in possession of a dangerous weapon and being guilty of a contravention of sec. 2(1) of the Act, unless he is able to prove (in a court of law) that he at no time had any intention of using such weapon for an unlawful purpose. It is difficult to believe that the Legislature intended so drastic a result.
 Be that as it may, sec. 2(1) clearly postulates  that for the offence to be committed the person concerned must be in possession of a dangerous weapon. In S v Nabo 1968 (4) SA 699 (E) KOTZE J (as he then was), EKSTEEN J concurring, held, with reference to sec. 2(1) of the Act, as follows (at p 700 F):
 / "In	

12
 " In die afwesigheid van 'n uitdruklike aan-duiding dat blote fisiese bewaring belet word, is ek van mening dat die uitdrukking 'besit' in sub-art. (1) van art. 2 van die Wet in sy gewone sin van fisiese bewaring sowel as die bedoeling om te besit (animus possidendi) uitgele behoort te word. (R. v Amies, 1930 T.P.D. 151; R v Koza, 1933 T.P.D. 203; R.v.Seboko and Another 1936 A.D. 173; R. v. Kasamula, supra op bl. 257.)"
This decision was approved by the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape Division (MUNNIK, CLOETE and KOTZE JJ) in the case of S v Mbulawa 1969 (1) SA 532 (E), at p
535 D. (See also S v R 1971 (3) SA 798 (T), at p
 (at p 700 H)  803.) In Nabo's case/ the Court evidently interpreted
animus possidendi, in relation to a weapon, as meaning —
"	 die bedoeling om dit te besit	
 in die sin dat hy dit wou behou	"
 In general the concept of "possession" ("besit"), when found in a penal statute, comprises two elements, a physical element (corpus) and a mental element (animus).
 / Corpus 	

13
Corpus  consists either in direct physical control over the article in question or mediate control through another. The element of animus may be broadly described as the intention to have corpus, ie to control, but the intrinsic quality of such animus may vary, depending upon the type of possession intended by the statute. At common law a distinction is drawn between civil possession (possessio civilis) and natural possessxon (possessio naturalis) . Under the former the animus possidendi consists of the intention on the part of the possessor of keeping the article for himself as if he were the owner. Under the latter the animus need merely consist of the intention of the possessor to control the article for his own purpose or benefit, and not as owner. In penal statutes, however, the term "possession" would seldom, if ever, be construed as possessio civilis and this may, therefore, be left out of account. In the case of certain such statutes it has been held that
 / "possession" 	

14
"possession" connotes corpus and an animus akin to that required for possessio naturalis. In others the courts have interpreted "possession" to comprehend corpus plus the animus to control, either for the possessor's own purpose or benefit, or on behalf of another (this latter alternative being equivalent to what is often termed "custody" or detentio) or as meaning "witting physical detention, custody or control" (see S v Brick 1973 (2) SA 571 (A), at p 580 C). In Brick's case, which concerned the possession of indecent or obscene photographic matter in contravention of sec. 2(1) of Act 37 of 1967? OGILVIE THOMPSON CJ (delivering the majority judgment of
this Court) stated (at p 580 C-D):
 "Once it is shown that the holder was aware of the existence of such photographic matter in his detention custody or control, it is not, in my view, essential for a conviction under sec. 2(1) of the Act that the State should - as was held in S. v. R. -affirmatively prove that the holder intended to exercise control over the photographic matter in question for his own purpose or benefit."
 / (Generally	

15
(Generally as to the above see also R v Binns and Another 1961 (2) SA 104 (T); S v R 1971 (3) SA 798 (T); and the dissenting judgment of JANSEN JA in S v Brick, supra, at pp 581-3.)
In S v Brick OGILVIE THOMPSON CJ further pointed out that (at p 579 H) —
"The precise meaning to be assigned to the word 'possession' occurring in a penal statute is often a matter of considerable difficulty. The difficulty may sometimes be lessened if the word is used in association with 'custody'. In the ultimate analysis, however, the decision vitally depends upon the intention of the Legislature as reflected in the context of the particular statutory enactment concerned. "
As I read the decision in Nabo's case, supra, the Court there held that "possession" ("besit") in sec. 2(1) of the Act meant possessio in the narrow sense, akin to natural possession, and not in the wider sense, which would include mere physical detentio or custody, even though witting. Having regard to the provisions
 / of	

16
of the Act - and in particular the drastic nature of sec. 2(1), read with the definition of "dangerous weapon" -there is much to be said for this interpretation. On the facts of the present case, however, it is not necessary to decide this issue. Whether "possession" in sec. 2(1) be construed as corpus together with animus possi-dendi, in the sense of an intention to exercise control for the possessor's own purpose or benefit, or as the witting custody described in S v Brick, the alleged possessor must at least be aware that he has the weapon concerned in his physical control. As a basic minimum there must be this mental element. Moreover, under sec. 2(1) the onus is clearly on the State to prove that the accused person was in possession of a dangerous weapon, and this onus would include the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the existence at the relevant time of this mental element. And I would add that this mental element is something different from that required in order to con-
 / stitute	

17
stitute mens rea (see S v Smith 1965 (4) SA 166 (C), at pp 169H - 172E; S v Job 1976 (1) SA 207 (NC), at p 208 C-G; S v Hanekom 1979 (2) SA 1130 (C), at pp 1135 C - 1136 A; S v Gentle 1983 (3) SA 45 (N) at p 46 H; S v Young
(1)	(4) SA 120 (ZSC), at pp 122 H - 124 A; S v Qunta
(2)	(3) SA 334 (C), at pp 337 H - 338 D).
 I return now to the facts of the present appeal.  The Magistrate found that on the evening in question the appellant was in possession of the three alleged dangerous weapons. There is no question that the appellant had physical detentio of the wheel spanner, the pair of scissors and the broken cake knife when Const. Van Zyl found him standing in Flamingo Street; and for the purposes of my judgment I shall assume in favour of the State that these articles constituted dangerous weapons in terms of sec. 2(1) of the Act. (And for convenience I shall hereafter refer to them as "the weapons".) But did the State establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
 / at	

18
at the time appellant had the required animus?
Were it so that the evidence established that at the time the appellant was sober, the inference that he had the required animus would be inescapable. But the evidence shows, that he was not sober. The Magistrate found that the appellant was "onder die invloed van drank". Const. Van Zyl, who actually observed the appellant at the time, agreed in his evidence that appellant "was baie dronk". The Magistrate did not address himself specifically to the question as to whether, in his inebriated state, the appellant had the necessary animus to found possession. He contented himself with a general finding that appellant "baie goed geweet het wat hy doen", which I suppose, by implication, would include a finding that appellant was aware of the fact that he had the weapons in his custody. But the Magistrate's finding that the appellant knew what he was doing, and his apparent
 / rejection	

19
rejection of appellant's evidence in regard to his amnesia, was to a substantial extent founded upon certain subsidiary findings, which, as I have already indicated, amounted to misdirections. As to the other points mentioned in the Magistrate's reasons for judgment, which I have listed (a) and (b) above, while it may well be that the appellant exaggerated somewhat in describing the amount of liquor consumed by him, I do not find point (a) particularly cogent or of much assistance in determining the essential issue, viz. whether appellant had the necessary animus in regard to the weapons- Finally, the Magistrate did not, in his reasons, deal with certain significant evidence given by Const. Van Zyl in this regard. I have already quoted this evidence and I shall shortly discuss it in more detail. Accordingly, in my view, the reasons given by the Magistrate for finding that the appellant possessed the weapons do not convince. The evidence must, therefore, be reviewed to see whether his conclusion was
 / well 	

20
 well founded, bearing in mind that the onus was on the State to prove such possession.
 In my opinion, the evidence reveals a number  of factors, which cast doubt on whether at the relevant time the appellant was aware of his detentio of the weapons, These are:
(3)	 At the relevant time the appellant was very  drunk. This, as I have indicated, was the evidence of Const. Van Zyl. And the appellant himself testified that he had never before drunk so much on one occasion.
(4)	 On the following morning the appellant could not remember much after having been served with KWV brandy; and had no recollection of  the reasons for his arrest or of having been in possession of the weapons. This was appellant's evidence; and substantiation is to
/ be	

21
 be found in the fact that this is what he told Const. Van Zyl on the "morning after" and that Const. Van Zyl was of the impression that the claimed amnesia was genuine. And, in my view, the fact that appellant could vaguely remember seeing Van Zyl and being taken away by him does not necessarily detract from the trustworthiness of appellant's evidence as to amnesia. It was not shown by the State that an amnesia induced by excessive consumption of alcohol could not be patchy in this way. Naturally an amnesia of this nature does not necessarily show that in his state of drunkenness the appellant did not know what he was doing (cf. S v Van Zyl 1964 (2) SA 113 (A), at pp 120 H - 121 A; S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A), at pp 1104 H - 1105 A, 1108 C); but it does suggest this as a possibility.
/ (3) This	

22
 (3)	The issue is not whether in general appellant
was behaving involuntarily and in a state
 of automatism, but in particular whether he  was so aware of his detentio of the weapons as to have the necessary animus.
 (4)	In answer to a question put in cross-examination,
Van Zyl stated (I have already quoted this evi
dence, which was not referred to by the Magis
trate) that it was possible that appellant was
holding the weapons in his hand without being
aware of the fact. It is true that this is
 an inference drawn by Van Zyl, but he after all was there, saw the appellant and was in the best position to draw conclusions from the appellant's conduct.
 (5)	There is something very strange in the
fact that appellant was found holding this
 / odd	

23
 odd assortment of weapons in one hand. This rather bizarre behaviour affords some support for the inference that appellant's mind was not directed to the holding and control of these weapons.
 In all the circumstances I am not convinced that the State discharged the onus of establishing the necessary animus on appellant's part so that his physical detentio of the weapons constituted possession thereof. Appellant ought consequently to have been acquitted by the Magistrate.
Since writing the above I have had the opportunity to read the judgment prepared in this matter by my Brother Nicholas. In my judgment I have assumed in favour of the State that the objects alleged to have been possessed by the appellant on the night in question were dangerous weapons. Having read my Brother's judgment, I am persuaded. for the reasons stated by him, that the State failed to show that
 / these	

24
these objects did constitute dangerous weapons. Consequently on this ground too the appellant was entitled to his acquittal -
 The appeal is accordingly allowed and appellant's conviction and sentence are set aside.
M M Corbett
BOTHA JA) CONCUR
GALGUT AJA) CONCUR.
GALGUT AJA)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
 ADAM ADAMS 	 APPELLANT
and
THE STATE 	 RESPONDENT
CORAM: CORBETT, VILJOEN, BOTHA, JJA, GALGUT et NICHOLAS, AJJA
HEARD: 13 MAY 1986
DELIVERED: 26 AUGUST 1986
JUDGMENT
VILJOEN, JA
I have had the benefit of reading the
judgments of my colleagues Corbett JA and Nicholas
AJA/.....
 2.  AJA. While I agree that the appeal should succeed,
 I have arrived at  this conclusion for reasons which differ from theirs.
 This appeal raises once more the question  of the accountability at law of a person who commits a proscribed act under the influence of liquor. In my view the problem in the present case is not whether the appellant had the required animus possidendi or whether the objects in question were dangerous weapons. It is whether the appellant was criminally responsible.
 No psychiatric evidence was adduced in the  present case but there are a sufficient number of decisions in this and other Courts which deal with
the effect of intoxication in relation to the
commission of offences from which principles of
 law/	
 3.  law may be extracted for application to the facts
 of  this case. A fairly recent case which I regard as a leading decision is that of S v Chretien 1981(1) SA 1097(A). At 1104 Rumpff CJ comments upon a passage in the judgment of Vessels J in R v Bourke 1916 TPD 303 at 305. Dealing with the range of possibilities between the ebriosus (the "smoordronk" person) and the person who is only slightly under
the influence of liquor the learned Chief Justice
remarks that the term "smoordronk" can itself have various gradations. If a person is injured by a muscular movement of a dead drunk ("papdronk") person which is by reason of the latter's state of
 intoxication merely an involuntary and not a con
scious/ 	
4
scious movement, the intoxicated person cannot be
said to have committed any act at all; in criminal
law an act ("handeling") can only be an act if it
is mentally controlled. The involuntary muscular
movement of a dead drunk ("papdronk") person is not
so controlled and it is pointless in such a case to
philosophise about guilt. Nor does the question
of criminal responsibility ("toerekeningsvatbaarheid")
arise for consideration. The other extreme is the
case of a person who has imbibed so little liquor
that it cannot be said to have had any significant
effect on his mental faculties. In between
these two extremes, says the learned Chief Justice,
there is a great variety of instances of acts
committed under the influence of liquor - acts
which/.....
5
 which prima facie are  indicative of an intention-
to attain a certain goal or effect a certain re-
sult. These instances give rise to the question to
what extent the intoxicated person appreciated the serious-
ness of his act or his inhibitions have disintegra-
ted ( 1104 E - H). The view of the learned Chief
 Justice is,therefore,  that, unless the person
concerned is dead drunk ("papdronk"), he retains
the capacity to control his mental faculties in
the sense of being able to form an intention. The
only inquiry then is whether he is criminally re-
sponsible or not. At 1106 the learned Chief Justice
cites a passage from Hall General Principles of
Criminal Law (2nd ed Indianapolis 1960) 553
 which/	
 6  which was referred to in the third edition of
 De Wet & Swanepoel Strafreg at 119. The same passage, together with another passage at 537 from the same work, appears in footnote 122 of the fourth edition of the work of De Wet & Swanepoel at 125. The textual comment to which the footnote relates is that it is not realised, at least not in English practice, that in the case of intoxication the question to be considered is not one of intent but one of criminal responsibility. The entire footnote reads as follows:
"122 Sien ook Hall op cit bl 537 waar hy
 verklaar: '	 the above judicial view
 does not take account of the fact that the grossly intoxicated harm-doer behaved without  normal understanding or control of his conduct. Rather obviously, harms committed by such
 persons/	
7.
persons do not reveal wild aimless movement, but conduct adapted to attain specific goals. But this is far from signifying that the defendant actually had the required mens rea, e g the behaviour of a psychotic homicide is also end-directed. The fact that the state of mind and lack of inhibition of a grossly intoxicated person closely approximate that of a psychotic person should be the paramount datum in the determination of the relevant penal liability.' Sien ook op cit bl 553-4 waar Hall onderskei tussen die papdronke (wat nie kan handel nie) die ligdronke en die sterkbesopene, en wel soos volg: 'We must, for the present purpose, eliminate the two extremes, i e slight intoxication .... and intoxication so gross as to induce complete loss of control or even stupor, in which condition motor activity of any kind is simply impossible. In the cases relevant to the present problem the defendant is in a state of intoxication between these extremes. What we have to deal with is not incapacity to perform simple acts or such an obliteration of cognitive functions as to exclude any degree of purposive conduct, but instead a severe blunting of the capacity to understand the moral quality of the act in issue,
combined/. . .
8.
 combined with a drastic lapse of inhibition.  As has been suggested, this closely resembles, if it is not identical with, insanity.' Ook Gordon op cit bl 400 skyn te besef dat mens by dronkenskap met 'n toerekeningsvatbaarheids-probleem te doen net."
 I appreciate that the view held by De Wet & Swanepoel and by this Court in Chretien's case can hardly be reconciled with other expressions of opinion in judgments of this Court. In R v Pethla 1956(4) SA 605, for instance, Hoexter JA, after having referred to Roman Dutch authorities and in particular to Van der Linden Handboek 2 1 5 said at 608 F:
 "Our modern law takes a different view of  the effect of drunkenness in certain cases; it recognises that the mind of an accused may be so obscured or affected by the
consumption/......
9.
consumption of alcohol that he is incapable of forming the intention to kill which must be proved in a charge of murder."
The learned Judge of Appeal made this remark in the context of dealing with the onus. He expressed the opinion that it would be dangerous to attach much weight to the views of the Roman Dutch authorities to the effect that the onus was on the accused because they regarded intoxication merely as a factor to be taken into consideration for the purposes of mitigation of sentence. I shall deal in more detail with this and other cases when considering below the question of the onus.
In my view the concept of criminal
responsibility/.....
 10.  responsibility should clearly be distinguished from
 the intent which the State has to prove in trials relating to offences in which intention is a re quisite. Criminal responsibility is a prerequisite for criminal liability. See Strauss 1974 T H R H R 234 and S v Lesch 1983(1) SA 814(0) 823(A - E).
I do not suggest that (except for purposes of referring the accused to an institution for observation) a separate enquiry should be embarked upon to determine the issue of criminal responsibility, but when it is raised as a defence, this issue should be considered first. Intent encompasses the element of mens rea ("wederregtelikheidsbewussyn")
See De Wet en Swanepoel op cit 152-4 , Snyman
Strafreg/......
11.
Strafreg 184. Unless the wording of the statute
creating the offence is such as to cast the onus
on the accused of proving, on a balance of probabi-
 lities, the absence of  this elementum essentiale,
the "guilty intention" (which is the phrase used in
R v Ndhlovu 1945 AD 369 at 385), the onus of proving
it would be on the State. But in my view the
mens rea which has to be so proved must be mens
sana. Demetrio Tsafendas clearly had the
intention to stab Dr Verwoerd to death but he was
not of sane mind. He was, therefore, not criminally
responsible and could not be held criminally liable
Cf the words of Hall quoted above "	 the be-
haviour of a psychotic homicide is also end-
 directed ."	In/.....
12
 In  deciding the issue of criminal re-
sponsibility the criteria contained in s 78(1)
of Act 51 of 1977 have to be applied. The develop-
ment of the concept of criminal responsibility
has a long history in our law. That history is
set out in the report of the Rumpff Commission
(RP 69/1967) 3 1-25. See also Viljoen Tydskrif
 vir Regswetenskap (Jaargang 8 Nommer 2 November
1983) 123 in fine - 128. At first the only
criterion was the so-called right and wrong test
In due course the second criterion,the so-called
irresistible impulse" test,was recognised and
added. The history culminated in the enactment
of s 78(1) of Act 51 of 1977 ("the Act") as a
result/......
 13.  result of the recommendations by the Rumpff
 Commission. Both tests have undergone some refinement and extension. Before the enactment the tests were applied in this Court in S v Van Zyl 1964(2) SA 113(A) but had the judgment been given after the enactment, it would probably have been different in respect of the second test (see 121 G - H) because the Rumpff Commission pointed out that the term "irresistible impulse", in signifying a sudden flare-up of emotion, was too narrow. As a result s 78(l)(b) of the Act was couched in wider language. See S v Kavin 1978(2) SA 73KW) at 737 A - B.
I referred above to the remarks of
Hoexter JA in Pethla's case in the context
of/.....
14
 of the onus of proof. With great respect, if one approached the problem from the angle of criminal responsibility, I have grave doubts whether the decision in that case was correct. As De Wet & Swanepoel op cit point out at 110 our law has not progressed to the stage of answering in a satisfactory manner the question as to what mental faculties a person must possess to be criminally responsible. The matter is approached from a negative point of view of deciding what persons must be regarded as not being criminally responsible. They point out that very little assistance is to be derived from the old authorities. Only
recently the question of what mental faculties
 must/	
 15.  must be absent before a person can be said not to
 be criminally responsible has been answered in clearer language in certain other systems. In this regard, they say, the absence of such qualities are still linked to one or other condition  ("gesteldheid") of the person concerned. They proceed to deal with youthfulness, insanity, drunkenness and factors causing strong emotional uphea-vals such as, for example, anger and provocation. The authors referred to are, in my view, quite right. We refer to "defences" such as "insanity" and "intoxication" and fail to deal with them under the general heading of criminal responsibility.
At present our law, at least in so far as judicial
pronouncements/ . . ..
16
pronouncements go, is that save in the case of
insanity, which is an exception to the general
rule, the onus is on the State to prove the re-
quisite intention. See R v Ndhlovu 1945 AD 369
In R v Kaukakani 1947 (2) SA 807(A) Davis AJA who
prepared the judgment of the court in Ndhlovu's
case decided that when drunkenness is raised as
a defence the onus is on the accused to prove it
by a preponderance of probabilities. In this
latter case, as appears from the last paragraph
of the judgment of Davis AJA, the Chief Justice
(Watermeyer CJ) and Greenberg JA who also sat in
Ndhlovu's case, although they did not sit in
Kaukakani's case, authorised Davis AJA to say that
 they concurred in the result.  The decision
in/.....
17.
 in Kaukakani's case was, however, criticised subsequently in R v Innes Grant 1949(1) SA 753(A) in which case both Watermeyer CJ and Greenberg JA sat. In the Innes Grant case Centlivres JA suggested that in so far as what was said by Davis AJA in Kaukakani's case may be construed as indicating that when an accused alleges that, owing to drunkenness, he did not have that specific intent, the onus is on him to negative that intent, might require revision in view of the well-recognised rule that the onus lies throughout on the State to prove all the allegations in the charge which are necessary to constitute the crime alleged. To the same effect was R v Taylor 1949(4) SA 702(A) at 712 in fine - 713. See also R v Huebsch 1953(2) SA 561(A) 565 in fine - 566. Thereafter followed Pethla's case to which I have referred above and which appears to have settled the law on the
question/....
18
question of onus.
If I am right in the view that in a case
where intention is an element of the offence the
mens rea which the State has to prove is the mens
rea  ("wederregtelikheidsbewussyn") of a sane mind,
there can logically be no reason why a distinction
should be drawn between the lack of criminal
capacity because of insanity or such lack due to
any other cause.
Section 78(1) of the Act provides only
for mental illness or mental defect,- which implies
conditions of some permanence or duration. That
was how the Rumpff Commission interpreted its terms
of reference. In spite of these narrow terms of
reference/.......
19.
 reference the Rumpff Commission	did, nevertheless, apply
 its mind to the onus in respect	of drunkenness.
 The following paragraph (10.53)	appears in the
Rumpff Commission's report:
 "Die Appèlhof het in R v Ndhlovu, 1945 AD 369 die stelling herbevestig wat deur die House of Lords gemaak is in die saak Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 AC 462 dat die las om al die elemente van die misdaad te bewys, op die vervolger rus. Die vereiste gesindheid van die dader -wat aanleiding gee tot sy toerekenings-vatbaarheid - is 'n element van die misdaad. In die Woolmingtonsaak, en in ons reg, word op die algemene stelling 'n uitson-dering gemaak ten opsigte van kranksinnigheid en indien 'n beskuldigde kranksinnigheid beweer, rus die las op die beskuldigde om dit te bewys met 'n oorwig van waarskyn-likhede. Daar word o a van die standpunt uitgegaan dat daar 'n vermoede is dat die mens normaal is en dat op 'n beskuldigde
 dus/....	
20
 dus  die las rus om die vermoede te weerlê."
The word "gesindheid" which is trans-
lated as "intention" in the English text of the
report cannot give rise to ("aanleiding gee tot")
a person's criminal responsibility. It gives
rise to his guilt. With respect, in my view it
appears as if the Commission fell into the
trap against which De Wet & Swanepoel op cit
110 warn: "Die vraag of die persoon toerekenings-
 vatbaar was en  die vraag of hy met 'n bepaalde
gesindheid gehandel het, word nog nie duidelik van
mekaar onderskei nie. Die toerekeningsvatbaar-
heidsvraag het te doen met die persoon se geestes-
vermoens, en is 'n selfstandige vraag naas die
vraag/......
 21.  vraag of die persoon met die een of ander gesind-
 heid gehandel net." See also J C de Wet in 1957 T H R H R 90 - 93. If in the case of "insanity" the law proceeds from the premise that a person is a normal person, in other words that his mental faculties function normally, there is no reason why the same principle should not apply in the case of the intoxicated person. In Chretien's case supra Rumpff CJ said that the evidence of lack of criminal capacity must be clear and suggested at 1106 C a possible review of the decisions dealing with the onus. Had the Rumpff Commission been consistent it would, I suggest with , respect, have come to the conclusion that in all cases
in which a defence of lack of criminal capacity is
 raised/	
22
raised the onus is on the accused. De Wet &
Swanepoel op cit 130 express the view, correctly
in ray opinion, that in all cases in which
criminal responsibility, whether it be by reason
of insanity or any other cause such as intoxi-
cation, of an accused is an issue the onus ought to
be the same. They argue, however, that in spite
of the presumption that every person is in his
sound mind until the contrary be proved, criminal
responsibility is an indispensable prerequisite
for criminal liability which should be proved by
the State (see 119 fn 93). On the other hand,
however, there is the risk that if people who
commit offences under the influence of liquor
were/......
23
were too readily acquitted for failure by the
State to prove the criminal responsibility of an
accused beyond a reasonable doubt (for that is
the burden which rests on the State) the law might
be brought into disrepute. See Chretien supra 1103
E - F and 1105 in fine. To say that in these
popular defence cases,under which the lack of
criminal capacity as a result of intoxication
would fall, the evidence should be scrutinised
carefully means very little, in my view. I
suggest that if our Courts had not in the past
approached the matter from the point of view of
whether the accused could "form the intention",
all cases dealing with the onus on the issue of
criminal/.....
24
criminal responsibility would have been harmonious
 and  "insanity" would not have acquired the status
of an "exception." However, at the moment I am
a voice crying in the wilderness and until such
time as this Court may review the law I have
to accept that the onus to prove criminal respon-
 sibility is on the State.
I turn now to the facts of the present
case. Subject to considerations of criminal re-
sponsibility any court of law would, in my view,
have been justified in coming to the conclusion
that the element of mens rea had been proved by
the State. In the context of s 2(1) of Act 71 of
1968/......
 25.  1968 the mens rea which is an element of the
 offence consists (a) in the knowledge (actual or constructive) by an accused person that (b) he possesses a dangerous weapon. (J R L Milton South African Criminal Law and Procedure 3 184
 As to (a), the circumstances under  which the appellant was found by constable van Zyl to have been in possession of the objects which are detailed in the judgment of Corbett JA justify the inference that he was at the time involved in some sort of confrontation with his hosts or other guests at the home to which he had been invited and that he had equipped himself
with these objects with the intention, should
occasion/.....
26
occasion demand it, of using them against the
people or some of them there present.
In regard to (b), it is true that the
objects which the appellant had in his hand were
an "odd assortment" of objects or a "motley
trio of objects" as Corbett JA and Nicholas AJA
respectively described them, but, regard being
had to the circumstances prevailing, it cannot
be seriously doubted that they were "dangerous
weapons" as envisaged by the Dangerous Weapons
Act No 71 of 1968. See S v Matseare and Others
1978(2) SA 931(T) 936 B - D. The appellant did
not attempt to prove that he at no time had any in-
tention of using these weapons or objects for any
unlawful/...
 27.  unlawful purpose. His defence was that he was
 affected by liquor he had consumed and tablets which he had taken for asthma to such an extent  that he had no recollection of the events in which he was involved. He accepted what constable van Zyl told him. The magistrate held:
 "Sy optrede daar  dui duidelik op 'n man wat moeilikheid gehad net met mense daar vir wie hy kwaad was en sou aanrand vol-gens Konstabel. Hy het presies geweet met wie hy moeilikheid het, teenoor die konstabel was sy optrede heeltemal anders. Hy het geluister na wat vir hom gesê is deur konstabel, dit verstaan en kon daar-oor besluit en het ook ingesien dat dit die beste sal wees om in vangwa te klim, iets wat die hof nie sou verwag van 'n man wat so dronk was dat hy nie geweet het wat hy doen nie."
Subject to the misdirection in this
passage/...
 28.  passage which Corbett JA points out, namely,
 that "sou aanrand" should read "kon aanrand,"  the finding cannot, in my view, be faulted.
 Even though the appellant could not on the next morning remember much of what had happened the previous day the facts show, be fuddled though his mind might have been, purposive conduct on his part.
 On my view of the facts the following remark made by Rumpff C J in Chretien's case 1104 H applies peculiarly to the appellant:
 "Iemand kan as 'erg besope' beskryf word  maar tog so optree dat hy skynbaar rasio-neel optree. Hy mag selfsvergeet net wat hy gedoen net maar sy gees net wel sy handeling beheer, al is dit dan dat sy inhibisies erg deur drank verminder is."
See also/..
29
See also R v Innes Grant 1949(1) SA 753(A) 767
and S v Van Zyl 1964(2) SA 113(A) 118 A - B.
There was no evidence of the circumstan-
ces prevailing and the cause of the trouble
between him and the other people present at the
 home of  his hosts and had the onus been on him
to prove on a balance of probabilities that he
was not criminally responsible, I might have
concluded that on neither criterion had the
onus been discharged. On the first crite-
rion there is sufficient evidence, in my view,
from which an inference may be drawn that he
appreciated what he was doing even though he
regarded the whole matter as trivial, as is to be
deduced from the following evidence of constable van Zyl
 "V Wat/	
30
"V Wat se hy aan ander persone?
 A Hy sê  julle bel die polisie vir sulke nonsens."
Applying the second criterion and accep-
ting that the onus is on the State, it has not been
proved, in my view, that he was criminally respon-
sible. He was very drunk. His aggressive and
objectionable behaviour was completely out of
keeping with that of a guest at the home of his
hosts and one inference which may legitimately and
reasonably be drawn is that he behaved in the manner
in which he did because he was incapable of acting in
accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness
of his acts. His inhibitions were completely
disintegrated. The appellant must, therefore,
be/...
31
be given the benefit of the doubt.
For these reasons I would uphold
the appeal.
JUDGE OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA  (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
ADAM ADAMS	Appellant
AND
THE STATE	Respondent
CORAM: CORBETT, VILJOEN, BOTHA, JJA, GALGUT et NICHOLAS, AJJA
HEARD: 13 May 1986
DELIVERED: 26 August 1986
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS, AJA
I concur in the judgment of CORBETT JA. For my
part, however, I would not have assumed that the wheel span-
ner......
2
 ner, the pair of scissors and the broken cake knife constituted dangerous weapons in terms of ss. (1) of s. 2. of the Dangerous Weapon Act, No 71 of 1968. The sub-section reads:
"2.(1) Any person who is in possession of any dangerous weapon ... shall be guilty of an offence, unless he is able to prove that he at no time had any intention of using such weapon ... for any unlawful purpose, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
In terms of s. 1 -
 "1. In this Act, unless the context other wise indicates - 'dangerous weapon' means any object, other than a firearm, which is likely to causer serious bodily injury if it were used to commit an assault;
Reference.....
3
Reference will also be made to s. 4(1) which provides:
 "4.(1) Whenever any person above the age of eighteen years is convicted of an offence involving violence to any other person and it has been proved that he killed or injured such other person by using a dangerous weapon or a firearm, he shall, ... notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any  law contained, be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years and, if he is so convicted by a magistrate's court, not exceeding eight years, and may in addition to any such punishment, be sentenced to a whipping not exceeding ten strokes.
Provided 	"
 The courts have experienced problems in the con struction and application of these provisions. A major difficulty has arisen from the fact that the definition of. "dangerous weapon" covers many objects which are not normally
 used 	
4
 used as weapons and would not be referred to as dangerous  weapons in ordinary speech. Thus, DIDCOTT J said in S v Mnguni 1977(3) SA 63 (N) at p. 66 D-E:
"... as was observed in S v Nabo, 1968(4) SA 699(E) at p. 701 D-E, the definition literally covers a somewhat heavy walking-stick, the lock and chain of a schoolboy's bicycle, a housewife's broom and a bricklayer's trowel. Each is an 'object' which, if it happened to be used to commit an assault, would be likely to cause serious bodily injury. The same no doubt goes for vol. 1 of Butterworths'Statutes. 'Amicus Curiae' suggested as much in a forceful criticism of the legislation entitled 'The Big Stick', which appeared in (1969) 86 SA Law Journal, at p. 486. One may add to the list one's table, one's chair, one's typewriter and, subject only to the range of one's imagination, all sorts of other things in daily and generally peaceful use."
See ....
5
See also S v Xaba 1976(1) SA 42 (N) at p. 43 C-D.
 Interpretation clauses of a similar kind have been the subject of judicial criticism in England.' See Craies on Statute Law, 7th ed., pp 313-314:
"Interpretation clauses frequently fall under severe judicial criticism from failure to observe the valuable rule never to enact under the guise of definition. In R v Commissioners under the Boilers Explosion Act 1882, the question arose whether a steam pipe conducting steam to a pumping engine in a mine from a boiler on the surface was a boiler within the meaning of the 1882 Act, i.e. 'a closed vessel for generating steam, etc.' The court went somewhat far in deciding that it was, and Lord Esher M.R. said:'The draftsman has gone upon what, in my mind, is a dangerous method of drawing Acts of Parliament. He has put in a section which
says.....
6
 says that a boiler shall mean something which is in reality not a boiler. This third section of the Act is a peculiarly bad specimen of the method of drafting which enacts that a word shall mean something which in fact it does not mean.1 And the same judge said in Bradley v Baylis, with reference to the Municipal Registration Act 1878 and the Representation of the People Act 1867: 'It seems to me that nothing could be more difficult, nothing more involved, than these statutes, and that that difficulty arises from the fact of Parliament insisting upon saying that things are what they are not' by saying that 'a dwelling-house' shall mean 'a part of a dwelling-house '...."
 One way of applying the definition of "dangerous weapon" is to make a bodily substitution of the de finition for the words "dangerous weapon" in s. 2(1), which would then read:
"Any......
7
"Any person who is in possession of any object, other than a fire arm, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury if it were used to commit an assault ... shall be guilty of an offence."
 Although it is not stated in so many words, that seems to  have been the approach in cases reported hitherto. See, for example, S v Seleke en Andere 1976(1) SA 675(T) at p. 685, where it was held that in order to determine whether an object was a dangerous weapon for the purpose of s.2(l), the question which the Court has to answer is this: Is the object without regard being had to what was caused by it, an object which is likely, when used, to cause serious bodily harm if it were used to commit an assault? Cf. S v Matseare & Others 1978(2) SA 931 (T) at pp. 934 to 936.
 To 	
7A
To apply the definition in that way would have the result
that virtually every person in the Republic would prima
facie be guilty of a contravention of s. 2(1), and so be
liable to prosecution, with the ignominy and inconvenience
which that would entail. That is a result which the legis-
lature could not have contemplated. Parliament was con-
cerned in this section to strike at the source of the un-
lawful use of weapons which was endemic in some parts of
the country, especially in the Western Cape, by extending
the definition of a dangerous weapon, and introducing higher
penalties......
8
 penalties for the unlawful possession thereof. Cf. S v Diedericks en Andere 1969(3) SA 270 (K) at 273 A-B; S v Mtengile 1972(3) SA 796 (C) at 797 G. It was not concerned to cast the net so wide as to catch the just along with the unjust, and involve innocent persons in the toils of the criminal law by making it prima facie an offence to be in possession of any object whatsoever which was likely to cause serious bodily injury if it were used to commit an assault. It was suggested in S v Xaba (supra) at p. 46:
 "I am inclined to think that the dif ficulties in applying the definition of a dangerous weapon to sec. 2(1) are more apparent than real. If a working man is going about his ordinary affairs and carrying his tools to work
or....
9
 or if a cricketer is carrying his bat  to the cricket ground it seems to me inconceivable that any peace officer would arrest him for being in breach of sec. 2(1) and if he were in fact prosecuted it is obvious that he would have very little difficulty in discharging the onus placed upon him by the section. If, on the other hand, he was carrying a cane knife during a public disturbance or was carrying a sharp chisel concealed in his pocket at a shebeen he might with good cause be charged and he might have some difficulty in discharging the onus requiring him to establish that he had no intention of using the object for an unlawful purpose. Every case must inevitably depend on its own circumstances . "
 I do not think that it is relevant to the construction of s. 2(1) that  arrest in cases of innocent possession would be unlikely or that a prosecution would fail. In S v Brick 1973(2) SA 571(A) JANSEN
 JA said at p. 582 D: 	. _
 "In 	
10
 "In regard to administrative restraint or nominal sentences tempering the wind, I can do no better than adopt the words  of Lord REID (Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) All E.R. 356 (H.L.) at p. 366 B):
 'I dissent emphatically from the view  that Parliament can be supposed to have been of the opinion that it could be left to the discretion of the police not to prosecute, or that if there was a prosecution justice would be served by only a nominal penalty being imposed.'"
 I do not think, therefore,that bodily substitution is the  proper way of applying the definition. In Town Council of Springs v Moosa & Another 1929 AD 401 DE VILLIERS ACJ said at p. 417:
 "... An interpretation clause has its uses, but it also has its dangers, as  it is obvious from the present case. To adhere to the definition regardless
of.....
11
 of subject-matter and context might work the gravest injustice by including cases which were not intended to be included. "
 At p. 416 reference was made to the observation of LORD  DENMAN C J in The Queen v The Justices of Gloucestershire 112 E.R. at p. 554:
"But we apprehend that an interpretation clause is not to receive so rigid a construction; that it is not to be taken as substituting one set of words for another, nor as strictly defining what the meaning of a word must be under all circumstances ..."
In my view the construction of s. 2(1) is to be approached from the starting point of the ingredients of the offence which it created. They are (a) possession of a (b) weapon which is (c) dangerous.
 Although 	
12
 Although the Act defines the composite expression  "dangerous weapon", there is no definition of "weapon" simpliciter. The meaning of the word and of the corresponding Afrikaans word "wapen" was discussed in S v Mtengile (supra) , where VAN ZIJL J said at p. 797 C-H:
 "In art. 1 van die Wet word die uit-drukking 'gevaarlike wapen -dangerous  weapon' omskryf. Die Afrikaans lees: 'gevaarlike wapen ... enige voorwerp, behalwe 'n vuurwapen, wat waarskynlik ernstige liggaamlike letsel sal ver-oorsaak indien dit gebruik sou word om 'n aanranding te pleeg'. Die Engels lees:
'Dangerous weapon ... means any object, other than a firearm, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury if it were used to commit an assault.1 Hierdie omskrywing bepaal nie wat 'n wapen is nie. Dit bepaal alleen die aard van 'n 'gevaarlike - dangerous' wapen.
 Dit 	
13
 Dit gee nie voor om die betekenis van  die woord 'wapen - weapon' te definieer nie. Om uit te vind wat die betekenis van hierdie woord is, moet ons die ge-bruikte prosedure volg en die woord in erkende woordeboeke naslaan. Die Afri-kaanse Woordeboek het nog nie by die letter 'W' uitgekom nie, maar die Kern-woordeboek van Afrikaans deur de Villiers, Smuts en Eksteen gee die volgende om-skrywing van 'wapen': 'strydmiddel'. Die Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal het ook nog nie by 'W' uitgekom nie. Van Dale, Groot Woordeboek der Nederlandse Taal, gee die volgende omskry-wing van 'wapen':
 'Strydwerktuig, voorwerp bestemd om iemand letsel toe te brengen of wel om zich er-mee te verdedigen.'
The Oxford English Dictionary gee die volgende omskrywing:
'weapon' - An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy'..
en Webster, Third New International Dictionary gee die volgende:
 'weapon' 	
14
'weapon'- An instrument of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with; something (as a club, sword, gun or grenade) used in destroying, defeating, or physically injuring an enemy'.
 Dit is die doel waarmee 'n ding gebruik word wat dit 'n wapen maak. Vuur, water, geluide, elektriese strome en ander be-stralinge kan wapens genoem word as hulle gebruik word om mee aan te val of te verdedig, d.w.s. as hulle as 'n stryd-middel gebruik word 'or used as an instrument of combat in offence in attack or defence1. Die Wet was bedoel om die bereidheid van die kleurlinge om mekaar met gevaarlike wapens aan te val, met swaar strawwe op te dreig."
See also S v Nduneni 1972(3) SA 799 (C) at p. 802.
 In its ordinary meaning "weapon" covers any object  which is designed for use as a weapon (e.g. swords, spears, daggers, bayonets, battle axes), and also any object which,
although 	
15
although not designed for use as a weapon, is used or in-
tended to be used as a weapon. For a grouping of weapons
in categories, see S v Matseane (supra) at p. 936 E-H.
Where under s. 4(1) the question arises whether
the accused has used a weapon which was dangerous, regard
is had to the actual use of the object concerned. (With
the exception of S v Magwaza & Others 1976(4) SA 281 (N),
all of the cases referred to by counsel in this appeal were
cases in which the State contended that s. 4(1) was applic-
able. )
In a case under s. 2(1) (which penalises mere
possession) that test is not available where any use of the
object is prospective only. In such a case what must be
considered.....
16
considered is whether; the object is possessed qua weapon,
or for some other reason. That is something that is
normally to be inferred from the nature of the object and
the circumstances in which it is possessed. Cf. S v
Matseare (supra) at p. 936 D to 937 H.
So in the illustration given in the passage
from Xaba quoted above, the inference could not be drawn
that either a man going about his ordinary affairs and carry-
ing his tools to work, or a cricketer carrying his bat to
the cricket ground, was in possession of a weapon; whereas
that inference would readily be drawn in the case of a man
carrying a cane knife during a public disturbance, or a man
carrying a sharp chisel concealed in his pocket in a shebeen,
In......
17
In a prosecution under s. 2(1), it is for the State to prove that the person charged was in possession of a weapon. That having been proved, recourse is then had to the definition in order to determine whether it was a "dangerous weapon". By this approach, a sensible meaning is given to s. 2(1), which is consonant with the object of the provision, does not result in any absurdity, and does not
ignore the definition.
In the present case, the State proved only that
 the accused, who was in a highly intoxicated and noisy con
dition, was openly holding in one hand a wheel spanner, a
pair of scissors, and what appears to have been a broken cake
knife. There was nothing to indicate, what (if anything) the accused
had 	
18
had in mind to do with this motley trio of objects. Con-
sequently the State failed to prove an ingredient of the
offence charged, and the accused should have been acquitted
on this ground.
H C NICHOLAS, AJA