S v Longer (SA 1 of 1999) [2000] NASC 4 (8 December 2000)

S v Longer (SA 1 of 1999) [2000] NASC 4 (8 December 2000)

The appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the evidence established that he acted at least recklessly as to whether the cheques would be met, satisfying the intention element for fraud. Sections 245 and 236 were valid at the time, and the High Court correctly refused condonation.

Citation
[2000] NASC 4
Parties
Appellant: Phillipus Longer; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
8 December 2000
Case Number
SA 1 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Cheque Offences, Presumption of Innocence, Unconstitutionality of Statutory Presumptions, Condonation Applications
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Fraud Cheque Offences Presumption of Innocence Unconstitutionality of Statutory Presumptions Condonation Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillipus Longer

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing condonation for late filing of appeal against conviction and sentence for cheque fraud
  2. 2 Whether sections 245 and 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 are unconstitutional under the Namibian Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to defraud (dolus eventualis)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the evidence established that he acted at least recklessly as to whether the cheques would be met, satisfying the intention element for fraud. Sections 245 and 236 were valid at the time, and the High Court correctly refused condonation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal of condonation is dismissed