Herman v S (948/12) [2013] ZASCA 193 (29 November 2013)

Herman v S (948/12) [2013] ZASCA 193 (29 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was neither credible nor consistent and was contradicted by the medical evidence. The injuries sustained by the child, including a fractured elbow and a ruptured liver, could not have been caused by an accidental fall as alleged by the appellant. The evidence established that the appellant was the only person who could have inflicted the injuries at the relevant times. The court held that the State had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant's version was not reasonably possibly true. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 193
Parties
Appellant: Zaibonisha Herman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Case Number
948/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Judges
Lewis, Tshiqi, Theron
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Child Abuse, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Family and Children Culpable Homicide Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Child Abuse Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaibonisha Herman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and culpable homicide.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the injuries leading to the child's death.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's version of events was reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's version of events was neither credible nor consistent and was contradicted by the medical evidence. The injuries sustained by the child, including a fractured elbow and a ruptured liver, could not have been caused by an accidental fall as alleged by the appellant. The evidence established that the appellant was the only person who could have inflicted the injuries at the relevant times. The court held that the State had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant's version was not reasonably possibly true. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.