S v Morake (58/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 94 (15 June 2017)

S v Morake (58/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 94 (15 June 2017)

The High Court found that the incomplete record did not prejudice the accused or result in a failure of justice. The evidence, particularly the testimony of Mrs Maarman and Constable Smith, was evaluated holistically and found to be credible and satisfactory in all material respects. The accused's version was rejected as improbable and mendacious. The Magistrate's finding that the State proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt was upheld. The sentence imposed was competent in terms of section 276(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the reference to the incorrect subsection was corrected. The conviction and amended sentence were confirmed.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 94
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Lobisi Morake
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Case Number
58/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Review of Regional Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction and sentence confirmed; sentence amended to reference correct subsection.
Judges
N. Snellenburg, J. P. Daffue
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Purpose, Sentencing Error, Incomplete Record, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Murder Common Purpose Sentencing Error Incomplete Record Criminal Procedure 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Lobisi Morake

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Review of Regional Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the incomplete record prejudiced the accused or resulted in a failure of justice.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for murder was justified on the evidence presented.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was competent in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the incomplete record did not prejudice the accused or result in a failure of justice. The evidence, particularly the testimony of Mrs Maarman and Constable Smith, was evaluated holistically and found to be credible and satisfactory in all material respects. The accused's version was rejected as improbable and mendacious. The Magistrate's finding that the State proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt was upheld. The sentence imposed was competent in terms of section 276(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the reference to the incorrect subsection was corrected. The conviction and amended sentence were confirmed.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence confirmed; sentence amended to reference correct subsection.

Orders

  • The conviction is confirmed.
  • The sentence is amended to read: 'In terms of section 276(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 the accused is sentenced to 6 (six) years imprisonment', and is confirmed.