Horn v S - Appeal (A51/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 235 (5 September 2023)

Horn v S - Appeal (A51/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 235 (5 September 2023)

The court found that the evidence of the State's eye-witnesses was unreliable and materially contradicted, particularly regarding whether the deceased had a firearm in his hand. The audio recording and CCTV footage supported the appellant's version that he acted in self-defence, as his partner's frantic shouts indicated a real and imminent threat. The court held that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the two shots fired were not disproportionate to neutralise the threat posed by the deceased. The State failed to discharge its onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions on both counts could not stand.

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 235
Parties
Appellant: Morne Horn; Respondent: The State
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2023
Case Number
A51/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences on both counts set aside; appellant acquitted.
Judges
Le Grange, Cloete, Savage
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Putative Self Defence, Murder, Onus of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Self Defence Putative Self Defence Murder Onus of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morne Horn

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence or putative self-defence when he shot the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not act in self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and trustworthy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the State's eye-witnesses was unreliable and materially contradicted, particularly regarding whether the deceased had a firearm in his hand. The audio recording and CCTV footage supported the appellant's version that he acted in self-defence, as his partner's frantic shouts indicated a real and imminent threat. The court held that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the two shots fired were not disproportionate to neutralise the threat posed by the deceased. The State failed to discharge its onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions on both counts could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences on both counts set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction and sentence on counts 1 and 2 is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence on both counts is set aside and the appellant is found not guilty and acquitted on counts 1 and 2.