S v Maleta and Others (336/89) [1990] ZASCA 80 (31 August 1990)

S v Maleta and Others (336/89) [1990] ZASCA 80 (31 August 1990)

The court found that the State's evidence did not go beyond placing the appellants at the scene before the unlawful conduct began. There was no evidence that the appellants participated in the violence or acted in concert with the crowd. The fact that they were present on campus was consistent with innocence. The magistrate erred in inferring guilt from their silence, as no prima facie case was established. Therefore, the convictions and sentences could not stand.

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 80
Parties
Appellant: Peter Maleta; Appellant: Victor Mamobolo; Appellant: Evans Marokani; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 1990
Case Number
336/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Hoexter, F H Grosskopf, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Public Violence, Common Purpose, Identification Evidence, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Public Violence Common Purpose Identification Evidence 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Maleta

Appellant

Victor Mamobolo

Appellant

Evans Marokani

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in public violence.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established common purpose between the appellants and the crowd.
  3. 3 Whether mere presence at the scene suffices for conviction on public violence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State's evidence did not go beyond placing the appellants at the scene before the unlawful conduct began. There was no evidence that the appellants participated in the violence or acted in concert with the crowd. The fact that they were present on campus was consistent with innocence. The magistrate erred in inferring guilt from their silence, as no prima facie case was established. Therefore, the convictions and sentences could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside.