Mangisi v S (936/2009) [2015] ZAGPPHC 554 (29 July 2015)

Mangisi v S (936/2009) [2015] ZAGPPHC 554 (29 July 2015)

The court found the appellant's version of events to be so absurd and improbable that it could not reasonably possibly be true. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the appellant was one of the five robbers who committed armed robbery, suffered a gunshot wound at the scene, and was apprehended in the getaway vehicle containing stolen property. The conviction was therefore correct. The sentence had already been confirmed by a competent court, and there were no grounds to revisit it in these proceedings.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 554
Parties
Appellant: Bryan Mangisi; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Case Number
936/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Tuchten, EM Kubushi
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Firearms Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Evidentiary Inference
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Firearms Offences Appeal Against Conviction Evidentiary Inference

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Mangisi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of armed robbery.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's version of events was reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed could be revisited in the present proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the appellant's version of events to be so absurd and improbable that it could not reasonably possibly be true. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the appellant was one of the five robbers who committed armed robbery, suffered a gunshot wound at the scene, and was apprehended in the getaway vehicle containing stolen property. The conviction was therefore correct. The sentence had already been confirmed by a competent court, and there were no grounds to revisit it in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal by the appellant against his conviction is dismissed.
  • The conviction and the sentence are confirmed.