S v Mokone (CAB1/2009) [2010] ZANWHC 19 (30 September 2010)

S v Mokone (CAB1/2009) [2010] ZANWHC 19 (30 September 2010)

The court found that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent regarding her condition at the time of the alleged offence and her capacity to consent. The testimony of a key witness, Mathlogomolo, did not support the complainant's version that the appellant was supposed to take her home, and instead suggested that the complainant intended to return to the resort. The appellant's version, that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that he did not penetrate the complainant while she was asleep, was found to be reasonably possibly true. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to intercourse. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence could...

Citation
[2010] ZANWHC 19
Parties
Appellant: Tsholofelo Mokone; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2010
Case Number
CAB1/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
A A Landman, D I Matlhapeng
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Mens Rea, Criminal Procedure, Sexual Offences Act
Criminal Law Rape Consent Mens Rea Criminal Procedure Sexual Offences Act

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsholofelo Mokone

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse with the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant possessed the requisite mens rea for the offence of rape.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence were justified on the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant's evidence was inconsistent regarding her condition at the time of the alleged offence and her capacity to consent. The testimony of a key witness, Mathlogomolo, did not support the complainant's version that the appellant was supposed to take her home, and instead suggested that the complainant intended to return to the resort. The appellant's version, that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that he did not penetrate the complainant while she was asleep, was found to be reasonably possibly true. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to intercourse. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence could...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction and sentence is upheld.