Moses and Another v S (CA&R01/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 72 (9 July 2019)

Moses and Another v S (CA&R01/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 72 (9 July 2019)

The appeal court found that while the magistrate's reasoning regarding accused two's presence was incorrect, the conclusion itself was supported by independent forensic and circumstantial evidence. The identification evidence of the state witnesses was reliable, as they knew the appellants and had no motive to falsely implicate them. Minor contradictions in their testimony were understandable given the volatile circumstances and did not undermine their credibility. The cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the first appellant was found to be excessively harsh, and the disparity between his sentence and that of the second appellant warranted interference. The court ordered that the...

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 72
Parties
Appellant: Jacques Moses; Appellant: Jermaine De Souza; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2019
Case Number
CA&R01/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction by both appellants dismissed; appeal against sentence by first appellant upheld in part.
Judges
R E Griffiths, Hartle
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Possession of Dagga, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Possession of Dagga Concurrent Sentences

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Moses

Appellant

Jermaine De Souza

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in accepting the identification evidence of the appellants as participants in the drive-by shooting.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by relying on the presence of accused two in the vehicle as corroboration for the identification of the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the contradictions between state witnesses undermined the reliability of the identification evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that while the magistrate's reasoning regarding accused two's presence was incorrect, the conclusion itself was supported by independent forensic and circumstantial evidence. The identification evidence of the state witnesses was reliable, as they knew the appellants and had no motive to falsely implicate them. Minor contradictions in their testimony were understandable given the volatile circumstances and did not undermine their credibility. The cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the first appellant was found to be excessively harsh, and the disparity between his sentence and that of the second appellant warranted interference. The court ordered that the...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction by both appellants dismissed; appeal against sentence by first appellant upheld in part.

Orders

  • The appeals by both the first and second appellants against their convictions are dismissed.
  • The appeal by the first appellant against his sentences on counts one, two and three is upheld to the extent that the order regarding concurrency of sentences is set aside and substituted.