Hicks and Another v S (A609/2008) [2015] ZAGPJHC 65 (20 April 2015)

Hicks and Another v S (A609/2008) [2015] ZAGPJHC 65 (20 April 2015)

The court found that the evidence did not establish the requisite intention for murder, as there was insufficient proof that the appellants subjectively foresaw and reconciled themselves with the possibility of Mr Pompie's death resulting from their assault. However, the evidence demonstrated that the appellants unlawfully and negligently caused the death of Mr Pompie through a brutal and prolonged assault. The chain of causation was proven, and the medical complications did not break it. The court held that the proper verdict was culpable homicide, not murder. The matter was remitted to the Regional Court for determination of an appropriate sentence, allowing the appellants to present...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 65
Parties
Appellant: Hicks Paddy; Appellant: Hicks Granwell; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2015
Case Number
A609/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions for murder and sentences set aside; both appellants found guilty of culpable homicide; matter remitted for sentencing.
Judges
Vally, Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Dolus Eventualis, Private Defence, Chain of Causation, Minimum Sentences, Competent Verdict
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Dolus Eventualis Private Defence Chain of Causation Minimum Sentences Competent Verdict

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hicks Paddy

Appellant

Hicks Granwell

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of murder.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established the requisite intention for murder (dolus eventualis).
  3. 3 Whether the chain of causation between the assault and death was proven.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not establish the requisite intention for murder, as there was insufficient proof that the appellants subjectively foresaw and reconciled themselves with the possibility of Mr Pompie's death resulting from their assault. However, the evidence demonstrated that the appellants unlawfully and negligently caused the death of Mr Pompie through a brutal and prolonged assault. The chain of causation was proven, and the medical complications did not break it. The court held that the proper verdict was culpable homicide, not murder. The matter was remitted to the Regional Court for determination of an appropriate sentence, allowing the appellants to present...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions for murder and sentences set aside; both appellants found guilty of culpable homicide; matter remitted for sentencing.

Orders

  • The appeal of appellant 1 against his conviction for murder and the sentence of twelve years is upheld.
  • The appeal of appellant 2 against his conviction for murder and the sentence of twelve years is upheld.