Jaars and Another v S (A304/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 428 (8 June 2018)

Jaars and Another v S (A304/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 428 (8 June 2018)

The court found that the section 112 statement by the second appellant was inadmissible against both appellants, and its admission was a misdirection. However, even excluding this statement, the evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical and witness testimony, was sufficient to prove the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The application of the doctrine of common purpose to the rape charges was incorrect, as rape can only be committed by the physical act of the perpetrator. Accordingly, the convictions were altered: the first appellant was convicted of three counts of rape, and the second appellant of two counts. The sentences were reconsidered in light of the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 428
Parties
Appellant: Roger Jaars; Appellant: Shane Botha; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2018
Case Number
A304/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the Johannesburg Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; convictions and sentences varied as set out in the order.
Judges
L R Adams, M Makume
Legal Topics
Rape, Kidnapping, Common Purpose, Minimum Sentencing, Admissibility of Confessions, Single Witness Rule
Criminal Law Rape Kidnapping Common Purpose Minimum Sentencing Admissibility of Confessions Single Witness Rule

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Jaars

Appellant

Shane Botha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the Johannesburg Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for rape, kidnapping, assault, and indecent assault were supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied to the rape charges.
  3. 3 Whether the section 112 statement by the second appellant was admissible against either appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the section 112 statement by the second appellant was inadmissible against both appellants, and its admission was a misdirection. However, even excluding this statement, the evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical and witness testimony, was sufficient to prove the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The application of the doctrine of common purpose to the rape charges was incorrect, as rape can only be committed by the physical act of the perpetrator. Accordingly, the convictions were altered: the first appellant was convicted of three counts of rape, and the second appellant of two counts. The sentences were reconsidered in light of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; convictions and sentences varied as set out in the order.

Orders

  • The first appellant's convictions for three counts of rape, assault, kidnapping, and indecent assault are confirmed; convictions for two counts of rape are set aside.
  • The first appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the three rape convictions, two years for assault, ten years for kidnapping, and five years for indecent assault; sentences to run concurrently and antedated to 5 June 2015.