Magabe v S (A 546/2016; PA89/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 5 (4 January 2021)

Magabe v S (A 546/2016; PA89/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 5 (4 January 2021)

The appeal court found that the complainants credibly and consistently identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the rapes. Their evidence was corroborated by medical findings and by each other. Minor discrepancies in their accounts were attributed to their age and the passage of time, and did not affect their credibility. The appellant's alibi was rejected as fabricated, with contradictions between his and his wife's testimony. No substantial and compelling circumstances were found to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The trial court's assessment of evidence and imposition of sentence were upheld as correct and appropriate.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 5
Parties
Appellant: Piet Magabe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 January 2021
Case Number
A 546/2016; PA89/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. Six life sentences to run concurrently.
Judges
Avvakoumides, Dlamini
Legal Topics
Rape of Minors, Identification Evidence, Minimum Sentencing, Alibi Defence, Credibility of Witnesses, Register of Sex Offenders
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Rape of Minors Identification Evidence Minimum Sentencing Alibi Defence Credibility of Witnesses Register of Sex Offenders

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piet Magabe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly identified as the perpetrator of the rapes.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly rejected the appellant's alibi defence.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the complainants was credible and sufficient for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the complainants credibly and consistently identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the rapes. Their evidence was corroborated by medical findings and by each other. Minor discrepancies in their accounts were attributed to their age and the passage of time, and did not affect their credibility. The appellant's alibi was rejected as fabricated, with contradictions between his and his wife's testimony. No substantial and compelling circumstances were found to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The trial court's assessment of evidence and imposition of sentence were upheld as correct and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. Six life sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions and sentences is dismissed. The six life sentences are to run concurrently.
  • The appellant is found unsuitable to work with children in terms of subsection (2)(a) of Section 50 of Act 32 of 2007.