Gule and Others v S (CA & R 205/2017) [2019] ZAECBHC 2 (31 January 2019)

Gule and Others v S (CA & R 205/2017) [2019] ZAECBHC 2 (31 January 2019)

The court found that the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the first, second, and fifth appellants, as there was compelling evidence of police coercion and assault. With those statements excluded, the state relied on the eyewitness testimony of Mtutuzeli Ngqakayi and his son, both of whom had longstanding familiarity with the appellants and had ample opportunity to observe them during the incident. The court held that their identification was reliable and not the result of mistaken identity or deliberate falsehood. The versions presented by the appellants were found to be contrived and improbable, and were rejected as false. The conviction of the second, third, and fourth...

Citation
[2019] ZAECBHC 2
Parties
Appellant: Thozamile Gule; Appellant: Rose Ntuthalo Sokopo; Appellant: Oraba Qele; Appellant: Anele Yawa; Appellant: Uhuru Qele; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Case Number
CA & R 25/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against conviction by the second, third, and fourth appellants is dismissed; the appeal against sentence by the first, second, third, and fourth appellants is upheld; the appeal against conviction and sentence by the fifth appellant is upheld.
Judges
Toni, Smith, Lowe
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Admissibility of Confessions, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearms Admissibility of Confessions Sentencing Principles

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thozamile Gule

Appellant

Rose Ntuthalo Sokopo

Appellant

Oraba Qele

Appellant

Anele Yawa

Appellant

Uhuru Qele

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the second, third, and fourth appellants were supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the first, second, and fifth appellants as evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were shockingly severe and justified interference by the appeal court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the first, second, and fifth appellants, as there was compelling evidence of police coercion and assault. With those statements excluded, the state relied on the eyewitness testimony of Mtutuzeli Ngqakayi and his son, both of whom had longstanding familiarity with the appellants and had ample opportunity to observe them during the incident. The court held that their identification was reliable and not the result of mistaken identity or deliberate falsehood. The versions presented by the appellants were found to be contrived and improbable, and were rejected as false. The conviction of the second, third, and fourth...

Court Disposition

The appeal against conviction by the second, third, and fourth appellants is dismissed; the appeal against sentence by the first, second, third, and fourth appellants is upheld; the appeal against conviction and sentence by the fifth appellant is upheld.

Orders

  • The fifth appellant's conviction and sentence are set aside.
  • The appeal against conviction by the second, third, and fourth appellants is dismissed.