S v Block (422/91) [1992] ZASCA 227 (27 November 1992)

S v Block (422/91) [1992] ZASCA 227 (27 November 1992)

The court found that the trial magistrate misdirected himself in several respects, including his assessment of the medical evidence and the credibility of the complainant. The complainant's evidence was not corroborated where corroboration was reasonably expected, and there were material contradictions and improbabilities in her version. The medical evidence did not conclusively support a finding of non-consensual intercourse. The appellant's version, though unsatisfactory in parts, was reasonably possibly true. Applying the principle from R v Difford, the court held that the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence could not...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 227
Parties
Appellant: Terence Michael Block; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1992
Case Number
422/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Regional Court, After Leave Granted by Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Nestadt, Van den Heever, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Rape, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof, Single Witness Rule
Criminal Law Rape Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof Single Witness Rule

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Michael Block

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Regional Court, After Leave Granted by Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred without her consent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate correctly assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the medical evidence supported the complainant's version of non-consensual intercourse.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate misdirected himself in several respects, including his assessment of the medical evidence and the credibility of the complainant. The complainant's evidence was not corroborated where corroboration was reasonably expected, and there were material contradictions and improbabilities in her version. The medical evidence did not conclusively support a finding of non-consensual intercourse. The appellant's version, though unsatisfactory in parts, was reasonably possibly true. Applying the principle from R v Difford, the court held that the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence could not...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.