S v Dreyer and Another (227/88) [1989] ZASCA 24 (23 March 1989)

S v Dreyer and Another (227/88) [1989] ZASCA 24 (23 March 1989)

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to convict either appellant on charges 1, 2, 3, and 11, and that the State conceded this point. For the remaining charges, the first appellant was properly identified and his confession corroborated his involvement in the housebreakings, robberies, and murders. The second appellant's conviction was based almost exclusively on his confession, which only implicated him in the housebreaking at Maria Barnes' residence (charge 10), and not in the other offences. The trial court erred in drawing inferences from the appellants' friendship and living arrangements to justify convictions on other charges. The cumulative sentences imposed on the...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 24
Parties
Appellant: Freddie Dreyer; Appellant: Hermanus Moses; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 1989
Case Number
227/88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Convictions and sentences on certain charges set aside; sentences on remaining charges adjusted.
Judges
Van Heerden, Kumleben, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Murder, Rape, Robbery, Joint Enterprise, Sentencing
Criminal Law Housebreaking Murder Rape Robbery Joint Enterprise Sentencing

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

Parties

Freddie Dreyer

Appellant

Hermanus Moses

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict both appellants on all charges.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were justified.
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to convict either appellant on charges 1, 2, 3, and 11, and that the State conceded this point. For the remaining charges, the first appellant was properly identified and his confession corroborated his involvement in the housebreakings, robberies, and murders. The second appellant's conviction was based almost exclusively on his confession, which only implicated him in the housebreaking at Maria Barnes' residence (charge 10), and not in the other offences. The trial court erred in drawing inferences from the appellants' friendship and living arrangements to justify convictions on other charges. The cumulative sentences imposed on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Convictions and sentences on certain charges set aside; sentences on remaining charges adjusted.

Orders

  • The appeal against convictions and sentences on charges 1, 2, 3, and 11 for the first appellant succeeds; those convictions and sentences are set aside.
  • The appeal against convictions and sentences on the remaining charges for the first appellant is dismissed, but the sentences on charges 4, 5, and 6 are to run concurrently, and those on charges 7, 8, and 9 are also to run concurrently, resulting in a total effective sentence of 25 years' imprisonment.