S v Bakkes (375/90) [1990] ZASCA 144 (26 November 1990)

S v Bakkes (375/90) [1990] ZASCA 144 (26 November 1990)

The court held that, even taking into account the appellant's youth, he possessed sufficient experience and knowledge of firearms to appreciate the risks involved. The appellant's conduct in firing a high-powered rifle in the general direction of people, despite being aware of the dangers, constituted negligence as assessed by the standard of a reasonable person in his position. The conviction for culpable homicide was therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the trial court had considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's age and circumstances, and imposed a balanced sentence. There were no grounds for interference with the conviction or sentence.

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 144
Parties
Appellant: Carel-John Bakkes; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1990
Case Number
375/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Smalberger, Steyn
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Negligence, Sentencing Principles, Youth Offenders
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Negligence Sentencing Principles Youth Offenders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carel-John Bakkes

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's youth and experience with firearms should affect the assessment of negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, even taking into account the appellant's youth, he possessed sufficient experience and knowledge of firearms to appreciate the risks involved. The appellant's conduct in firing a high-powered rifle in the general direction of people, despite being aware of the dangers, constituted negligence as assessed by the standard of a reasonable person in his position. The conviction for culpable homicide was therefore justified. Regarding sentence, the trial court had considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's age and circumstances, and imposed a balanced sentence. There were no grounds for interference with the conviction or sentence.

Court Disposition

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.