Lebete and Another v R (C of A (CRI) 21 of 86) [1994] LSCA 6 (22 January 1994)

Lebete and Another v R (C of A (CRI) 21 of 86) [1994] LSCA 6 (22 January 1994)

The conviction of the first appellant was unsafe due to unreliable identification evidence and lack of corroboration. The second appellant was properly convicted of receiving 376 cases of beer knowing them to have been stolen, based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but not for the full 950 cases as charged.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] LSCA 6
Parties
1st Appellant: Frank Lebete; 2nd Appellant: Carrington Moeketsi Masoabi; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
22 January 1994
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 21 of 86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal of first appellant allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. Appeal of second appellant partially allowed; conviction reduced to receiving 376 cases of beer knowing them to have been stolen; sentence reduced to three years imprisonment with 18 months suspended for three years on condition of no further...
Legal Topics
Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, Identification Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Appeals
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Theft Receiving Stolen Property Identification Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Appeals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Lebete

1st Appellant

Carrington Moeketsi Masoabi

2nd Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification evidence against the first appellant was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft
  2. 2 Whether the second appellant was properly convicted of receiving stolen property well knowing it to have been stolen
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of the first appellant was unsafe due to unreliable identification evidence and lack of corroboration. The second appellant was properly convicted of receiving 376 cases of beer knowing them to have been stolen, based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but not for the full 950 cases as charged.

Court Disposition

Appeal of first appellant allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. Appeal of second appellant partially allowed; conviction reduced to receiving 376 cases of beer knowing them to have been stolen; sentence reduced to three years imprisonment with 18 months suspended for three years on condition of no further...

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of first appellant set aside.
  • Second appellant convicted of receiving 376 cases of beer knowing them to have been stolen.