S v Masilela and Another (425/86) [1987] ZASCA 56 (27 May 1987)

S v Masilela and Another (425/86) [1987] ZASCA 56 (27 May 1987)

The court found that the identification evidence against both appellants was credible and corroborated by physical evidence, including fingerprints, possession of stolen items, and the ability to point out crime scenes. The court held that the pointing out of crime scenes and items by the appellants was admissible under section 218(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if it formed part of a confession that was otherwise inadmissible. The appellants' denials and explanations were rejected as false and unconvincing. The court concluded that the convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, murder, housebreaking, and unlawful possession of firearms were...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Richard Masilela; Appellant: Samson Mndawe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 1987
Case Number
425/86
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals by both appellants dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Grosskopf, Nestadt, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Admissibility of Confessions, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearms
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Admissibility of Confessions Joint Criminal Enterprise Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearms

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Masilela

Appellant

Samson Mndawe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification evidence was sufficient to prove the appellants' involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the pointing out of crime scenes and items by the appellants constituted admissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the statements made by the appellants amounted to inadmissible confessions under section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the identification evidence against both appellants was credible and corroborated by physical evidence, including fingerprints, possession of stolen items, and the ability to point out crime scenes. The court held that the pointing out of crime scenes and items by the appellants was admissible under section 218(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if it formed part of a confession that was otherwise inadmissible. The appellants' denials and explanations were rejected as false and unconvincing. The court concluded that the convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, murder, housebreaking, and unlawful possession of firearms were...

Court Disposition

Appeals by both appellants dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeals of both appellants against all convictions and sentences are dismissed.
  • The convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, murder, housebreaking, and unlawful possession of firearms are confirmed.