S v Jones and Another (112/00) [2001] ZAGPHC 10 (23 March 2001)

S v Jones and Another (112/00) [2001] ZAGPHC 10 (23 March 2001)

The court found that both accused 1 and 2 were present at the scene and participated in the robbery at Waterloo Supermarket. Eyewitness testimony was consistent and corroborated by accomplice and independent witnesses, establishing that accused 1 pointed a firearm, demanded money, and shot Mr Frangos during the robbery. The court rejected the accused's versions as improbable and inconsistent with the evidence. The doctrine of common purpose applied to both accused for the robbery and murder charges, as they acted in concert and foresaw the possibility of fatal consequences. Accused 1 was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, while accused 2 was acquitted on...

Citation
[2001] ZAGPHC 10
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mervyn Stanley Jones; Defendant: Herold George
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Case Number
112/00
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Both accused 1 and 2 are found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder. Accused 1 is found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition; accused 2 is acquitted on these counts.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder, Common Purpose, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
Criminal Law Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Common Purpose Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mervyn Stanley Jones

Defendant

Herold George

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused 1 and 2 were guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances at Waterloo Supermarket.
  2. 2 Whether accused 1 and 2 were guilty of the murder of Mr Frangos.
  3. 3 Whether accused 1 and 2 unlawfully possessed a firearm and ammunition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both accused 1 and 2 were present at the scene and participated in the robbery at Waterloo Supermarket. Eyewitness testimony was consistent and corroborated by accomplice and independent witnesses, establishing that accused 1 pointed a firearm, demanded money, and shot Mr Frangos during the robbery. The court rejected the accused's versions as improbable and inconsistent with the evidence. The doctrine of common purpose applied to both accused for the robbery and murder charges, as they acted in concert and foresaw the possibility of fatal consequences. Accused 1 was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, while accused 2 was acquitted on...

Court Disposition

Both accused 1 and 2 are found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder. Accused 1 is found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition; accused 2 is acquitted on these counts.

Orders

  • Accused 1 and 2 are convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances as charged.
  • Accused 1 and 2 are convicted of murder as charged.