Lizamore v S (A203/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 31 (16 February 2012)

Lizamore v S (A203/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 31 (16 February 2012)

The court found that the appellant was at all material times aware of his actions and intentionally killed the deceased. The nature and seriousness of the injuries, the use of multiple weapons, and the appellant's failure to explain certain wounds supported a finding of intention. The appellant's claim of amnesia was rejected as a convenient excuse for his inability to explain the injuries. Regarding the robbery, the court held that the appellant unlawfully and intentionally removed the deceased's property after incapacitating him, and that intention could be inferred from the circumstances. The trial court erred in imposing a life sentence for murder under section 51(2) of the Criminal...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 31
Parties
Appellant: David Johannes Lizamore; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2012
Case Number
A203/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction for both murder and armed robbery dismissed; appeal against sentence for murder upheld; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and replaced with fifteen years' imprisonment, antedated to 5 November 2009; all other sentences to run concurrently.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse, G. Webster
Legal Topics
Murder, Armed Robbery, Minimum Sentence Act, Intention, Self Defence, Loss of Memory
Criminal Law Murder Armed Robbery Minimum Sentence Act Intention Self Defence Loss of Memory

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Johannes Lizamore

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant intentionally killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant unlawfully and intentionally robbed the deceased of his property with aggravating circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of life imprisonment for murder was lawfully imposed under the correct statutory provision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was at all material times aware of his actions and intentionally killed the deceased. The nature and seriousness of the injuries, the use of multiple weapons, and the appellant's failure to explain certain wounds supported a finding of intention. The appellant's claim of amnesia was rejected as a convenient excuse for his inability to explain the injuries. Regarding the robbery, the court held that the appellant unlawfully and intentionally removed the deceased's property after incapacitating him, and that intention could be inferred from the circumstances. The trial court erred in imposing a life sentence for murder under section 51(2) of the Criminal...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction for both murder and armed robbery dismissed; appeal against sentence for murder upheld; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and replaced with fifteen years' imprisonment, antedated to 5 November 2009; all other sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction in count 1 (murder) is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.
  • The appeal against conviction in count 2 (robbery with aggravating circumstances) is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.