South African MP Ian Cameron, Chair of the Portfolio Committee on Police, was seriously injured during a brazen attack in Philippi, Cape Town, on 19 August 2025.
Cameron, accompanied by fellow DA MPs Lisa-Maré Schickerling and Nicholas Gotsell, was returning from an oversight visit to a police training academy when three assailants hurled bricks through their vehicle’s windows. Cameron suffered dental injuries and broken teeth, Schickerling sustained a head wound, and Gotsell endured a fractured skull and severe lacerations.
During the attack Cameron, acting in self-defence, drew his weapon and fired at one of the attackers. The shot hit the attacker and caused him to flee to seek medical help, where he was apprehended. Another minor was arrested shortly thereafter. A third suspect remained at large.
We asked criminal law expert, dr. Llewelyn Curlewis, if Cameron acted within his rights by using his firearm in this situation:
I must congratulate Ian Cameron for the manner in which he conducted himself in the circumstances.
Not only did he succeed in saving his own life, but probably also the lives of the other two passengers in the vehicle. His conduct is a textbook example of exactly what the criminal law expects from a person under such circumstances and to be able to successfully rely on the defence known as “self-defence” in order to avoid being found guilty of any charges.
This defence, on condition that all the relevant parameters set by law for it to be applied, extinguish the element of “unlawfulness” which is a crucial element of any charge, and which results in an acquittal, if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the State (in the event that Cameron might be prosecuted).
I reiterate that the state will in my opinion be reckless and mala fide if it should even endeavour to charge Cameron in this matter. This will then be an abuse of power and yet another classic example of the wasting of taxpayers’ money, not to mention court resources, if a prosecution should follow. However, I doubt whether this would ever happen.
Even if the injured attacker died as a result of the shooting incident, Cameron’s cool and collected conduct, when using his firearm, would be condoned by the law.
The Law is clear… justice does not have to bend the knee before unjust and criminal villains. Bravo for being brave Ian! Long live citizens that adhere to principles of the law and who will not hesitate to confront criminals with steadfast and with determination with or without deadly force, whichever is appropriate in the circumstances.
Here is what happened in court in a similar incident
A few years ago, a business owner in the Western Cape fatally wounded an attacker when he had to defend himself against an unlawful attack. The attacker charged at the victim with a brick raised in his hand. The victim turned to his handgun that he was carrying and fired 2 shots at very close range in the direction of the oncoming attacker. The attacker was hit and fatally wounded. The victim was charged with murder in the Worcester Regional Court. However, after a gruelling 4-year court battle, the victim was acquitted.
The Court found that the victim acted as a reasonable man under the circumstances and had the right to defend himself against the unlawful attack, even by using deadly force.
The Magistrate carefully applied the law and in a well-considered judgment found the following:
“In Hiemstra Commentary on Criminal Procedure Act ‘self-defence is the use of force by someone whose person is attacked to repel an unlawful invasion of his person in circumstances in which the person attacked has reasonable grounds to believe that his life is in danger, to which he was expose to or that he is in danger of being seriously injured. When an accused in those circumstances kill the attacker he has to be acquitted of murder or culpable homicide unless he used excessive force in comparison with the danger to which he was exposed.’
In Ntuli 1975(1) SA 429 (A) the court lays out the position when the accused exceeds the bounds of self-defence and kills the attacker as follows:
- He is guilty of murder – if he knew he was exceeding the bounds of self-defence.
- He is guilty of culpable homicide – if he did not know he is exceeding the bounds of self-defence whereas a reasonable man in the position of the accused would have realised this.
- He is not guilty if neither 1 nor 2 was foreseen and a reasonable person in his position would also not have foreseen either one of the two possibilities.
The attacker may be killed not only when the defender fears for his life, but also when a serious bodily injuries is expected as per the case of S v Jackson 1963(A).
Proportionality has many factors to consider, for example: the nature of the weapon used, the nature and persistence of the attack, the nature of possible harm or injury, the means available to avert the attack, the gender and physical strengths and many more.
When an accused pleads self-defence the onus is on the state to prove that the accused had acted wrongfully and realised that he exceeded the bounds of self-defence and had foreseen the possibility of death.
In this case, the deceased (the attacker) did pose a real and immediate threat to the life of the accused (the victim) or the threat of serious injury to the accused. Also that the deceased was aggressive in his attack. The video of Le Roux demonstrated the danger of an object like a brick or a cell phone and is relevant under the circumstances and in the sense of proportionality. The accused is
not bound to expose himself to the risk of injury upon a reasonable chance to get away from the attack.
The type of weapon used by the deceased is on all the evidence presented suggested to be a dangerous weapon. The distance from the accused to the deceased when shooting was on all the evidence suggested 1m and further but very close and everything was happening very quickly.
The evidence suggested that the deceased would have continued his attack even after the first shot was fired. Both shots were fatal, so the second shot was not calculated but almost simultaneously fired when the deceased kept moving forward to carry out the attack. The two shots fired does not on its own show intent to kill under the circumstances.
The accused at that stage did not provoke the deceased but had withdrawn from the situation therefore can rely on private defence. He also did not move towards the deceased, but the deceased moved towards the accused, as the aggressor.
The court is mindful of the fact not to have an arm chair approach to be wise after the event in the calm and security of the court room as to other options that the accused could have used in the attack. But to put yourself in the position of the accused under the very same circumstances.
As for putative self-defence and on the question, would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way? Well, the evidence answers that and suggests that the accused life was under threat or threat of serious injury and subjectively the accused believed that. Also considering emotions, adrenaline, accused not very mobile due to bad back, never been in the same
situation and many other factors play a role. In the circumstances the court finds that the reasonable man in the same situation as the accused would have acted in the same manner to the attack.
The court weighed up with all the evidence and finds that the version of the accused is reasonably possibly true and clearly shows self defence against an unlawful attack and that a reasonable person in the same situation most likely would have reacted and acted in the same manner as did the accused and not exceeded the bounds of self-defence.
The State did not discharge the onus to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defence nor that he exceeded the boundaries of self-defence.
The accused is found NOT guilty of murder and the competent verdicts thereof and acquitted”
Firearms Guardian encourages all firearm owners to use their firearms to protect themselves and their property. The Law is clear on this. You may defend yourself against an unlawful attack.