L v S (1049/2013) [2014] ZASCA 164 (1 October 2014)

L v S (1049/2013) [2014] ZASCA 164 (1 October 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the requirements for leading further evidence on appeal were satisfied, as the new evidence (the complainant's admissions of perjury) was not available at trial, was likely to be true, and was materially relevant. However, due to the death of the complainant and other key witnesses, it was impossible to remit the matter for further evidence. The court held that it would be a travesty of justice to uphold the conviction and sentence under these circumstances, especially given the grave doubts about the correctness of the conviction arising from contradictions in the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence. Accordingly, the conviction and...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 164
Parties
Appellant: Z[...] A[...] L[...]; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2014
Case Number
1049/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Leave to Lead Further Evidence
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside in the interests of justice.
Judges
Mpati, Bosielo, Willis
Legal Topics
Rape, Leave to Lead Further Evidence, Setting Aside Conviction, Perjury, Admissibility of New Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Leave to Lead Further Evidence Setting Aside Conviction Perjury Admissibility of New Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z[...] A[...] L[...]

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application for Leave to Lead Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for leading further evidence on appeal were satisfied.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside in the interests of justice given the new evidence and the death of key witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether contradictions and discrepancies in the complainant's evidence undermine the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the requirements for leading further evidence on appeal were satisfied, as the new evidence (the complainant's admissions of perjury) was not available at trial, was likely to be true, and was materially relevant. However, due to the death of the complainant and other key witnesses, it was impossible to remit the matter for further evidence. The court held that it would be a travesty of justice to uphold the conviction and sentence under these circumstances, especially given the grave doubts about the correctness of the conviction arising from contradictions in the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence. Accordingly, the conviction and...

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside in the interests of justice.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.