Letsie v R (CRI/A 67 of 88) [1989] LSCA 61 (31 May 1989)

Letsie v R (CRI/A 67 of 88) [1989] LSCA 61 (31 May 1989)

The statutory presumptions did not operate because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the nature of the dagga plants; thus, the conviction was unsafe.

Citation
[1989] LSCA 61
Parties
Appellant: 'Mathaabe Letsie; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
31 May 1989
Case Number
CRI/A 67 of 88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
conviction quashed, accused acquitted
Legal Topics
Dangerous Medicines, Statutory Presumptions, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Dangerous Medicines Statutory Presumptions Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

'Mathaabe Letsie

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory presumptions under section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Dangerous Medicines Act were properly applied
  2. 2 Whether the accused's knowledge of the nature of the plants was proved beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory presumptions did not operate because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the nature of the dagga plants; thus, the conviction was unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed, accused acquitted

Orders

  • conviction and sentence set aside
  • accused acquitted