S v Gaseb and Others (1) (9 of 1999) [2000] NASC 6 (9 August 2000)

S v Gaseb and Others (1) (9 of 1999) [2000] NASC 6 (9 August 2000)

It is not unsound or oppressive to charge each accused with multiple counts of rape for assisting in the rape of the other; the concern is with duplication of convictions, not charges. On the facts, each act of rape was a separate offence, and there was no improper duplication of convictions. The medical report and evidence were properly admitted by express and informed consent. The trial judge's structuring did not affect the verdicts. The sentences were not excessive given the gravity of the offences.

Citation
[2000] NASC 6
Parties
First Appellant: Andries Gaseb; Second Appellant: Harry Claasen; Third Appellant: Karl Ganaseb; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
9 August 2000
Case Number
9 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Housebreaking, Attempted Rape, Improper Splitting of Charges, Duplication of Convictions, Admissibility of Evidence, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Rape Housebreaking Attempted Rape Improper Splitting of Charges Duplication of Convictions Admissibility of Evidence +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Gaseb

First Appellant

Harry Claasen

Second Appellant

Karl Ganaseb

Third Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether charging each accused with multiple counts of rape for assisting each other constitutes improper splitting of charges or is oppressive
  2. 2 Whether there was an improper duplication of convictions
  3. 3 Whether the medical report of Dr. Than and Dr. Maas's evidence were properly admitted

Ratio Decidendi

It is not unsound or oppressive to charge each accused with multiple counts of rape for assisting in the rape of the other; the concern is with duplication of convictions, not charges. On the facts, each act of rape was a separate offence, and there was no improper duplication of convictions. The medical report and evidence were properly admitted by express and informed consent. The trial judge's structuring did not affect the verdicts. The sentences were not excessive given the gravity of the offences.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences of all three appellants confirmed