De Vasconcelos and Another v S (A207/2007) [2011] ZAGPPHC 138 (26 July 2011)

De Vasconcelos and Another v S (A207/2007) [2011] ZAGPPHC 138 (26 July 2011)

The appeal succeeded because the magistrate misdirected himself by accepting the State's evidence despite material contradictions among witnesses. The evidence presented by the State was inconsistent and failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that the appellants' version was true. The court found that the State did not prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt should have been given to the appellants, and both conviction and sentence were set aside. The order of the magistrate was substituted with a finding of not guilty and discharge for both appellants.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 138
Parties
Appellant: Eugene De Vasconcelos; Appellant: Steven De Vasconcelos; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2011
Case Number
A207/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
Mavundla, JNM Poswa
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility of Witnesses, Self Defence
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Reasonable Doubt Credibility of Witnesses Self Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene De Vasconcelos

Appellant

Steven De Vasconcelos

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in convicting the appellants of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' version was reasonably possibly true and should have led to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the magistrate misdirected himself by accepting the State's evidence despite material contradictions among witnesses. The evidence presented by the State was inconsistent and failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that the appellants' version was true. The court found that the State did not prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt should have been given to the appellants, and both conviction and sentence were set aside. The order of the magistrate was substituted with a finding of not guilty and discharge for both appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The appeal of both appellants against the conviction and sentence is upheld.
  • Both the conviction and sentence of both appellants are set aside.