S v Skepe (CC01/2019) [2019] ZAECELLC 4; 2019 (2) SACR 349 (ECP) (4 February 2019)

S v Skepe (CC01/2019) [2019] ZAECELLC 4; 2019 (2) SACR 349 (ECP) (4 February 2019)

The court found that the complainant was not a competent witness due to her inability to distinguish between truth and lies. The State relied primarily on hearsay evidence, which was admitted only on the basis that corroboration would be required. The medical report confirmed sexual penetration but did not identify the perpetrator. The evidence of identity was insufficient and uncorroborated. The court held that it could not convict the accused unless he incriminated himself, which is impermissible under the Constitution. Accordingly, the accused was discharged under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act as the State failed to prove a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2019] ZAECELLC 4
Parties
Applicant: The State; Accused: Mabhuti Unathi Skepe
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2019
Case Number
CC01/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment After Close of State's Case and Section 174 Discharge Application
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
T Malusi
Legal Topics
Rape, Child Witness Competency, Hearsay Evidence, Section 174 Discharge, Corroboration, Police Conduct
Criminal Law Rape Child Witness Competency Hearsay Evidence Section 174 Discharge Corroboration Police Conduct

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mabhuti Unathi Skepe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment After Close of State's Case and Section 174 Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused can be convicted of rape on the available evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant is a competent witness.
  3. 3 Whether hearsay evidence of the child should be admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant was not a competent witness due to her inability to distinguish between truth and lies. The State relied primarily on hearsay evidence, which was admitted only on the basis that corroboration would be required. The medical report confirmed sexual penetration but did not identify the perpetrator. The evidence of identity was insufficient and uncorroborated. The court held that it could not convict the accused unless he incriminated himself, which is impermissible under the Constitution. Accordingly, the accused was discharged under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act as the State failed to prove a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The accused is found not guilty and discharged.
  • The Provincial Commissioner of the police is ordered to investigate the conduct of the police at Bluewater Police Station relating to CAS 03/08/2017 for allegedly failing to promptly respond to LS's complaint of rape of the child.