De Vos v S (503/09) [2010] ZASCA 61 (1 April 2010)

De Vos v S (503/09) [2010] ZASCA 61 (1 April 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events, namely that he was assaulted with baseball bats and fired the shot in self-defence, was reasonably possibly true. The medical evidence corroborated the appellant's claim of serious injuries sustained immediately before the shooting. The state failed to provide a plausible explanation for these injuries and its witnesses' accounts were inconsistent, particularly regarding the presence of baseball bats and the altercation at the time of the shooting. The court held that the appellant's return to the club with a firearm, while reckless, did not negate his right to self-defence in the face of a life-threatening assault....

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 61
Parties
Appellant: Mervyn De Vos; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2010
Case Number
503/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Mpati, Mthiyane, Cachalia, Theron, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Attempted Murder, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Self Defence Attempted Murder Burden of Proof 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mervyn De Vos

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant fired the shot in self-defence during a life-threatening assault.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's version of events is reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions for attempted murder should stand given the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events, namely that he was assaulted with baseball bats and fired the shot in self-defence, was reasonably possibly true. The medical evidence corroborated the appellant's claim of serious injuries sustained immediately before the shooting. The state failed to provide a plausible explanation for these injuries and its witnesses' accounts were inconsistent, particularly regarding the presence of baseball bats and the altercation at the time of the shooting. The court held that the appellant's return to the club with a firearm, while reckless, did not negate his right to self-defence in the face of a life-threatening assault....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with: 'The appeal is upheld and the convictions and sentences are set aside.'