S v Maseko (65/87) [1987] ZASCA 63 (29 May 1987)

S v Maseko (65/87) [1987] ZASCA 63 (29 May 1987)

The court found that both complainants had ample opportunity to observe the appellant during the commission of the robbery and that their identification of him was reliable. The absence of a formal identification parade did not undermine the reliability of their evidence, as they had previously identified the appellant and his co-accused outside the court among other people. The appellant's alibi was only raised late in the proceedings and was not supported by any independent evidence, such as the employment register or testimony from his employer. The appellant did not instruct his legal representative to pursue the alibi or to cross-examine the complainants on this point. The court held...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Robert Maseko; Respondent: Die Staat
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1987
Case Number
65/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Judges
Rabie, Boshoff, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Robbery, Identification Evidence, Alibi Defence, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Robbery Identification Evidence Alibi Defence Burden 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Maseko

Appellant

Die Staat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification of the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's alibi defence was credible and adequately raised at trial.
  3. 3 Whether the State bore any duty to produce employment register evidence to rebut the alibi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both complainants had ample opportunity to observe the appellant during the commission of the robbery and that their identification of him was reliable. The absence of a formal identification parade did not undermine the reliability of their evidence, as they had previously identified the appellant and his co-accused outside the court among other people. The appellant's alibi was only raised late in the proceedings and was not supported by any independent evidence, such as the employment register or testimony from his employer. The appellant did not instruct his legal representative to pursue the alibi or to cross-examine the complainants on this point. The court held...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction of the appellant is confirmed.