R v Makateng (C of A (CRI) 5 of 2006) [2007] LSCA 10 (4 April 2007)

R v Makateng (C of A (CRI) 5 of 2006) [2007] LSCA 10 (4 April 2007)

The appellant's active role in transporting armed co-conspirators to the scenes of the crimes, his presence at key locations, and his knowledge of the unlawful operation established his participation in a common purpose to commit the offences. The court found that the common purpose arose from prior agreement, and the appellant foresaw the possibility of violence and its consequences. His evidence was rejected as untruthful and contradicted by credible prosecution witnesses.

Citation
[2007] LSCA 10
Parties
Appellant: Thabang Setenane Makateng; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
4 April 2007
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 5 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Murder, Attempted Murder, Kidnapping, Police Misconduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Common Purpose Murder Attempted Murder Kidnapping Police Misconduct

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

Parties

Thabang Setenane Makateng

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was part of a common purpose to commit murder, attempted murder, and kidnapping
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's participation as a driver constituted sufficient involvement in the offences

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's active role in transporting armed co-conspirators to the scenes of the crimes, his presence at key locations, and his knowledge of the unlawful operation established his participation in a common purpose to commit the offences. The court found that the common purpose arose from prior agreement, and the appellant foresaw the possibility of violence and its consequences. His evidence was rejected as untruthful and contradicted by credible prosecution witnesses.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed