S v Demas (127/87) [1987] ZASCA 127 (9 November 1987)
- Citation
- [1987] ZASCA 127
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Jacobs, Van Heerden, Boshoff
- Case number
- 127/87
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Jacobs, Van Heerden, Boshoff
- Case number
- 127/87
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that the evidence against the appellant was identical to that against Jool Williams, whose conviction and sentence had previously been set aside by this Court. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the attack leading to the charge of murder. The State conceded that it could not support the conviction. Accordingly, the Court granted condonation for the late filing of the appeal and set aside both the conviction and sentence.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence of Harry Demas are set aside.
- Condonation for the late filing of the appeal is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Harry Demas
Appellant Counsel: Adv MarlowThe State
Respondent Counsel: Adv Vermeulen03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- 02
Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside in light of the previous decision in Jool Williams v The State.
- 03
Whether condonation for late filing of the appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the evidence against him was identical to that against Jool Williams, whose conviction and sentence had already been set aside by this Court. He submitted that the evidence did not prove his involvement in the attack beyond reasonable doubt and requested that his conviction and sentence be set aside accordingly.
- Respondent
- The State, through Adv Vermeulen, informed the Court that it could not support the conviction. The State did not advance arguments in favour of upholding the conviction or sentence, effectively conceding that the evidence was insufficient.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jool Williams v The State (unreported, Supreme Court of Appeal, 25 November 1986)
A conviction must be supported by evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- 02
Jool Williams v The State (unreported, Supreme Court of Appeal, 25 November 1986)
Where the evidence against co-accused is identical and one is acquitted, the same reasoning applies to the other.
- 03
Supreme Court of Appeal practice
Condonation for late filing of an appeal may be granted where justified by the circumstances.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the evidence against the appellant was identical to that against Jool Williams, whose conviction and sentence had previously been set aside by this Court. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the attack leading to the charge of murder. The State conceded that it could not support the conviction. Accordingly, the Court granted condonation for the late filing of the appeal and set aside both the conviction and sentence.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted that repeating the factual background and reasoning from the Jool Williams judgment would serve no purpose, as the same evidence and principles applied.
- The appellant's cooperation with the State in a subsequent murder trial and his transfer to Pretoria were mentioned as background but did not affect the outcome.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
- The conviction and sentence of Harry Demas are set aside.
- Condonation for the late filing of the appeal is granted.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(APPeLAFDELING)
In die saak tussen
HARRY DEMAS Appellant
EN
DIE STAAT Respondent
Coram: VAN HEERDEN, JACOBS ARR et BOSHOFF, Wn AR
Verhoor: 3 November 1987
Gelewer: 9 November 1987
REDES VIR UITSPRAAK
JACOBS, AR :
Nadat Adv Vermeulen, namens die Staat, die Hof mee-
gedeel het dat hy die skuldigbevinding nie kan ondersteun nie.
is die appèl gehandhaaf en die skuldigbevinding en vonnis
ter ..../22ter syde gestel met 'n aanduiding dat skriftelike redes later in-gehandig sal word. Daardie redes volg nou.Appellant en twee ander, tw Charles Duimpies en Jool Williams (ek verwys hierna na hulle as Duimpies en Jool) is op 17 April 1986 in die Provinsiale Afdeling Kaap die Goeie Hoop deur Tebbutt R en twee assessore skuldig bevind aan moord sonder versagtende omstandighede en al drie is ter dood veroordeel.
Slegs Jool het aanvanklik aansoek gedoen om verlof om teen die skuldigbevinding en vonnis te appelleer en die Verhoorregter het sodanige verlof aan hom toegestaan. Op 13 November 1986 is Jool se appèl deur hierdie Hof aangehoor en op 25 November 19.86 het hierdie Hof uitspraak gelewer en is die skuldigbevinding en vonnis, vir sover dit hóm betref, ter syde gestel. In voormelde
uitspraak word deurgaans na appellant verwys as Demas.
Uit ...../3
3
Uit die stukke blyk dit dat appellant, nadat hy
destyds skuldig bevind is, in 'n ander moordverhoor namens die
Staat moes getuig en dat hy daarna na Pretoria oorgeplaas is waar
hy in die gevangenis aangehou is. Op een of ander stadium het
hy vanuit die gevangenis in Pretoria aan Adv Marlow, wat by sy
verhoor namens hom opgetree het, 'n brief gerig waarin hy die wens uitgespreek het om teen sy skuldigbevinding en vonnis te appel-leer en die advokaat gevra het om die nodige stappe namens hom te doen. Op 21 November 1986 het Adv Marlow, namens appellant, 'n versoekskrif ingedien waarin verlof om te appelleer aangevra is. Soos vroeër vermeld,is Jool se appèl intussen deur hierdie Hof aangehoor en is uitspraak op 25 November 1986 gelewer. Op 28 November 1986 het appellant se aansoek om verlof om te appel-
leer voor Tebbutt R gedien. Die geleerde regter het kondonasie
aan .... / 4
4
aan appellant toegestaan vir die laat indiening van sy aansoek
en verlof aan hom verleen om teen sy skuldigbevinding en vonnis
te appelleer.
Die feite van die saak en die getuienis wat deur die
staatsgetuies en deur appellant en sy twee mede-beskuldigdes
tydens die verhoor afgelê is word volledig uiteengesit in hierdie
Hof se uitspraak van 25 November 1986 in Jool Williams v Die
Staat (ongerapporteer) en dit kan geen doel dien om daardie feite en die redes waarom die skuldigbevinding en vonnis van Jool ter syde gestel is te herhaal nie. Soos Tebbutt R tereg aangetoon het toe hy verlof aan appellant verleen het om te appelleer en soos trouens ook duidelik blyk uit hierdie Hof se uitspraak in Jool se saak, was die getuienis waarop laasgenoemde deur die
Verhoorhof skuldig bevind is presies dieselfde as dié waarop
appellant .... / 55appellant se skuldigbevinding berus het. Hierdie Hof het reeds
bevind dat daardie getuienis nie bo redelike twyfel bewys dat
Jool enige aandeel gehad het in die aanval op die oorledene wat
aanleiding tot die aanklag gegee het nie. Dieselfde geld vir
sover dit appellant betref.
Die skuldigbevinding en vonnis is gevolglik ter syde
gestel.
H.R. JACOBS, AR
Ek stem saam
H.J.O. VAN HEERDEN, AK
W.G. BOSHOFF, Wn AR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.