S v Ratel (K/S 17A/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 75 (21 June 2024)

S v Ratel (K/S 17A/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 75 (21 June 2024)

The court found that the accused's alibi was vague, unsubstantiated, and disclosed late, and was contradicted by credible witness testimony and forensic evidence. The extra-curial statements made by Daisy Plaatjies and Gladys Ratel to the investigating officer were admitted as hearsay under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made voluntarily, in a language understood by the declarants, and were pivotal to the State's case. The cumulative effect of the evidence, including the accused's conduct, utterances, and the frequency of calls between his mother and sister, established his presence at the deceased's shack and his culpability for her death beyond reasonable...

Citation
[2024] ZANCHC 75
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Jacob Ratel
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Case Number
K/S 17A/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
The accused is found guilty of murder with dolus directus and three counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Murder, Assault Gbh, Hearsay Evidence, Law of Evidence Amendment Act, Alibi Defence, Hostile Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Assault Gbh Hearsay Evidence Law of Evidence Amendment Act Alibi Defence Hostile Witnesses

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jacob Ratel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is guilty of murder with dolus directus as the form of intent.
  2. 2 Whether the accused is guilty of three counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
  3. 3 Whether extra-curial statements by hostile witnesses should be admitted as evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused's alibi was vague, unsubstantiated, and disclosed late, and was contradicted by credible witness testimony and forensic evidence. The extra-curial statements made by Daisy Plaatjies and Gladys Ratel to the investigating officer were admitted as hearsay under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made voluntarily, in a language understood by the declarants, and were pivotal to the State's case. The cumulative effect of the evidence, including the accused's conduct, utterances, and the frequency of calls between his mother and sister, established his presence at the deceased's shack and his culpability for her death beyond reasonable...

Court Disposition

The accused is found guilty of murder with dolus directus and three counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Orders

  • The accused is convicted of murder read with s 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
  • The accused is convicted on three counts of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.