Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Section 35(1)(a) of South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 allows a court of law to declare items forfeited to the state if they were used as weapons or instruments in aid of committing an offence. However, it is not always clear what qualifies as potential instruments of crime or wh...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Afrikaans |
| Published: |
North-West University
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/19242 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832541402482868224 |
|---|---|
| author | Terrence R Carney |
| author_facet | Terrence R Carney |
| author_sort | Terrence R Carney |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Section 35(1)(a) of South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 allows a court of law to declare items forfeited to the state if they were used as weapons or instruments in aid of committing an offence. However, it is not always clear what qualifies as potential instruments of crime or what the proximity of the instrument is to the offence. For the purpose of statutory interpretation, this contribution identifies a grammatical construction frequently present in abstractions of offence descriptions as a means to identify an instrument and its direct involvement in an offence. It takes the form of the construction, "X does Y to Z with A", which contains the instrument prepositional phrase "with A". Read with other thematic roles like "Agent" and "Patient", the statutory interpreter should be able to determine both the relevant instrument role and its potential to affect a change in the object of a sentence, suggesting direct involvement. To better understand the grammar, this contribution modestly explains the Cognitive Linguistic approach to argument structure and thematic roles and briefly summarises Ronald Langacker's "action chain" model. The grammatical construction is then applied to examples taken from South African and Dutch case law dealing with forfeiture to illustrate its potential as a tool for interpretation.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5333454be8784c398f6cba91301bcd4a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1727-3781 |
| language | Afrikaans |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | North-West University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-5333454be8784c398f6cba91301bcd4a2025-02-04T08:28:45ZafrNorth-West UniversityPotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal1727-37812025-02-012810.17159/1727-3781/2025/v28i0a19242Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure ActTerrence R Carney0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8922-5668University of South Africa Section 35(1)(a) of South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 allows a court of law to declare items forfeited to the state if they were used as weapons or instruments in aid of committing an offence. However, it is not always clear what qualifies as potential instruments of crime or what the proximity of the instrument is to the offence. For the purpose of statutory interpretation, this contribution identifies a grammatical construction frequently present in abstractions of offence descriptions as a means to identify an instrument and its direct involvement in an offence. It takes the form of the construction, "X does Y to Z with A", which contains the instrument prepositional phrase "with A". Read with other thematic roles like "Agent" and "Patient", the statutory interpreter should be able to determine both the relevant instrument role and its potential to affect a change in the object of a sentence, suggesting direct involvement. To better understand the grammar, this contribution modestly explains the Cognitive Linguistic approach to argument structure and thematic roles and briefly summarises Ronald Langacker's "action chain" model. The grammatical construction is then applied to examples taken from South African and Dutch case law dealing with forfeiture to illustrate its potential as a tool for interpretation. https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/19242cognitive linguisticsforfeituregrammarinstrumentlanguage and lawCriminal Procedure Act |
| spellingShingle | Terrence R Carney Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal cognitive linguistics forfeiture grammar instrument language and law Criminal Procedure Act |
| title | Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act |
| title_full | Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act |
| title_fullStr | Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act |
| title_full_unstemmed | Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act |
| title_short | Forfeiture to the State: Using Grammar to Interpret Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act |
| title_sort | forfeiture to the state using grammar to interpret section 35 of the criminal procedure act |
| topic | cognitive linguistics forfeiture grammar instrument language and law Criminal Procedure Act |
| url | https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/19242 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT terrencercarney forfeituretothestateusinggrammartointerpretsection35ofthecriminalprocedureact |