Shingange and Another v S (A187/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 321 (12 May 2016)

Shingange and Another v S (A187/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 321 (12 May 2016)

The appeal succeeded because the trial court materially misdirected itself in its assessment of the evidence and failed to properly consider the defence version and the cautionary rules applicable to single witness testimony. The evidence of the complainants was found to be unreliable, contradictory, and inherently improbable, and the medical evidence did not support the State's version of a prolonged and vicious assault by the police. The defence witnesses were found to be credible and their version reasonably possibly true. The trial court ignored material contradictions and failed to weigh the inherent probabilities, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the convictions...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 321
Parties
Appellant: Japhet Amos Shingange; Appellant: Bogang Thomas Lekgau; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Case Number
A187/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Judges
Prinsloo, Legodi, Raulinga
Legal Topics
Murder, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Evaluation of Evidence, Onus of Proof, Single Witness Rule, Appeal on Fact
Criminal Law Murder Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Evaluation of Evidence Onus of Proof Single Witness Rule Appeal on Fact

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Japhet Amos Shingange

Appellant

Bogang Thomas Lekgau

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for murder and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm were justified on the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court materially misdirected itself in its assessment of the evidence and application of the law.
  3. 3 Whether the version of the accused was reasonably possibly true and whether the State discharged its onus beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the trial court materially misdirected itself in its assessment of the evidence and failed to properly consider the defence version and the cautionary rules applicable to single witness testimony. The evidence of the complainants was found to be unreliable, contradictory, and inherently improbable, and the medical evidence did not support the State's version of a prolonged and vicious assault by the police. The defence witnesses were found to be credible and their version reasonably possibly true. The trial court ignored material contradictions and failed to weigh the inherent probabilities, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the convictions...