S v Hendricks (SS.153/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 85 (14 May 2003)

S v Hendricks (SS.153/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 85 (14 May 2003)

The court found the evidence of Michelle Armstrong, though not perfect, to be credible and materially corroborated by other witnesses and forensic findings. The accused's denials were rejected as false, and their explanations for Armstrong's testimony were found to be improbable and unsupported by evidence. The court held that the accused acted with common purpose, were armed, and intentionally killed the deceased persons. The requirements for murder and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. However, the State failed to prove the charge of aggravated robbery beyond reasonable doubt, as there was insufficient evidence regarding the removal...

Citation
[2003] ZAWCHC 85
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Virgil Hendricks; Respondent: Garth Meyer; Respondent: Lindsay Jansen
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Case Number
SS.153/2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
All three accused acquitted on the charge of aggravated robbery; convicted on two counts of murder and two counts of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.
Judges
Griesel
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Single Witness Rule, Common Purpose
Criminal Law Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearms Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Single Witness Rule Common Purpose

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Virgil Hendricks

Respondent

Garth Meyer

Respondent

Lindsay Jansen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused are guilty of murder of the deceased persons.
  2. 2 Whether the accused are guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.
  3. 3 Whether the accused are guilty of aggravated robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the evidence of Michelle Armstrong, though not perfect, to be credible and materially corroborated by other witnesses and forensic findings. The accused's denials were rejected as false, and their explanations for Armstrong's testimony were found to be improbable and unsupported by evidence. The court held that the accused acted with common purpose, were armed, and intentionally killed the deceased persons. The requirements for murder and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. However, the State failed to prove the charge of aggravated robbery beyond reasonable doubt, as there was insufficient evidence regarding the removal...

Court Disposition

All three accused acquitted on the charge of aggravated robbery; convicted on two counts of murder and two counts of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

Orders

  • The accused are found not guilty on the charge of aggravated robbery and discharged.
  • The accused are found guilty as charged on two counts of murder.