S v Henry (246/97) [1998] ZASCA 109; [1999] 1 All SA 290 (A) (27 November 1998)

S v Henry (246/97) [1998] ZASCA 109; [1999] 1 All SA 290 (A) (27 November 1998)

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a factual basis for the defence of psychogenic automatism. There was no evidence of an extraordinary emotional stimulus or trigger mechanism capable of inducing automatism. The appellant's behaviour, including aiming and firing at both victims and his subsequent avoidance actions, indicated conscious and goal-directed conduct. The expert evidence presented by the appellant was unconvincing, and the appellant's own account of his emotions was inconsistent and did not support the defence. The natural inference of voluntariness was not displaced, and the evidence did not establish a reasonable possibility that the appellant acted...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 109
Parties
Respondent: S; Appellant: Henry
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1998
Case Number
246/97
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions on all counts confirmed.
Judges
Scott JA
Legal Topics
Murder, Automatism, Actus Reus, Psychogenic Amnesia, Onus of Proof, Arms and Ammunition Act
Criminal Law Murder Automatism Actus Reus Psychogenic Amnesia Onus of Proof Arms and Ammunition Act

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Respondent

Henry

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in a state of psychogenic automatism at the time of the killings and thus lacked criminal responsibility.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established a reasonable possibility that the appellant's conduct was involuntary and unconscious.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a trigger mechanism and the appellant's behaviour indicated conscious, goal-directed conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a factual basis for the defence of psychogenic automatism. There was no evidence of an extraordinary emotional stimulus or trigger mechanism capable of inducing automatism. The appellant's behaviour, including aiming and firing at both victims and his subsequent avoidance actions, indicated conscious and goal-directed conduct. The expert evidence presented by the appellant was unconvincing, and the appellant's own account of his emotions was inconsistent and did not support the defence. The natural inference of voluntariness was not displaced, and the evidence did not establish a reasonable possibility that the appellant acted...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions on all counts confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The convictions on two counts of murder and one count of pointing a firearm are confirmed.