Motau v S (A53/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1927 (17 November 2023)

Motau v S (A53/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1927 (17 November 2023)

The appeal court found that the trial court materially misdirected itself by failing to consider all the evidence of the independent witness, Ms. M[...], who corroborated the appellant's version that he and the complainant left the tavern together to go and sleep and that the complainant's clothing was not disheveled. The trial court also failed to properly address the material inconsistencies between the complainant's statement to the police and her testimony in court. The State bore the onus of proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant only needed to show that his version was reasonably possibly true. The evidence, when considered holistically, did not...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1927
Parties
Appellant: Motau, Johohannes; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Case Number
A53/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Regional Court, Nigel
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction set aside and replaced with acquittal.
Judges
Millar, Nharmuravate
Legal Topics
Rape, Mutually Destructive Versions, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof, Reasonable Possibility, Section 186 Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Rape Mutually Destructive Versions Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof Reasonable Possibility Section 186 Criminal Procedure Act

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motau, Johohannes

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Regional Court, Nigel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for rape should stand in light of two mutually destructive versions of events.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the independent witness called by the court under section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act was properly considered.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and whether the State discharged its onus beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court materially misdirected itself by failing to consider all the evidence of the independent witness, Ms. M[...], who corroborated the appellant's version that he and the complainant left the tavern together to go and sleep and that the complainant's clothing was not disheveled. The trial court also failed to properly address the material inconsistencies between the complainant's statement to the police and her testimony in court. The State bore the onus of proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant only needed to show that his version was reasonably possibly true. The evidence, when considered holistically, did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction set aside and replaced with acquittal.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction on the single count of the indictment is upheld.
  • The order of the Court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following order: The accused is acquitted.