S v Laubscher (483/85) [1987] ZASCA 122; [1988] 1 All SA 378 (A) (30 September 1987)

S v Laubscher (483/85) [1987] ZASCA 122; [1988] 1 All SA 378 (A) (30 September 1987)

The court held that the appellant failed to establish temporary non-pathological incapacity at the time of the offences. The expert evidence was not unanimous, and the trial court correctly evaluated both the psychiatric testimony and the objective facts. The appellant's conduct during and after the incident demonstrated awareness and control, indicating that he retained both the ability to distinguish right from wrong and the willpower to act accordingly. The court found that, although the appellant was under extreme stress and his capacity was diminished, he was not wholly deprived of criminal capacity. Regarding count 5 (attempted murder of his child), the court found that the State...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 122
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Bobby Laubscher; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 1987
Case Number
483/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part: conviction and sentence on count 5 (attempted murder of child) set aside; appeal dismissed on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4; sentences on counts 1-4 substituted.
Judges
Joubert, Botha, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Criminal Capacity, Temporary Non Pathological Incapacity, Mens Rea, Sentencing, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Criminal Capacity Temporary Non Pathological Incapacity Mens Rea Sentencing Onus of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Bobby Laubscher

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was criminally responsible at the time of the offences due to alleged temporary non-pathological incapacity.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court properly evaluated expert psychiatric and psychological evidence regarding the appellant's mental state.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had the necessary intent (dolus eventualis) to attempt to murder his child (count 5).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to establish temporary non-pathological incapacity at the time of the offences. The expert evidence was not unanimous, and the trial court correctly evaluated both the psychiatric testimony and the objective facts. The appellant's conduct during and after the incident demonstrated awareness and control, indicating that he retained both the ability to distinguish right from wrong and the willpower to act accordingly. The court found that, although the appellant was under extreme stress and his capacity was diminished, he was not wholly deprived of criminal capacity. Regarding count 5 (attempted murder of his child), the court found that the State...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part: conviction and sentence on count 5 (attempted murder of child) set aside; appeal dismissed on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4; sentences on counts 1-4 substituted.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence on count 5 (attempted murder of child) are set aside.
  • The appeal against convictions on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 is dismissed.