Schalkwyk v S (A08/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 707 (19 November 2021)

Schalkwyk v S (A08/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 707 (19 November 2021)

The court found that the trial court erred in unqualifiedly accepting the state's version and rejecting the appellant's version as false. On a conspectus of the evidence, the appellant was confronted by three persons while trapped in his vehicle, and a scuffle ensued for control of the firearm. The court held that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the state failed to discharge the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of motive and the circumstances of the incident further supported the appellant's version. Accordingly, the convictions for murder and attempted murder could not stand and the appeal was upheld.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 707
Parties
Appellant: Bruce Alistair Schalkwyk; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
A08/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions for murder and attempted murder set aside.
Judges
Millar, R Strydom, W Karam
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Onus of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions, Self Defence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Onus of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions Self Defence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Alistair Schalkwyk

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly preferred the evidence of the state witnesses over that of the appellant when faced with two mutually destructive versions.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and whether the state discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions for murder and attempted murder should stand.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court erred in unqualifiedly accepting the state's version and rejecting the appellant's version as false. On a conspectus of the evidence, the appellant was confronted by three persons while trapped in his vehicle, and a scuffle ensued for control of the firearm. The court held that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the state failed to discharge the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of motive and the circumstances of the incident further supported the appellant's version. Accordingly, the convictions for murder and attempted murder could not stand and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions for murder and attempted murder set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions for murder and attempted murder are set aside.