S v Erasmus (618/2004) [2005] ZASCA 70; 2005 (2) SACR 658 (SCA) (6 September 2005)

S v Erasmus (618/2004) [2005] ZASCA 70; 2005 (2) SACR 658 (SCA) (6 September 2005)

The court held that, even accepting the appellant's claim that he was told the acid would only cause minor redness, it was implausible that he genuinely believed this without considering the possibility of serious injury. Human experience dictates that acid thrown into the face is likely to cause dramatic harm, especially to the eyes and skin. The appellant's actions, including seeking a substitute to carry out the attack and accepting substantial rewards, further undermine his claim of ignorance. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant at least foresaw the possibility of serious injury and reconciled himself with that outcome, satisfying the requirements of dolus...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 70
Parties
Appellant: Norman William Erasmus; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2005
Case Number
618/2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm upheld.
Judges
SCOTT, BRAND, COMBRINCK
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Admissibility of Self Exculpatory Statements, Mens Rea, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Admissibility of Self Exculpatory Statements Mens Rea Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman William Erasmus

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the subjective intent to cause serious injury when throwing acid in the complainant's face.
  2. 2 Whether self-exculpatory portions of extra-curial statements are admissible and credible.
  3. 3 Whether dolus eventualis suffices for conviction of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, even accepting the appellant's claim that he was told the acid would only cause minor redness, it was implausible that he genuinely believed this without considering the possibility of serious injury. Human experience dictates that acid thrown into the face is likely to cause dramatic harm, especially to the eyes and skin. The appellant's actions, including seeking a substitute to carry out the attack and accepting substantial rewards, further undermine his claim of ignorance. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant at least foresaw the possibility of serious injury and reconciled himself with that outcome, satisfying the requirements of dolus...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm stands.