Murphy v S (CA& R 68/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 83 (22 December 2011)

Murphy v S (CA& R 68/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 83 (22 December 2011)

The court found that the magistrate misdirected himself by assuming, without proper evaluation of the evidence, that there was only one shooter and that the appellant was responsible for all the shots fired. The evidence was inconsistent and did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant fired the fatal shot or was the only person shooting. The ballistic evidence did not connect the appellant to the firearm or the fatal bullet. The doctrine of common purpose was not applicable as there was no evidence of a shared intent among those present. The convictions for murder, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm could not be sustained on the available evidence, and...

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 83
Parties
Appellant: Alwyn Murphy; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Case Number
CA& R 68/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.
Judges
J W Eksteen, I Schoeman
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Identification Evidence, Common Purpose, Ballistics Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Identification Evidence Common Purpose Ballistics Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alwyn Murphy

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly identified as the shooter responsible for the murder and attempted murders.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of common purpose applies to the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate misdirected himself by assuming, without proper evaluation of the evidence, that there was only one shooter and that the appellant was responsible for all the shots fired. The evidence was inconsistent and did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant fired the fatal shot or was the only person shooting. The ballistic evidence did not connect the appellant to the firearm or the fatal bullet. The doctrine of common purpose was not applicable as there was no evidence of a shared intent among those present. The convictions for murder, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm could not be sustained on the available evidence, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.