S v Bessick (376/90) [1991] ZASCA 154 (21 November 1991)

S v Bessick (376/90) [1991] ZASCA 154 (21 November 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court had correctly accepted the evidence of the State witnesses and rejected the appellant's version as unconvincing and dishonest. The alleged misdirections were not substantiated, as the trial court was aware of and considered all relevant background factors. The appellant's actions were deliberate, cruel, and motivated by vengeance, with no credible evidence of provocation or mob psychology. The aggravating factors, including a history of violent crime and lack of remorse, were overwhelming, and no mitigating factors were present. The death sentence was deemed the only appropriate punishment given the gravity of the offence and the...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 154
Parties
Appellant: Clive Bessick; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 1991
Case Number
376/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence confirmed.
Judges
Smalberger, Eksteen, Harms
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Sentencing, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Sentencing Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Bessick

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in its assessment of the evidence and credibility of witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether there were mitigating factors warranting a lesser sentence than death.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court had correctly accepted the evidence of the State witnesses and rejected the appellant's version as unconvincing and dishonest. The alleged misdirections were not substantiated, as the trial court was aware of and considered all relevant background factors. The appellant's actions were deliberate, cruel, and motivated by vengeance, with no credible evidence of provocation or mob psychology. The aggravating factors, including a history of violent crime and lack of remorse, were overwhelming, and no mitigating factors were present. The death sentence was deemed the only appropriate punishment given the gravity of the offence and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and death sentence on the charge of murder are confirmed.