R v Phasumane and Others (C of A (CRI) 2 of 1985) [1986] LSCA 93 (1 July 1986)

R v Phasumane and Others (C of A (CRI) 2 of 1985) [1986] LSCA 93 (1 July 1986)

The omissions in the trial record were not shown to be material or prejudicial, and the appellants failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice. The evidence of the accomplice was corroborated by independent witnesses and circumstantial evidence, and the trial judge properly applied the cautionary rule. The convictions were supported by credible and reliable evidence, and there was no basis to interfere with the findings of the trial court.

Citation
[1986] LSCA 93
Parties
First Appellant: Lawrence Phasumane; Second Appellant: Masupha Masupha; Third Appellant: Bofihla Adoro; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
1 July 1986
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 2 of 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Accomplice Evidence, Appeals, Record of Proceedings, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Robbery Accomplice Evidence Appeals Record of Proceedings Corroboration

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Phasumane

First Appellant

Masupha Masupha

Second Appellant

Bofihla Adoro

Third Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defects or omissions in the trial record warranted setting aside the convictions
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the accomplice was properly accepted and corroborated
  3. 3 Whether the convictions of the appellants were supported by credible evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The omissions in the trial record were not shown to be material or prejudicial, and the appellants failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice. The evidence of the accomplice was corroborated by independent witnesses and circumstantial evidence, and the trial judge properly applied the cautionary rule. The convictions were supported by credible and reliable evidence, and there was no basis to interfere with the findings of the trial court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal of all three appellants is dismissed.