Mapulane v S (A 856/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 203 (4 April 2013)

Mapulane v S (A 856/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 203 (4 April 2013)

The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to murder either complainant. The versions of the first and second complainants were mutually destructive and improbable, and the appellant's conduct did not demonstrate the necessary intention for attempted murder. However, as a police officer, the appellant was negligent in firing a shot in a built-up area, which resulted in serious injury to the second complainant. The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and replaced with a conviction for contravening section 120(3)(a) of the Firearms Control Act. The sentence was adjusted to five years imprisonment, with three years suspended, reflecting the seriousness of...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 203
Parties
Appellant: Mphela Billy Mapulane; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2013
Case Number
A 856/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence for attempted murder set aside and replaced with conviction and sentence for contravening section 120(3)(a) of the Firearms Control Act.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, Kubushi
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Firearms Control Act, Negligence, Sentencing, Judicial Conduct
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Firearms Control Act Negligence Sentencing Judicial Conduct

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

Parties

Mphela Billy Mapulane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the necessary intention to commit attempted murder against the complainants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was negligent in firing a shot that injured the second complainant.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo were appropriate given the facts and law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to murder either complainant. The versions of the first and second complainants were mutually destructive and improbable, and the appellant's conduct did not demonstrate the necessary intention for attempted murder. However, as a police officer, the appellant was negligent in firing a shot in a built-up area, which resulted in serious injury to the second complainant. The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and replaced with a conviction for contravening section 120(3)(a) of the Firearms Control Act. The sentence was adjusted to five years imprisonment, with three years suspended, reflecting the seriousness of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence for attempted murder set aside and replaced with conviction and sentence for contravening section 120(3)(a) of the Firearms Control Act.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction on two counts of attempted murder and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment is upheld.
  • The court a quo's order is replaced with: The accused is found guilty of contravening section 120(3)(a) of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, of which three years is suspended on condition that the accused is not found guilty of contravening section...