Rex v Kopano and Another (C of A (CRI) 1 of 2011) [2011] LSCA 19 (20 April 2011)

Rex v Kopano and Another (C of A (CRI) 1 of 2011) [2011] LSCA 19 (20 April 2011)

The conviction of the first appellant was upheld as the circumstantial evidence was strong and excluded all reasonable inferences except guilt; the irregularity regarding the admissibility of evidence did not result in a failure of justice. The second appellant's conviction was quashed due to insufficient evidence. Extenuating circumstances were found for the first appellant, warranting substitution of the death sentence with a 25-year imprisonment term.

Citation
[2011] LSCA 19
Parties
1st Appellant: Thabiso Kopano; 2nd Appellant: Litaba Ramone; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 1 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; convictions of second appellant set aside; first appellant's conviction for murder with extenuating circumstances substituted; death sentence set aside and replaced with 25 years' imprisonment; matter remitted for sentencing on count 2.
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Admissibility of Evidence, Extenuating Circumstances, Judicial Conduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Admissibility of Evidence Extenuating Circumstances Judicial Conduct

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabiso Kopano

1st Appellant

Litaba Ramone

2nd Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained by unlawful means rendered the trial unfair or resulted in a failure of justice
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction
  3. 3 Whether extenuating circumstances existed in the murder charge

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of the first appellant was upheld as the circumstantial evidence was strong and excluded all reasonable inferences except guilt; the irregularity regarding the admissibility of evidence did not result in a failure of justice. The second appellant's conviction was quashed due to insufficient evidence. Extenuating circumstances were found for the first appellant, warranting substitution of the death sentence with a 25-year imprisonment term.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; convictions of second appellant set aside; first appellant's conviction for murder with extenuating circumstances substituted; death sentence set aside and replaced with 25 years' imprisonment; matter remitted for sentencing on count 2.

Orders

  • Convictions of second appellant on both counts set aside.
  • Conviction of first appellant on count 1 altered to 'guilty of murder with extenuating circumstances'.