S v Davids and Another (SS12/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 891 (18 March 2021)

S v Davids and Another (SS12/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 891 (18 March 2021)

The court found the State's witnesses to be credible and reliable, with their evidence corroborated by forensic and ballistic reports. The identification of both accused as the shooters was clear and consistent, and the alleged collusion or corruption was unsupported by any credible evidence. The alibi defence of Accused 1 was rejected as unreliable and not reasonably possibly true, given the contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. The bare denial of Accused 2 was similarly rejected in light of the overwhelming identification evidence. The court concluded that both accused acted in concert, armed with firearms, and were responsible for the murder and attempted murders as...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 891
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Davids Jermaine Lloyd; Defendant: Shimidzu Ottie
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Case Number
SS12/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Both accused found guilty on all counts as charged.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Minimum Sentences, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Minimum Sentences Identification Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Davids Jermaine Lloyd

Defendant

Shimidzu Ottie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were correctly identified as the perpetrators of the shooting resulting in murder and attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the alibi defence of Accused 1 is reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether there was collusion or corruption among police and witnesses to falsely implicate the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the State's witnesses to be credible and reliable, with their evidence corroborated by forensic and ballistic reports. The identification of both accused as the shooters was clear and consistent, and the alleged collusion or corruption was unsupported by any credible evidence. The alibi defence of Accused 1 was rejected as unreliable and not reasonably possibly true, given the contradictions and lack of independent corroboration. The bare denial of Accused 2 was similarly rejected in light of the overwhelming identification evidence. The court concluded that both accused acted in concert, armed with firearms, and were responsible for the murder and attempted murders as...

Court Disposition

Both accused found guilty on all counts as charged.

Orders

  • Accused 1 and Accused 2 are found guilty of murder read with section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
  • Accused 1 and Accused 2 are found guilty on three counts of attempted murder.