S v De Oliveira (668/91) [1993] ZASCA 62; [1993] 2 All SA 415 (A) (18 May 1993)

S v De Oliveira (668/91) [1993] ZASCA 62; [1993] 2 All SA 415 (A) (18 May 1993)

The court held that the appellant's defence of putative private defence was not supported by the evidence. The appellant did not testify regarding his state of mind, and the circumstances did not justify a belief that his life or property was in imminent danger. The appellant fired multiple shots into a confined area, knowing people were present, and must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions. The court found that he possessed the necessary intent (dolus eventualis) for murder and attempted murder. However, considering the appellant's limited intellect, lack of prior violent behaviour, and the unique circumstances of the incident, the court found the sentences...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 62
Parties
Appellant: Antonio Sousa De Oliveira; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 1993
Case Number
668/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences allowed and sentences reduced.
Judges
Smalberger, Nienaber, Harms
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Dolus Eventualis, Putative Private Defence, Culpable Homicide
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Dolus Eventualis Putative Private Defence Culpable 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonio Sousa De Oliveira

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the necessary intent (dolus) to commit murder and attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted in putative private defence, excluding criminal liability.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's defence of putative private defence was not supported by the evidence. The appellant did not testify regarding his state of mind, and the circumstances did not justify a belief that his life or property was in imminent danger. The appellant fired multiple shots into a confined area, knowing people were present, and must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions. The court found that he possessed the necessary intent (dolus eventualis) for murder and attempted murder. However, considering the appellant's limited intellect, lack of prior violent behaviour, and the unique circumstances of the incident, the court found the sentences...

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences allowed and sentences reduced.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal against his convictions is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the sentences is allowed, and the sentences are altered to 9 years' imprisonment for murder and 5 years' imprisonment for each count of attempted murder.