Abrahams v S (A118/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 88 (30 April 2013)

Abrahams v S (A118/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 88 (30 April 2013)

The court found that the appellant was the only person who fired shots at the scene and that all six cartridge cases found were discharged from his firearm. The evidence established that the shots were fired in the direction of the running groups, not into the air or towards the soccer field as claimed by the appellant. The appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility that his conduct could result in someone being struck and reconciled himself with that risk, thus satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The trial court's finding of murder was upheld. However, the trial court failed to properly consider the appellant's competence to possess a firearm under section 103(1) of the...

Citation
[2013] ZAWCHC 88
Parties
Appellant: Robert William Abrahams; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Case Number
A118/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are confirmed. The matter is remitted to the trial court for determination of the appellant's competence to possess a firearm under section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act.
Judges
Schippers, Saldanha
Legal Topics
Murder, Dolus Eventualis, Firearms Control Act, Appeal on Conviction, Sentencing, Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Dolus Eventualis Firearms Control Act Appeal on Conviction Sentencing Forensic Evidence

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert William Abrahams

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder or whether the conviction should have been for culpable homicide.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had the requisite intent (dolus eventualis) to kill the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court properly considered the appellant's competence to possess a firearm under section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was the only person who fired shots at the scene and that all six cartridge cases found were discharged from his firearm. The evidence established that the shots were fired in the direction of the running groups, not into the air or towards the soccer field as claimed by the appellant. The appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility that his conduct could result in someone being struck and reconciled himself with that risk, thus satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The trial court's finding of murder was upheld. However, the trial court failed to properly consider the appellant's competence to possess a firearm under section 103(1) of the...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are confirmed. The matter is remitted to the trial court for determination of the appellant's competence to possess a firearm under section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence are confirmed.