Bader v S (A122/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 633 (17 September 2021)

Bader v S (A122/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 633 (17 September 2021)

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant's version of self-defence was rejected as improbable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly as his own witness contradicted his account of a man armed with a knife. The evidence established that the appellant pointed and discharged a firearm at the first complainant without justification, assaulted her with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and acted recklessly in discharging the firearm in a confined space. The broader interpretation of 'pointing' under the Firearms Control Act was applied, confirming that the firearm was pointed at...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 633
Parties
Appellant: Brian Bader; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
A122/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Springs Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
N V Khumalo, T V Raikane
Legal Topics
Firearms Control Act, Pointing of Firearm, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Reckless Endangerment, Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Firearms Control Act Pointing of Firearm Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Reckless Endangerment Self Defence Credibility of Witnesses

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Bader

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Springs Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was justified in pointing and discharging a firearm during the incident.
  2. 2 Whether the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted the complainant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
  3. 3 Whether the firearm was pointed at the second complainant, constituting the offence under the Firearms Control Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant's version of self-defence was rejected as improbable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly as his own witness contradicted his account of a man armed with a knife. The evidence established that the appellant pointed and discharged a firearm at the first complainant without justification, assaulted her with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and acted recklessly in discharging the firearm in a confined space. The broader interpretation of 'pointing' under the Firearms Control Act was applied, confirming that the firearm was pointed at...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed by the Springs Regional Court are confirmed.