S v Adams (91/86) [1986] ZASCA 82; [1986] 2 ALL SA 602 (A) (26 August 1986)

S v Adams (91/86) [1986] ZASCA 82; [1986] 2 ALL SA 602 (A) (26 August 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the necessary animus possidendi to constitute possession of dangerous weapons under section 2(1) of the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968. The evidence established that the appellant was extremely intoxicated and may not have been aware of the objects in his possession. The Magistrate's findings were based on misdirections and did not adequately address the mental element required for possession. Furthermore, the State did not prove that the objects in question constituted 'dangerous weapons' as defined by the Act, since there was no evidence that they were possessed as weapons or...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 82
Parties
Appellant: Adam Adams; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 1986
Case Number
91/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court; Leave to Appeal Granted by Petition to Chief Justice
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Corbett, Viljoen, Botha, Galgut, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Dangerous Weapons Act, Possession, Criminal Capacity, Intoxication, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Dangerous Weapons Act Possession Criminal Capacity Intoxication Onus of Proof

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Adams

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court; Leave to Appeal Granted by Petition to Chief Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in possession of dangerous weapons as defined by the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had the necessary animus possidendi (intention to possess) at the relevant time.
  3. 3 Whether the objects in question constituted 'dangerous weapons' under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the necessary animus possidendi to constitute possession of dangerous weapons under section 2(1) of the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968. The evidence established that the appellant was extremely intoxicated and may not have been aware of the objects in his possession. The Magistrate's findings were based on misdirections and did not adequately address the mental element required for possession. Furthermore, the State did not prove that the objects in question constituted 'dangerous weapons' as defined by the Act, since there was no evidence that they were possessed as weapons or...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.