Peters and Another v S (CC 27/2014) [2019] ZAECPEHC 31 (14 May 2019)

Peters and Another v S (CC 27/2014) [2019] ZAECPEHC 31 (14 May 2019)

The applicants' grounds for leave to appeal are identical to those previously advanced by their co-accused and considered by the Full Bench, which dismissed the appeal after a comprehensive review of the facts and legal principles. The Full Bench judgment is binding and directly on point, establishing that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal for the applicants. The inordinate delay in prosecuting the application, while not dispositive in this instance, further undermines the merits. Overarching considerations of justice do not warrant granting leave, as the issues have been fully ventilated and determined. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Rodwell Stanton Peters; Applicant: Oscar Alexander; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2019
Case Number
CC 27/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction (murder) After Trial and Sentencing
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
G.G Goosen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Dolus Eventualis, Mens Rea, House Robbery, Abandonment of Appeal
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Dolus Eventualis Mens Rea House Robbery Abandonment of Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodwell Stanton Peters

Applicant

Oscar Alexander

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction (murder) After Trial and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal against their conviction for murder.
  2. 2 Whether the inordinate delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal constitutes abandonment of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicants differ materially from those already considered and dismissed by the Full Bench.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' grounds for leave to appeal are identical to those previously advanced by their co-accused and considered by the Full Bench, which dismissed the appeal after a comprehensive review of the facts and legal principles. The Full Bench judgment is binding and directly on point, establishing that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal for the applicants. The inordinate delay in prosecuting the application, while not dispositive in this instance, further undermines the merits. Overarching considerations of justice do not warrant granting leave, as the issues have been fully ventilated and determined. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants’ applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.