R v Mahase (C of A (CRI) 5 of 1992) [1996] LSCA 72 (29 June 1996)

R v Mahase (C of A (CRI) 5 of 1992) [1996] LSCA 72 (29 June 1996)

There was ample evidence that the appellant altered and uttered the relevant documents, and failed to rebut a strong prima facie case. The documentary evidence was not inadmissible hearsay as alleged. The conviction was inevitable given the overwhelming evidence and the appellant's failure to testify.

Citation
[1996] LSCA 72
Parties
Appellant: Peter K. Mahase; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
29 June 1996
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 5 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Uttering, Theft, Evidence, Appeals
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Forgery Uttering Theft Evidence Appeals

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter K. Mahase

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for forgery, uttering, and theft
  2. 2 Whether certain documentary evidence was inadmissible hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample evidence that the appellant altered and uttered the relevant documents, and failed to rebut a strong prima facie case. The documentary evidence was not inadmissible hearsay as alleged. The conviction was inevitable given the overwhelming evidence and the appellant's failure to testify.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed