S v Mohlomi Pii (57/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 216 (5 December 2013)

S v Mohlomi Pii (57/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 216 (5 December 2013)

The court held that the trial judge's refusal to apply the doctrine of recent possession solely because accused 2 was not apprehended in actual possession of the stolen vehicle was potentially a mistake of law. The doctrine may apply where an accused is seen in possession of stolen property soon after the crime, even if not caught red-handed. The video evidence placed accused 2 in possession of the vehicle within hours of the crime, and his explanation was rejected. The court found that there is a reasonable possibility that another court may find the trial judge erred in his application of the doctrine and in failing to draw the necessary inferences from the proven facts and...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 216
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Joshua Mohlomi Pii
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2013
Case Number
57/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act After Acquittal at Trial.
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; three questions of law reserved for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Judges
Daffue
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Recent Possession, Acquittal on Mistake of Law, Circumstantial Evidence, Application of S319, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Doctrine of Recent Possession Acquittal on Mistake of Law Circumstantial Evidence Application of S319 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Joshua Mohlomi Pii

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act After Acquittal at Trial.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in his application of the doctrine of recent possession.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge correctly acquitted accused 2 based on the finding that he was not found in possession of the robbed vehicle and whether an inference should have been drawn under the doctrine of recent possession.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in finding that there was no circumstantial or direct evidence proving the guilt of accused 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the trial judge's refusal to apply the doctrine of recent possession solely because accused 2 was not apprehended in actual possession of the stolen vehicle was potentially a mistake of law. The doctrine may apply where an accused is seen in possession of stolen property soon after the crime, even if not caught red-handed. The video evidence placed accused 2 in possession of the vehicle within hours of the crime, and his explanation was rejected. The court found that there is a reasonable possibility that another court may find the trial judge erred in his application of the doctrine and in failing to draw the necessary inferences from the proven facts and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; three questions of law reserved for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in terms of s 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, is granted.
  • The following questions of law are reserved for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal: (1) Did the acting trial judge err in his application of the doctrine of recent possession? (2) Did the acting trial judge apply the law correctly in acquitting accused 2 in respect of all charges based on his finding that...