S v Nel (118/87) [1987] ZASCA 116; [1988] 1 All SA 363 (A) (29 September 1987)

S v Nel (118/87) [1987] ZASCA 116; [1988] 1 All SA 363 (A) (29 September 1987)

The court held that the application for remittal to lead further evidence failed to meet the established requirements. There was no reasonably sufficient explanation for the absence of the proposed evidence at trial, as the witnesses were available and the failure to call them was not adequately justified. The evidence sought to be introduced was not materially relevant to the outcome, as the central issues of credibility and the events at the scene were thoroughly canvassed and corroborated by independent witnesses. The negative spermatozoa test did not materially affect the outcome, given its inconclusive nature and the possibility of penetration without ejaculation. The evidence of...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 116
Parties
Appellant: David John Nel; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1987
Case Number
118/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application for Remittal for Further Evidence; Sentence Reconsideration
Outcome
Application for remittal and setting aside of conviction and sentence refused; appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed.
Judges
Corbett, Viljoen, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Credibility of Witnesses, Sentencing Principles, Application for Remittal, Spermatozoa Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence on Appeal Credibility of Witnesses Sentencing Principles Application for Remittal Spermatozoa Evidence

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Nel

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application for Remittal for Further Evidence; Sentence Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for rape should be set aside and the matter remitted for the hearing of further evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate and should be interfered with on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for remittal to lead further evidence failed to meet the established requirements. There was no reasonably sufficient explanation for the absence of the proposed evidence at trial, as the witnesses were available and the failure to call them was not adequately justified. The evidence sought to be introduced was not materially relevant to the outcome, as the central issues of credibility and the events at the scene were thoroughly canvassed and corroborated by independent witnesses. The negative spermatozoa test did not materially affect the outcome, given its inconclusive nature and the possibility of penetration without ejaculation. The evidence of...

Court Disposition

Application for remittal and setting aside of conviction and sentence refused; appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed.

Orders

  • The application for the setting aside of the conviction and sentence and for the remittal of the matter for the hearing of further evidence is refused.
  • The appeal against the conviction is dismissed.