S v Skweyiya (472/82) [1984] ZASCA 96; [1984] 2 All SA 569 (A) ; 1984 (4) SA 712 (A) (11 September 1984)

S v Skweyiya (472/82) [1984] ZASCA 96; [1984] 2 All SA 569 (A) ; 1984 (4) SA 712 (A) (11 September 1984)

The court held that the appellant's possession of the stolen goods was not sufficiently recent to justify the inference that he participated in the housebreaking and theft. The goods were of a type that could be easily and quickly disposed of, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The appellant's explanations were false, but the circumstances did not exclude the reasonable possibility that he obtained the goods from the thieves or a receiver. However, the evidence clearly established that the appellant knew the goods were stolen. Therefore, the conviction for housebreaking and theft was set aside and replaced with a conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it was stolen....

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Lizo Luke Skweyiya; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 1984
Case Number
472/82
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld; conviction and sentence for housebreaking and theft set aside and replaced with conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it was stolen, with a fine and suspended sentence imposed.
Judges
Wessels, Botha, Eloff
Legal Topics
Recent Possession of Stolen Goods, Housebreaking and Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, Inferential Reasoning, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Recent Possession of Stolen Goods Housebreaking and Theft Receiving Stolen Property Inferential Reasoning Sentencing Principles

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lizo Luke Skweyiya

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's possession of stolen goods was sufficiently recent to justify the inference that he participated in the housebreaking and theft.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should have been convicted of housebreaking and theft or of receiving stolen property knowing it was stolen.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sentence for the lesser offence of receiving stolen property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's possession of the stolen goods was not sufficiently recent to justify the inference that he participated in the housebreaking and theft. The goods were of a type that could be easily and quickly disposed of, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The appellant's explanations were false, but the circumstances did not exclude the reasonable possibility that he obtained the goods from the thieves or a receiver. However, the evidence clearly established that the appellant knew the goods were stolen. Therefore, the conviction for housebreaking and theft was set aside and replaced with a conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it was stolen....

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld; conviction and sentence for housebreaking and theft set aside and replaced with conviction for receiving stolen property knowing it was stolen, with a fine and suspended sentence imposed.

Orders

  • The conviction for housebreaking and theft is set aside and substituted with a conviction for receiving two Hi-Fi sets, one bedspread, and two cartons knowing they were stolen.
  • The sentence of three years' imprisonment is set aside and replaced with a fine of R500 or, in default of payment, one year's imprisonment.