S v Leo and Another (332/1986) [1987] ZASCA 38 (31 March 1987)

S v Leo and Another (332/1986) [1987] ZASCA 38 (31 March 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the new evidence presented by Fatima Wildschut and the appellants themselves. This evidence established that the deceased attacked the second appellant with a knife, and the first appellant fired two shots, the second of which was fatal. The court held that the first shot was justified as self-defence, but the second shot, fired in a highly stressful and fluid situation, was negligent rather than intentional. There was no evidence that the first appellant aimed deliberately to kill, nor that the deceased was fleeing at the time. The second appellant was exonerated, as there was no credible evidence of...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 38
Parties
Appellant: Mogamat Leo; Appellant: Goolam Hassan; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1987
Case Number
332/1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Was Granted
Outcome
Appeal of first appellant succeeds in part; conviction for murder and death sentence set aside and replaced with culpable homicide and suspended sentence. Appeal of second appellant succeeds in full; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Botha, Nestadt, Steyn WN
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Murder, Self Defence, Adducing Further Evidence, Gang Related Violence
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Murder Self Defence Adducing Further Evidence Gang Related Violence

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

Parties

Mogamat Leo

Appellant

Goolam Hassan

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Was Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of murder against the appellants were justified on the evidence as supplemented by further testimony.
  2. 2 Whether the first appellant acted with intent to kill or was negligent in firing the fatal shot.
  3. 3 Whether the second appellant was criminally liable for the death of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the new evidence presented by Fatima Wildschut and the appellants themselves. This evidence established that the deceased attacked the second appellant with a knife, and the first appellant fired two shots, the second of which was fatal. The court held that the first shot was justified as self-defence, but the second shot, fired in a highly stressful and fluid situation, was negligent rather than intentional. There was no evidence that the first appellant aimed deliberately to kill, nor that the deceased was fleeing at the time. The second appellant was exonerated, as there was no credible evidence of...

Court Disposition

Appeal of first appellant succeeds in part; conviction for murder and death sentence set aside and replaced with culpable homicide and suspended sentence. Appeal of second appellant succeeds in full; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal of the first appellant succeeds in part.
  • The conviction for murder and the death sentence imposed on the first appellant are set aside and replaced with a conviction for culpable homicide and a sentence of two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that he is not convicted of murder or culpable homicide involving assault within...