S v Lombaard (CA&R 62/12) [2013] ZANCHC 1 (8 February 2013)

S v Lombaard (CA&R 62/12) [2013] ZANCHC 1 (8 February 2013)

The court found that the appellant's version of events was an afterthought and a fabrication, lacking credibility and not supported by the evidence. The magistrate correctly convicted the appellant of crimen injuria. However, the State failed to prove that the appellant assaulted the complainant with intent to do grievous bodily harm, as there was no medical evidence or proof of serious injury. The conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was set aside and replaced with a conviction for common assault. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate and was not disturbed.

Citation
[2013] ZANCHC 1
Parties
Appellant: Francois Arnoldus Lombaard; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2013
Case Number
CA&R 62/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction on count 1 (crimen injuria) dismissed; appeal against conviction on count 2 (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm) upheld and replaced with conviction of assault common; sentence confirmed.
Judges
BM Pakati, W Coetzee
Legal Topics
Crimen Injuria, Assault Common, Appeal Principles, Mutually Destructive Versions
Criminal Law Crimen Injuria Assault Common Appeal Principles Mutually Destructive Versions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois Arnoldus Lombaard

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted of crimen injuria.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate misdirected himself in evaluating the evidence and probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's version of events was an afterthought and a fabrication, lacking credibility and not supported by the evidence. The magistrate correctly convicted the appellant of crimen injuria. However, the State failed to prove that the appellant assaulted the complainant with intent to do grievous bodily harm, as there was no medical evidence or proof of serious injury. The conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was set aside and replaced with a conviction for common assault. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate and was not disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction on count 1 (crimen injuria) dismissed; appeal against conviction on count 2 (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm) upheld and replaced with conviction of assault common; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction on count 1 (crimen injuria) is dismissed.
  • The appeal against conviction on count 2 (assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm) succeeds.