S v Makhathini and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 298; A260/2021 (3 May 2023)

S v Makhathini and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 298; A260/2021 (3 May 2023)

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself in several respects, particularly in its assessment of identification evidence and the application of cautionary rules for single witnesses. The evidence on counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17 was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable identification, and unchallenged alibi defences. The State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on these counts, and the convictions and sentences were set aside. However, on counts 4 and 5, the evidence, including forensic DNA and consistent witness testimony, reliably linked the second appellant to the offences of rape and robbery, and those convictions and sentences were...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 298
Parties
Appellant: Sihle Makhathini; Appellant: Luthando Ndwandwe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2023
Case Number
A260/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal upheld in respect of convictions and sentences on counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17; convictions and sentences set aside. Appeal dismissed in respect of conviction and sentence on count 5; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Leso, Nyathi
Legal Topics
Rape, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence, Minimum Sentences, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Identification Evidence Alibi Defence Minimum Sentences Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Sihle Makhathini

Appellant

Luthando Ndwandwe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the appellants on counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17 were supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in assessing identification evidence and the application of cautionary rules for single witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and whether substantial and compelling circumstances existed to deviate from minimum sentences.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself in several respects, particularly in its assessment of identification evidence and the application of cautionary rules for single witnesses. The evidence on counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17 was riddled with inconsistencies, unreliable identification, and unchallenged alibi defences. The State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on these counts, and the convictions and sentences were set aside. However, on counts 4 and 5, the evidence, including forensic DNA and consistent witness testimony, reliably linked the second appellant to the offences of rape and robbery, and those convictions and sentences were...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in respect of convictions and sentences on counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17; convictions and sentences set aside. Appeal dismissed in respect of conviction and sentence on count 5; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal against the conviction of both appellants on count 1 and count 2 is upheld and the sentences imposed are set aside.
  • Appeal against the conviction of the second appellant on count 3 and count 7 is upheld and the sentences imposed are set aside.