S v D (90/86) [1986] ZASCA 81 (26 August 1986)

S v D (90/86) [1986] ZASCA 81 (26 August 1986)

The court found that the appellant's defence of automatism and amnesia was not supported by the medical and psychiatric evidence. The psychiatric experts concluded that the appellant suffered from a moderate mixed personality disorder but was not mentally ill or incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct. The appellant's own statements and testimony revealed that she retained memory of the events and attempted to conceal her actions, undermining her claim of amnesia. The evidence established that the appellant assaulted the child victim with sufficient force to cause multiple severe injuries, resulting in death. The court held that the appellant was criminally responsible...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 81
Parties
Appellant: M. D.; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 1986
Case Number
90/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Corbett, Boshoff, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Murder, Automatism, Mens Rea, Child Abuse, Sentencing, Mental Capacity
Criminal Law Murder Automatism Mens Rea Child Abuse Sentencing Mental Capacity

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. D.

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was criminally responsible for the death of the child victim.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of automatism or amnesia was established on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for murder and child abuse was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's defence of automatism and amnesia was not supported by the medical and psychiatric evidence. The psychiatric experts concluded that the appellant suffered from a moderate mixed personality disorder but was not mentally ill or incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct. The appellant's own statements and testimony revealed that she retained memory of the events and attempted to conceal her actions, undermining her claim of amnesia. The evidence established that the appellant assaulted the child victim with sufficient force to cause multiple severe injuries, resulting in death. The court held that the appellant was criminally responsible...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The convictions for murder and contravention of the Child Care Act are confirmed.