Doorewaard and Another v S (CC33/2017) [2019] ZANWHC 25 (23 May 2019)

Doorewaard and Another v S (CC33/2017) [2019] ZANWHC 25 (23 May 2019)

The court found that the grounds of appeal raised by the applicants had been comprehensively addressed in the main judgment, and no reasonable prospect existed that another court would reach a different conclusion. The evidence of Mr. Pakisi was properly considered, and credibility findings were made. The failure to call Seponkane as a witness was a neutral factor, as he was made available to the defence, who did not subpoena him; no irregularity occurred. The principles of common purpose were correctly applied, with both applicants acting in concert and neither dissociating themselves. The sentences imposed were not shockingly severe and were appropriate to the facts and gravity of the...

Citation
[2019] ZANWHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Doorewaard; Applicant: Phillip Schutte; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Case Number
CC33/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Trial and Sentencing.
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence is refused for both applicants.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Murder, Common Purpose, Criminal Procedure Act, Sentence Appeal, Special Entry Irregularity
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Murder Common Purpose Criminal Procedure Act Sentence Appeal Special Entry Irregularity

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Doorewaard

Applicant

Phillip Schutte

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Trial and Sentencing.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of the single witness, Mr. Pakisi, was properly accepted despite contradictions.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' versions were reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the principles of common purpose were correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds of appeal raised by the applicants had been comprehensively addressed in the main judgment, and no reasonable prospect existed that another court would reach a different conclusion. The evidence of Mr. Pakisi was properly considered, and credibility findings were made. The failure to call Seponkane as a witness was a neutral factor, as he was made available to the defence, who did not subpoena him; no irregularity occurred. The principles of common purpose were correctly applied, with both applicants acting in concert and neither dissociating themselves. The sentences imposed were not shockingly severe and were appropriate to the facts and gravity of the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence is refused for both applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against both conviction and sentence in respect of both the 1st applicant (appellant) Mr. Pieter Doorewaard and the 2nd applicant (appellant) Mr. Phillip Schutte is refused.