S v Maluleke (253/89) [1989] ZASCA 146 (20 November 1989)

S v Maluleke (253/89) [1989] ZASCA 146 (20 November 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant, Reynos Dokotela Maluleke, was not criminally responsible for the acts of murder and attempted murder due to a mental defect diagnosed as schizophrenic disturbance. The psychiatric evidence, including the final report and testimony of Dr Olivier, established that the appellant was unable to act in accordance with the distinction between right and wrong at the time of the offences. Both parties agreed that the convictions and sentences should be set aside. The court exercised its powers under section 322(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Act to set aside the convictions and sentences and substituted a verdict of not guilty by...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 146
Parties
Appellant: Reynos Dokotela Maluleke; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 1989
Case Number
253/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; verdict of not guilty by reason of mental defect substituted; appellant to be detained pending State President's decision.
Judges
Botha, Smalberger, Friedman
Legal Topics
Criminal Capacity, Mental Defect, Insanity Verdict, Criminal Procedure Act, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Capacity Mental Defect Insanity Verdict Criminal Procedure Act 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reynos Dokotela Maluleke

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was criminally responsible for the acts charged, given his mental state at the time of the offences.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences should be set aside in light of new psychiatric evidence.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate order under section 78(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant, Reynos Dokotela Maluleke, was not criminally responsible for the acts of murder and attempted murder due to a mental defect diagnosed as schizophrenic disturbance. The psychiatric evidence, including the final report and testimony of Dr Olivier, established that the appellant was unable to act in accordance with the distinction between right and wrong at the time of the offences. Both parties agreed that the convictions and sentences should be set aside. The court exercised its powers under section 322(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Act to set aside the convictions and sentences and substituted a verdict of not guilty by...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; verdict of not guilty by reason of mental defect substituted; appellant to be detained pending State President's decision.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds, and the convictions and sentences of the appellant on both counts are set aside.
  • There is substituted for the judgment of the court a quo a verdict of not guilty on both counts by reason of mental defect.