S v Martin en 'n Ander (350/94) [1997] ZASCA 102 (21 November 1997)

S v Martin en 'n Ander (350/94) [1997] ZASCA 102 (21 November 1997)

The court found that the appellants, as joint commanders of the AWB group, acted with a common purpose to kill the victims at the makeshift roadblock. The evidence established that the attack was premeditated and executed with direct intent (dolus directus). The defence of necessity was rejected as a late fabrication, unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by the appellants' own prior statements. Ballistic evidence linked the second appellant's revolver to wounds sustained by the deceased, further implicating him. The court held that the convictions for murder and attempted murder were correct. However, in light of the abolition of the death penalty, the death sentences imposed were...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Deon Martin; Appellant: Philippus Cornelius Kloppers; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 1997
Case Number
350/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against death sentences upheld; matter remitted for re-sentencing.
Judges
Nienaber, Schutz, Plewman
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Common Purpose, Dolus Directus, Defence of Necessity, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Common Purpose Dolus Directus Defence of Necessity Sentencing

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deon Martin

Appellant

Philippus Cornelius Kloppers

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of murder and attempted murder under the doctrine of common purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of necessity (private defence) was reasonably possible on the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the death sentences imposed were appropriate and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants, as joint commanders of the AWB group, acted with a common purpose to kill the victims at the makeshift roadblock. The evidence established that the attack was premeditated and executed with direct intent (dolus directus). The defence of necessity was rejected as a late fabrication, unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by the appellants' own prior statements. Ballistic evidence linked the second appellant's revolver to wounds sustained by the deceased, further implicating him. The court held that the convictions for murder and attempted murder were correct. However, in light of the abolition of the death penalty, the death sentences imposed were...

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against death sentences upheld; matter remitted for re-sentencing.

Orders

  • The appeals against convictions on counts 1 to 10 are dismissed.
  • The appeals against the death sentences on counts 1 to 4 are upheld and such sentences are set aside.