Erasmus v S (A31/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 662 (7 August 2023)

Erasmus v S (A31/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 662 (7 August 2023)

The court found the minor's evidence credible and consistent, corroborated by her mother and aunt. The appellant's denials and attempts to impeach the witnesses were rejected as not reasonably possibly true. The contradictions in the evidence were inconsequential and did not undermine the reliability of the core allegations. The offences fell squarely within the ambit of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, requiring the imposition of life imprisonment unless substantial and compelling circumstances were shown. The appellant failed to present any such circumstances. The impact on the victim was severe, and the appellant, as stepfather, had a duty to protect the minor but instead...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 662
Parties
Appellant: Marius Adriaan Erasmus; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2023
Case Number
A31/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Millar, Barit
Legal Topics
Rape of Minor, Minimum Sentencing, Criminal Procedure Act, Child Witness Evidence, Sexual Offences Register
Criminal Law Rape of Minor Minimum Sentencing Criminal Procedure Act Child Witness Evidence Sexual Offences Register

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marius Adriaan Erasmus

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for rape of his minor stepdaughter should be upheld.
  2. 2 Whether the imposition of two life sentences was justified or whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the minor's evidence credible and consistent, corroborated by her mother and aunt. The appellant's denials and attempts to impeach the witnesses were rejected as not reasonably possibly true. The contradictions in the evidence were inconsequential and did not undermine the reliability of the core allegations. The offences fell squarely within the ambit of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, requiring the imposition of life imprisonment unless substantial and compelling circumstances were shown. The appellant failed to present any such circumstances. The impact on the victim was severe, and the appellant, as stepfather, had a duty to protect the minor but instead...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction on counts 1 and 2 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against sentence on counts 1 and 2 is dismissed.