S v Herman (A679/2009) [2010] ZAGPJHC 34; 2010 (2) SACR 263 (GSJ) (6 May 2010)

S v Herman (A679/2009) [2010] ZAGPJHC 34; 2010 (2) SACR 263 (GSJ) (6 May 2010)

The court found that the evidence, particularly the expert medical testimony, excluded every reasonable inference other than that the appellant inflicted the fatal injuries on the child. The appellant's explanations were inconsistent and failed to disturb the conclusions drawn from the totality of the evidence. The conviction on the first count of assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm was upheld, as the appellant was the sole caregiver at the relevant time and the injury would have been obvious. The conviction on the fourth count of culpable homicide was also upheld, as the symptoms of the fatal injury would have been apparent and the appellant's version was not credible....

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 34
Parties
Appellant: Zaibonisha Herman; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2010
Case Number
A679/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction on counts one and four dismissed; appeal against conviction on counts two and three upheld; convictions on counts two and three set aside; sentences on counts one and four set aside; matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration of sentence.
Judges
N.P. Willis, M. Randera
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Assault With Intent to Commit Grievous Bodily Harm, Adoption, Mens Rea, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Family and Children Culpable Homicide Assault With Intent to Commit Grievous Bodily Harm Adoption Mens Rea Sentencing Discretion

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaibonisha Herman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was the only person who could have inflicted the fatal injuries resulting in the death of the child.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions on counts two and three (assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm) were sustainable on the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed should be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence, particularly the expert medical testimony, excluded every reasonable inference other than that the appellant inflicted the fatal injuries on the child. The appellant's explanations were inconsistent and failed to disturb the conclusions drawn from the totality of the evidence. The conviction on the first count of assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm was upheld, as the appellant was the sole caregiver at the relevant time and the injury would have been obvious. The conviction on the fourth count of culpable homicide was also upheld, as the symptoms of the fatal injury would have been apparent and the appellant's version was not credible....

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction on counts one and four dismissed; appeal against conviction on counts two and three upheld; convictions on counts two and three set aside; sentences on counts one and four set aside; matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration of sentence.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction in respect of counts 1 and 4 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against conviction on counts 2 and 3 is upheld.