S v Jordaan en 'n Ander (162/91) [1991] ZASCA 191 (29 November 1991)

S v Jordaan en 'n Ander (162/91) [1991] ZASCA 191 (29 November 1991)

The court held that the change in the law regarding the death penalty and the burden of proof for mitigating circumstances justifies the admission of new evidence that may be relevant to sentencing. The appellants did not lead evidence on mitigating factors at trial because the previous legal position required them to discharge a heavier burden. Under the new regime, it is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of mitigating factors. The proposed evidence from a clinical psychologist concerning the appellants' backgrounds and personalities is relevant and may influence the sentence. The court found that the requirements for admitting new evidence, as set out in S v...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 191
Parties
Appellant: Raymond Jordaan; Appellant: Selwyn Saayman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 1991
Case Number
162/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Reconsideration Under New Statutory Regime
Outcome
Appeal succeeds to the extent that the death sentences are set aside and the matter is remitted for further evidence and resentencing.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Goldstone, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Death Penalty Reconsideration, Mitigating Factors, Burden of Proof, Sentencing Procedure
Criminal Law Death Penalty Reconsideration Mitigating Factors Burden of Proof Sentencing Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Jordaan

Appellant

Selwyn Saayman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Reconsideration Under New Statutory Regime

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be permitted to lead further evidence on mitigating factors following the change in the law regarding the death penalty.
  2. 2 Whether the change in the burden of proof for mitigating circumstances justifies the admission of new evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed evidence could reasonably lead to a different sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the change in the law regarding the death penalty and the burden of proof for mitigating circumstances justifies the admission of new evidence that may be relevant to sentencing. The appellants did not lead evidence on mitigating factors at trial because the previous legal position required them to discharge a heavier burden. Under the new regime, it is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of mitigating factors. The proposed evidence from a clinical psychologist concerning the appellants' backgrounds and personalities is relevant and may influence the sentence. The court found that the requirements for admitting new evidence, as set out in S v...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds to the extent that the death sentences are set aside and the matter is remitted for further evidence and resentencing.

Orders

  • The death sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial court with instructions to hear any further evidence presented by the appellants or the State regarding the appellants' personalities and mental states insofar as it may affect their culpability for the murder committed.