R v Makhatseane and Others (CRI/A/65-67/85) [1986] LSCA 43 (23 April 1986)

R v Makhatseane and Others (CRI/A/65-67/85) [1986] LSCA 43 (23 April 1986)

The convictions of all appellants were proper as there was overwhelming direct evidence implicating each in the commission of arson and malicious injury to property. The first appellant's confession was found to be false and a tactical attempt to exonerate the adults. However, the sentences imposed were excessive and required reduction, particularly considering the age of the second appellant and the juvenile status of the first appellant.

Citation
[1986] LSCA 43
Parties
1st Appellant: Tefo Makhatseane; 2nd Appellant: Adolph Makhatseane; 3rd Appellant: Malise Makhatseane; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
23 April 1986
Case Number
CRI/A/65-67/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences upheld in part; sentences varied
Legal Topics
Arson, Malicious Injury to Property, Sentencing, Appeals
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Arson Malicious Injury to Property Sentencing 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tefo Makhatseane

1st Appellant

Adolph Makhatseane

2nd Appellant

Malise Makhatseane

3rd Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the second and third appellants were proper despite the first appellant's confession
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions of all appellants were proper as there was overwhelming direct evidence implicating each in the commission of arson and malicious injury to property. The first appellant's confession was found to be false and a tactical attempt to exonerate the adults. However, the sentences imposed were excessive and required reduction, particularly considering the age of the second appellant and the juvenile status of the first appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences upheld in part; sentences varied

Orders

  • First appellant to receive eight (8) strokes with a light cane under Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act 1981.
  • Second and third appellants each sentenced to twelve (12) months' imprisonment on count 1 and six (6) months' imprisonment on count 2, sentences to run concurrently.