S v Leeuw (70/86) [1987] ZASCA 37; [1987] 2 All SA 201 (A) (31 March 1987)

S v Leeuw (70/86) [1987] ZASCA 37; [1987] 2 All SA 201 (A) (31 March 1987)

The court held that the appellant was properly convicted on all charges. The psychiatric evidence from 1978, which found the appellant unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible, was based on simulation and deception by the appellant. Subsequent psychiatric assessments established that the appellant was of average intelligence, not suffering from schizophrenia or any mental defect, and was fit to stand trial and criminally responsible at the time of the offences. The procedural requirements for psychiatric observation and trial were met, and the Attorney-General's dual role did not constitute a conflict of interest or abuse of process. The confessions (P1 and P2) were made...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: Willem Leeuw; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1987
Case Number
70/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Mental Capacity, Onus of Proof, Admissibility of Confession, Murder, Attempted Murder, Housebreaking and Theft
Criminal Law Mental Capacity Onus of Proof Admissibility of Confession Murder Attempted Murder Housebreaking and Theft

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

Parties

Willem Leeuw

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted on charges of housebreaking, theft, murder, and attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was criminally responsible at the time of the offences due to alleged mental incapacity.
  3. 3 Whether the confessions (P1 and P2) were admissible as evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was properly convicted on all charges. The psychiatric evidence from 1978, which found the appellant unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible, was based on simulation and deception by the appellant. Subsequent psychiatric assessments established that the appellant was of average intelligence, not suffering from schizophrenia or any mental defect, and was fit to stand trial and criminally responsible at the time of the offences. The procedural requirements for psychiatric observation and trial were met, and the Attorney-General's dual role did not constitute a conflict of interest or abuse of process. The confessions (P1 and P2) were made...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The order for appellant to be held as an unconvicted prisoner pending appeal lapses upon delivery of this judgment.