S v Tshosane (A306/2007) [2009] ZAGPHC 20 (6 February 2009)

S v Tshosane (A306/2007) [2009] ZAGPHC 20 (6 February 2009)

The court found that the identification of the appellant and his co-accused as the perpetrators was reliable and corroborated by both state witnesses, despite minor contradictions in their evidence. The contradictions did not relate to the identification and were satisfactorily explained. The appellant and his co-accused failed to provide a credible alternative version and did not assist the police after the incident. The court held that the convictions were justified and that the sentences for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition should run concurrently with the sentence for murder, resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPHC 20
Parties
Appellant: Aaron Tshosane; Respondent: The State
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2009
Case Number
A306/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld in part.
Judges
B.R. Southwood, M.F. Legodi, J.R.G. Polson
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Credibility of Witnesses, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Credibility of Witnesses Concurrent Sentences

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Tshosane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant and his co-accused shot and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the contradictions in the state witnesses' evidence were material to the identification of the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed should run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the identification of the appellant and his co-accused as the perpetrators was reliable and corroborated by both state witnesses, despite minor contradictions in their evidence. The contradictions did not relate to the identification and were satisfactorily explained. The appellant and his co-accused failed to provide a credible alternative version and did not assist the police after the incident. The court held that the convictions were justified and that the sentences for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition should run concurrently with the sentence for murder, resulting in an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld in part.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal against the convictions is dismissed.
  • The sentences for unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition are to be served concurrently with the sentence for murder.