Labuschagne v S (A274/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 14 (28 March 2019)

Labuschagne v S (A274/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 14 (28 March 2019)

The appeal court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's factual findings, which established that the appellant was the aggressor and that his claim of self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence showed that the complainant did not pose any threat to the appellant at the time of the assault. The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate and was, in fact, lenient. Condonation for the late filing of the notice of appeal was granted as there was no wilful default by the appellant.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 14
Parties
Appellant: Gert Pieter Labuschagne; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Case Number
A274/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal against both conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
MA Mathebula, NM Mbhele
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Self Defence, Appeal Procedure, Condonation of Late Filing
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Self Defence Appeal Procedure Condonation of Late Filing

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

Parties

Gert Pieter Labuschagne

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's version of self-defence was reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was shockingly inappropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's factual findings, which established that the appellant was the aggressor and that his claim of self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence showed that the complainant did not pose any threat to the appellant at the time of the assault. The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate and was, in fact, lenient. Condonation for the late filing of the notice of appeal was granted as there was no wilful default by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal against both conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.