S v Mabope and Others ((CRI) 5 of 1986) [1991] LSCA 1 (26 July 1991)

S v Mabope and Others ((CRI) 5 of 1986) [1991] LSCA 1 (26 July 1991)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the participation of any of the appellants in the robbery. The identification evidence was unreliable and uncorroborated, confessions and pointings out were inadmissible due to coercion, and there was no sufficient corroboration of accomplice evidence. There was no proof that the firearms supplied by the 4th appellant were used in the robbery.

Citation
[1991] LSCA 1
Parties
1st Appellant: Malefetsane Phala Mabope; 2nd Appellant: Pitso Makhetha; 3rd Appellant: Mojalefa Mpota; 4th Appellant: Sempe Tad; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 July 1991
Case Number
(CRI) 5 of 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside
Legal Topics
Robbery, Identification Evidence, Accomplice Evidence, Admissibility of Confessions, Appeals, Aiding and Abetting
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Robbery Identification Evidence Accomplice Evidence Admissibility of Confessions Appeals Aiding and Abetting

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malefetsane Phala Mabope

1st Appellant

Pitso Makhetha

2nd Appellant

Mojalefa Mpota

3rd Appellant

Sempe Tad

4th Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification of the accused was reliable and sufficient for conviction
  2. 2 Whether confessions and pointings out were admissible
  3. 3 Whether accomplice evidence was properly corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the participation of any of the appellants in the robbery. The identification evidence was unreliable and uncorroborated, confessions and pointings out were inadmissible due to coercion, and there was no sufficient corroboration of accomplice evidence. There was no proof that the firearms supplied by the 4th appellant were used in the robbery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside

Orders

  • The appeals of all four appellants succeed.
  • The convictions and sentences of all four appellants are set aside.