R v Saba (C of A (CRT) 3/93; CRI/T/81/90) [1995] LSCA 17 (13 January 1995)
The evidence as a whole excluded the reasonable inference that the appellant did not know the deceased was tied to the horse, but did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had the subjective intention to kill. The appellant was therefore guilty of culpable homicide, not murder.
- Citation
- [1995] LSCA 17
- Parties
- Appellant: Costa Peter Saba; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Judgment Date
- 13 January 1995
- Case Number
- C of A (CRT) 3/93 ; CRI/T/81/90
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Conviction for murder set aside; appellant found guilty of culpable homicide; sentence of two years imprisonment confirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Culpable Homicide, Common Purpose, Police Misconduct, Recklessness, Intention
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Costa Peter Saba
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant knew the deceased was tied to the horse
- 2 Whether the appellant had the requisite intention for murder or was only negligent (culpable homicide)
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence as a whole excluded the reasonable inference that the appellant did not know the deceased was tied to the horse, but did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had the subjective intention to kill. The appellant was therefore guilty of culpable homicide, not murder.
Court Disposition
Conviction for murder set aside; appellant found guilty of culpable homicide; sentence of two years imprisonment confirmed.
Orders
- Conviction for murder set aside
- Appellant found guilty of culpable homicide
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment