Mabope and Others v R (C of A (CRI) 5 of 1986) [1991] LSCA 82 (26 July 1991)

Mabope and Others v R (C of A (CRI) 5 of 1986) [1991] LSCA 82 (26 July 1991)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellants in the robbery due to unreliable identification evidence, lack of corroboration for accomplice testimony, inadmissibility of confessions and pointings out obtained under duress, and absence of proof that the weapons supplied were used in the robbery.

Citation
[1991] LSCA 82
Parties
1st Appellant: Malefetsane Phala Mabope; 2nd Appellant: Pitso Makhetha; 3rd Appellant: Mojalefa Mpota; 4th Appellant: Sempe Tad; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 July 1991
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 5 of 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Identification Evidence, Accomplice Evidence, Admissibility of Confessions, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Robbery Identification Evidence Accomplice Evidence Admissibility of Confessions Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malefetsane Phala Mabope

1st Appellant

Pitso Makhetha

2nd Appellant

Mojalefa Mpota

3rd Appellant

Sempe Tad

4th Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification of the accused was reliable and sufficient for conviction
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of accomplices was properly corroborated
  3. 3 Whether confessions and pointings out were admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellants in the robbery due to unreliable identification evidence, lack of corroboration for accomplice testimony, inadmissibility of confessions and pointings out obtained under duress, and absence of proof that the weapons supplied were used in the robbery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals of all four appellants are allowed.
  • The convictions and sentences of all four appellants are set aside.