S v Caldecott (458/91) [1993] ZASCA 33 (18 March 1993)

S v Caldecott (458/91) [1993] ZASCA 33 (18 March 1993)

The court found that the regional magistrate made strong and justified credibility findings in favour of the complainant and against the appellant. The discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were minor and explicable given her distress and the circumstances. The appellant's version was found to be highly improbable, especially considering the immediate reporting of the incident and corroboration by Nellie Goge. The appellant's explanations for his conduct were unconvincing, and the only cogent explanation was that he abused his position as a policeman and forced the complainant to commit the act in question. The court held that there was no misdirection by the magistrate or the court...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 33
Parties
Appellant: Charles Stephen Caldecott; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 1993
Case Number
458/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Regional Court, After Failed Appeal to Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Nienaber, Hoexter, Vivier
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Credibility of Witnesses, Assessment of Evidence, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Credibility of Witnesses Assessment of Evidence Appeal Against Conviction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Stephen Caldecott

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Regional Court, After Failed Appeal to Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for indecent assault was justified on the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the regional magistrate and the court a quo erred in their assessment of the evidence and credibility findings.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the regional magistrate made strong and justified credibility findings in favour of the complainant and against the appellant. The discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were minor and explicable given her distress and the circumstances. The appellant's version was found to be highly improbable, especially considering the immediate reporting of the incident and corroboration by Nellie Goge. The appellant's explanations for his conduct were unconvincing, and the only cogent explanation was that he abused his position as a policeman and forced the complainant to commit the act in question. The court held that there was no misdirection by the magistrate or the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the regional court are confirmed.