Tsietsipanyane v Director of Public Prosecutions (CRI/APN 664 of 2001) [2001] LSCA 103 (3 December 2001)
The applicant's trial was a mistrial due to failure to comply with statutory requirements for trying minors, and there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] LSCA 103
- Parties
- Applicant: Tsietsi Panyane; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- CRI/APN 664 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application granted; conviction and sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Joint Trial of Minors and Adults, Mistrial, Evidentiary Standards
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tsietsi Panyane
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial of the applicant, a minor, without the required direction from the Director of Public Prosecutions was lawful
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the applicant of theft
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant's trial was a mistrial due to failure to comply with statutory requirements for trying minors, and there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Court Disposition
application granted; conviction and sentence set aside
Orders
- Conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO CRI/APN/664/2001 In the matter between:- T S I E T S I P A N Y A NE A P P L I C A NT and T HE D I R E C T OR OF P U B L IC P R O S E C U T I O NS R E S P O N D E NT J U D G M E NT Delivered by the Honourable Mr Justice S. N. Peete on 3rd December, 2001 Having heard Mr Putsoane and having heard Ms Mofubelu, the application is granted and the conviction and sentence of applicant are set aside for the following reasons. Firstly, section 5 (2) of the Childrens Protection Act 1980 provides that where a person below (18) eighteen is charged with an adult, the Director of Public Prosecution must direct that such a person be tried jointly with an adult before a Subordinate Court sitting as such. The appellant was below eighteen (18) years when tried and ex facie the record, the D PP had not directed as required by law. This amounted to a mistrial justifying quashing of proceedings. Secondly, upon the merits of the case there is no sufficient evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that applicant committed the crime of theft or if not, at least subjectively knew that the vehicle he drove was stolen; the applicant's explanation was reasonably possibly true. Conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. S. N. PEETE J U D GE For Applicant: Mr Putsoane Crown : Ms Mofubelu