Aphane v S (A621/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 264 (10 September 2009)

Aphane v S (A621/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 264 (10 September 2009)

The court found that the appellant did make the statements alleged by the complainant. However, the complainant did not understand the statements as having a sexual connotation and did not know what the appellant intended. Objectively, the statements were innocuous and did not refer to sexual activity. Subjectively, the complainant was not aware that the statements were offensive in the manner required for crimen injuria. Therefore, neither the subjective nor objective test for violation of dignity was satisfied, and the conviction could not stand.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 264
Parties
Appellant: Solly Matsobane Aphane; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Case Number
A621/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Southwood, Makhafola
Legal Topics
Crimen Injuria, Dignity Violation, Subjective Objective Test, Sexual Suggestion, Evidence Contradictions
Criminal Law Crimen Injuria Dignity Violation Subjective Objective Test Sexual Suggestion Evidence Contradictions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solly Matsobane Aphane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant made the statements alleged by the complainant.
  2. 2 Whether the statements constituted crimen injuria under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the subjective and objective tests for violation of dignity were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant did make the statements alleged by the complainant. However, the complainant did not understand the statements as having a sexual connotation and did not know what the appellant intended. Objectively, the statements were innocuous and did not refer to sexual activity. Subjectively, the complainant was not aware that the statements were offensive in the manner required for crimen injuria. Therefore, neither the subjective nor objective test for violation of dignity was satisfied, and the conviction could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.