Manqu v S (A252/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 35 (9 May 2019)

Manqu v S (A252/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 35 (9 May 2019)

The appellate court found that the complainant, despite her young age, was a credible and reliable witness who correctly identified the appellant and gave consistent testimony corroborated by other evidence, including medical findings. The appellant’s denial was unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. The trial court properly assessed the evidence as a whole and was justified in convicting the appellant. Regarding sentence, the court held that the appellant abused a position of trust as the complainant’s uncle, and there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The trial court did not misdirect itself, and the sentence...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 35
Parties
Appellant: Tshepiso Tys Manqu; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2019
Case Number
A252/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal on conviction and sentence dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Musi, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Rape of Minor, Minimum Sentencing, Credibility of Witnesses, Identification Evidence, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances
Criminal Law Rape of Minor Minimum Sentencing Credibility of Witnesses Identification Evidence Substantial and Compelling Circumstances

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepiso Tys Manqu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding the complainant and State witnesses credible and reliable.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in imposing the minimum sentence of life imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the complainant, despite her young age, was a credible and reliable witness who correctly identified the appellant and gave consistent testimony corroborated by other evidence, including medical findings. The appellant’s denial was unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. The trial court properly assessed the evidence as a whole and was justified in convicting the appellant. Regarding sentence, the court held that the appellant abused a position of trust as the complainant’s uncle, and there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The trial court did not misdirect itself, and the sentence...

Court Disposition

Appeal on conviction and sentence dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal on conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence are confirmed.