Abram de Sousa v S (334/11) [2011] ZASCA 215 (29 November 2011)

Abram de Sousa v S (334/11) [2011] ZASCA 215 (29 November 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal instead of to itself, as the statutory scheme requires appeals from lower courts to be heard first by the high court. The central issue was whether the appellant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal against his convictions and sentences. The court found that the complainant's evidence, as a single witness, was challenged on several grounds, including contradictions and lack of corroboration, and that the expert evidence regarding her truthfulness was arguably inadmissible as corroboration. The State conceded that the rape conviction on count three was...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 215
Parties
Appellant: Alberto Abram de Sousa; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Case Number
334/11
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and replaced with leave to appeal granted to the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein.
Judges
Harms, Shongwe, Plasket
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Indecent Assault, Rape, Cautionary Rule, Sentencing Disproportionality
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Indecent Assault Rape Cautionary Rule Sentencing Disproportionality

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alberto Abram de Sousa

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant enjoys reasonable prospects of success on appeal against his convictions and sentences.
  2. 2 Whether the high court erred in granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal instead of to itself.
  3. 3 Whether the cautionary rule was properly applied to the evidence of a single witness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal instead of to itself, as the statutory scheme requires appeals from lower courts to be heard first by the high court. The central issue was whether the appellant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal against his convictions and sentences. The court found that the complainant's evidence, as a single witness, was challenged on several grounds, including contradictions and lack of corroboration, and that the expert evidence regarding her truthfulness was arguably inadmissible as corroboration. The State conceded that the rape conviction on count three was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and replaced with leave to appeal granted to the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the order of the court below is set aside.
  • The order of the court below is replaced with the following order: 'The appellant is granted leave to appeal against his convictions and sentences to the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein.'