Marietjie v S (CA&R 195/2003) [2009] ZANCHC 26 (29 May 2009)

Marietjie v S (CA&R 195/2003) [2009] ZANCHC 26 (29 May 2009)

The court found that the appellant's explanation for the late filing of his application for leave to appeal was inadequate and did not justify condonation. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, including corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical findings consistent with the complainant's account. The appellant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal, either on conviction or sentence. The sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate nor affected by any material irregularity. Accordingly, both condonation and leave to appeal were refused.

Citation
[2009] ZANCHC 26
Parties
Appellant: Dannyboy Marietjie; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
CA&R 195/2003
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Conviction and Sentence Appeal Dismissed.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Kgomo, Henriques
Legal Topics
Rape, Condonation for Late Filing, Leave to Appeal, Sentence Interference, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Rape Condonation for Late Filing Leave to Appeal Sentence Interference Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dannyboy Marietjie

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Conviction and Sentence Appeal Dismissed.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against conviction and sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was correctly identified as the perpetrator of the rape.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's explanation for the late filing of his application for leave to appeal was inadequate and did not justify condonation. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, including corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical findings consistent with the complainant's account. The appellant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal, either on conviction or sentence. The sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate nor affected by any material irregularity. Accordingly, both condonation and leave to appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.