S v Bogosi (487/94) [1995] ZASCA 119 (28 September 1995)

S v Bogosi (487/94) [1995] ZASCA 119 (28 September 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their change of plea from guilty to not guilty. Their claims of duress and undue influence were contradicted by their former attorney and lacked corroboration. Mere assertions of innocence, without substantive explanation, do not suffice to require a change of plea under section 121(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The magistrate correctly applied the standard of proof, finding the explanations false beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the findings of the lower court.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 119
Parties
Appellant: Selwyn Bogosi; Appellant: Hendrik Baloyi; Appellant: Andrew Mogwane; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1995
Case Number
487/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Regional Court; Prior Appeal to Transvaal Provincial Division Unsuccessful
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Scott, Hefer, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Change of Plea, Duress, Onus of Proof, Criminal Procedure Act, Fraud, Theft
Criminal Law Change of Plea Duress Onus of Proof Criminal Procedure Act Fraud Theft

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selwyn Bogosi

Appellant

Hendrik Baloyi

Appellant

Andrew Mogwane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Regional Court; Prior Appeal to Transvaal Provincial Division Unsuccessful

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were entitled to have their pleas changed from guilty to not guilty.
  2. 2 Whether the pleas of guilty were vitiated by duress or undue influence.
  3. 3 Whether the court correctly applied the onus and standard of proof in refusing the change of plea.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their change of plea from guilty to not guilty. Their claims of duress and undue influence were contradicted by their former attorney and lacked corroboration. Mere assertions of innocence, without substantive explanation, do not suffice to require a change of plea under section 121(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The magistrate correctly applied the standard of proof, finding the explanations false beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the findings of the lower court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.