Rampersad v S (A194/2020; CC64/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 752 (30 August 2023)

Rampersad v S (A194/2020; CC64/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 752 (30 August 2023)

The court found that the appellant's allegations of assault, torture, and violation of constitutional rights were not supported by credible evidence. Photographs taken at the time of the pointing out showed no injuries, and the appellant had opportunities to report any mistreatment but did not do so. The confession and pointing out were deemed properly obtained, and circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and witness testimony, placed the appellant at the scene and supported the inference of guilt. The relationship between the appellant and Ms Naidoo, their movements on the day of the murder, and the recovery of the deceased's motor vehicle and firearm further corroborated...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 752
Parties
Appellant: Rishen Rampersad; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2023
Case Number
A194/2020; CC64/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against both conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Sethusha-Shongwe, Mabuse, Baqwa
Legal Topics
Confession and Admission, Circumstantial Evidence, Minimum Sentencing, Fair Trial Rights, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Unlawful Possession of Firearm
Criminal Law Confession and Admission Circumstantial Evidence Minimum Sentencing Fair Trial Rights Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Unlawful Possession of Firearm

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rishen Rampersad

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in admitting the confession and pointing out as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's constitutional rights to a fair trial and legal representation were violated.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's allegations of assault, torture, and violation of constitutional rights were not supported by credible evidence. Photographs taken at the time of the pointing out showed no injuries, and the appellant had opportunities to report any mistreatment but did not do so. The confession and pointing out were deemed properly obtained, and circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and witness testimony, placed the appellant at the scene and supported the inference of guilt. The relationship between the appellant and Ms Naidoo, their movements on the day of the murder, and the recovery of the deceased's motor vehicle and firearm further corroborated...

Court Disposition

Appeal against both conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against both conviction and sentence is hereby dismissed.