Carneiro v S (425/18) [2019] ZASCA 45; 2019 (1) SACR 675 (SCA) (29 March 2019)

Carneiro v S (425/18) [2019] ZASCA 45; 2019 (1) SACR 675 (SCA) (29 March 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's right to a fair and speedy trial was severely compromised by systemic and unexplained delays, both at trial and during the appeal process. The evidence presented by the State was inadequate, with key witnesses providing inconsistent and improbable testimony regarding the circumstances of the shooting. The absence of ballistic evidence, a sketch plan, and a map further undermined the State's case, leaving critical factual issues unresolved. The trial court failed to properly analyse the discrepancies and did not call necessary expert witnesses. The cumulative effect of these shortcomings was that the State did not discharge its onus to...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 45
Parties
Appellant: Jose Pedro Morais Carneiro; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
425/18
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Lewis, Wallis, Mathopo, Davis, Rogers
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Delay in Trial, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof, Ballistics Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Delay in Trial Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof Ballistics Evidence Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Jose Pedro Morais Carneiro

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's right to a speedy and fair trial was violated by inordinate delays in the prosecution and appeal process.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the identity of the shooter and adequacy of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in accepting the evidence of State witnesses despite material inconsistencies and lack of corroborating ballistic evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's right to a fair and speedy trial was severely compromised by systemic and unexplained delays, both at trial and during the appeal process. The evidence presented by the State was inadequate, with key witnesses providing inconsistent and improbable testimony regarding the circumstances of the shooting. The absence of ballistic evidence, a sketch plan, and a map further undermined the State's case, leaving critical factual issues unresolved. The trial court failed to properly analyse the discrepancies and did not call necessary expert witnesses. The cumulative effect of these shortcomings was that the State did not discharge its onus to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the South Gauteng High Court is set aside and replaced with: 'The appeal is upheld and the appellant’s conviction and sentence are set aside.'