S v Jonathan and Others (425/1983) [1986] ZASCA 125; [1987] 1 All SA 386 (14 November 1986)

S v Jonathan and Others (425/1983) [1986] ZASCA 125; [1987] 1 All SA 386 (14 November 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants as accessories after the fact to murder. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt which of the accused committed the murder, nor did it prove joint action in concealing the crime or protecting the perpetrator. The court reaffirmed the principle that a person cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact to his own crime unless there is proof of joint conduct in the accessory acts. The statutory requirement under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the facts must prove the accused's guilt as an accessory, which was not satisfied in this case. The court found that the...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 125
Parties
Appellant: Frank Jonathan; Appellant: Jannie Goliath; Appellant: William Campher; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 1986
Case Number
425/1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Jansen, Joubert, Hoexter, Botha, Eloff
Legal Topics
Accessory After the Fact, Murder, Burden of Proof, Criminal Inference, Joint Enterprise
Criminal Law Accessory After the Fact Murder Burden of Proof Criminal Inference Joint Enterprise

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Jonathan

Appellant

Jannie Goliath

Appellant

William Campher

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants could be convicted as accessories after the fact to murder when it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt which of them committed the murder.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence justified a conviction for murder or for accessory after the fact.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' conduct after the crime constituted joint action amounting to accessory after the fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants as accessories after the fact to murder. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt which of the accused committed the murder, nor did it prove joint action in concealing the crime or protecting the perpetrator. The court reaffirmed the principle that a person cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact to his own crime unless there is proof of joint conduct in the accessory acts. The statutory requirement under section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the facts must prove the accused's guilt as an accessory, which was not satisfied in this case. The court found that the...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals of all three appellants are upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences of all three appellants are set aside.