S v Bailey (CC 26/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 11 (21 January 2021)

S v Bailey (CC 26/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 11 (21 January 2021)

The court found that the accused was positively identified by credible eyewitnesses as the person who fired the shot that killed the deceased. The accused's version was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, and his denial of gang affiliation was not supported by the evidence. The court accepted the State's case that the accused subjectively foresaw the possibility that his actions could result in death and persisted regardless, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The accused was also found guilty of attempted murder in respect of Scholtz, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, as there was no evidence of lawful possession. The State failed to prove...

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 11
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Granwill Bailey
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Case Number
CC 26/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
The accused is found guilty on counts 1 (murder), 2 (attempted murder of Scholtz), 5 and 6 (unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition), and not guilty on counts 3 and 4 (attempted murder of the Coetzees).
Judges
A Govindjee
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Dolus Eventualis, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Dolus Eventualis Identification 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Granwill Bailey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was the person who fired the fatal shot that killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the accused acted with the necessary intention (dolus eventualis) to be convicted of murder.
  3. 3 Whether the accused is guilty of attempted murder in respect of Scholtz and the Coetzees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused was positively identified by credible eyewitnesses as the person who fired the shot that killed the deceased. The accused's version was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, and his denial of gang affiliation was not supported by the evidence. The court accepted the State's case that the accused subjectively foresaw the possibility that his actions could result in death and persisted regardless, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The accused was also found guilty of attempted murder in respect of Scholtz, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, as there was no evidence of lawful possession. The State failed to prove...

Court Disposition

The accused is found guilty on counts 1 (murder), 2 (attempted murder of Scholtz), 5 and 6 (unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition), and not guilty on counts 3 and 4 (attempted murder of the Coetzees).

Orders

  • The accused is found guilty on counts 1, 2, 5 and 6.
  • The accused is found not guilty, acquitted and discharged on counts 3 and 4.