S v Lackay (23/84) [1984] ZASCA 26 (26 March 1984)

S v Lackay (23/84) [1984] ZASCA 26 (26 March 1984)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court was justified in accepting the evidence of the State witnesses, particularly Rochelle van Dyk and Catherine Grobbelaar, whose accounts of the fatal assault were corroborated and consistent with the medical evidence. The affidavits submitted in support of the application to lead further evidence did not provide a reasonably acceptable explanation for their absence at trial, nor would they presumably be accepted as true, as they were disputed and lacked credibility. The alleged irregularities concerning witness interference by the investigating officer were unsupported by factual evidence and were considered frivolous. The appellant was...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 26
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Lackay; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 1984
Case Number
23/84
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Applications for Leave to Lead Further Evidence and for Special Entry
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for special entry and to lead further evidence refused.
Judges
Viljoen, Howard, Hefer
Legal Topics
Murder, Extenuating Circumstances, Admissibility of Further Evidence, Special Entry, Witness Credibility
Criminal Law Murder Extenuating Circumstances Admissibility of Further Evidence Special Entry Witness Credibility

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Lackay

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Applications for Leave to Lead Further Evidence and for Special Entry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of murder against the appellant should stand.
  2. 2 Whether there were extenuating circumstances to avoid the death sentence.
  3. 3 Whether further evidence should be admitted on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court was justified in accepting the evidence of the State witnesses, particularly Rochelle van Dyk and Catherine Grobbelaar, whose accounts of the fatal assault were corroborated and consistent with the medical evidence. The affidavits submitted in support of the application to lead further evidence did not provide a reasonably acceptable explanation for their absence at trial, nor would they presumably be accepted as true, as they were disputed and lacked credibility. The alleged irregularities concerning witness interference by the investigating officer were unsupported by factual evidence and were considered frivolous. The appellant was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for special entry and to lead further evidence refused.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
  • The application for a special entry is refused.