Crown v Maboee and Others (C of A (CRI) 7 of 2010) [2012] LSCA 12 (27 April 2012)

Crown v Maboee and Others (C of A (CRI) 7 of 2010) [2012] LSCA 12 (27 April 2012)

The court found that the doctrine of common purpose did not support the murder convictions due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the killing after the police had capitulated. Robbery convictions were upheld where evidence showed the accused's active participation or complicity. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] LSCA 12
Parties
Appellant: The Crown; First Respondent: Raselebelimaboe; Second Respondent: Antipase Selomo; Third Respondent: Thapelo Ntaopane; Fourth Respondent: Malefane Thamae; Fifth Respondent: Mochema Mochema; Sixth Respondent: Monyane Mokoatsi; Seventh Respondent: Bulare Moiloa
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 7 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part. Some convictions and sentences set aside, others varied or confirmed.
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Robbery, Murder, Malicious Injury to Property, Sentencing, Accomplice Evidence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Common Purpose Robbery Murder Malicious Injury to Property Sentencing Accomplice Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Appellant

Raselebelimaboe

First Respondent

Antipase Selomo

Second Respondent

Thapelo Ntaopane

Third Respondent

Malefane Thamae

Fourth Respondent

Mochema Mochema

Fifth Respondent

Monyane Mokoatsi

Sixth Respondent

Bulare Moiloa

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for murder, robbery, and related offences were supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances
  3. 3 Application of the doctrine of common purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the doctrine of common purpose did not support the murder convictions due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the killing after the police had capitulated. Robbery convictions were upheld where evidence showed the accused's active participation or complicity. The court held that the trial judge erred by imposing uniform sentences without regard to individual blameworthiness, warranting both increases and reductions in sentences depending on the accused's role.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part. Some convictions and sentences set aside, others varied or confirmed.

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences for murder (count 1) against accused 3, 7, and 8 set aside.
  • Conviction and sentence for count 3 against accused 3 set aside.