S v Cerqueira (117/84) [1985] ZASCA 35 (24 May 1985)

S v Cerqueira (117/84) [1985] ZASCA 35 (24 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in applying a rigid rule that the use of a knife is never justified against an assault with fists. The correct approach is to judge self-defence by objective standards, considering all the circumstances. The appellant was attacked without provocation, struck in the face, and reasonably feared serious injury. He was unable to escape and acted in panic to defend himself. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant exceeded the bounds of justifiable homicide by using a penknife. Therefore, the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Julio Alberto da Costa Cerqueira; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 1985
Case Number
117/84
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Trengove, Botha, Galgut
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Culpable Homicide, Onus of Proof, Objective Standard, Justifiable Homicide
Criminal Law Self Defence Culpable Homicide Onus of Proof Objective Standard Justifiable Homicide

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julio Alberto da Costa Cerqueira

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defence when he used a knife to repel an assault by the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions were not justified as self-defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in applying a rigid rule that the use of a knife is never justified against an assault with fists. The correct approach is to judge self-defence by objective standards, considering all the circumstances. The appellant was attacked without provocation, struck in the face, and reasonably feared serious injury. He was unable to escape and acted in panic to defend himself. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant exceeded the bounds of justifiable homicide by using a penknife. Therefore, the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.