Slinger v S (233/13) [2013] ZASCA 197 (2 December 2013)

Slinger v S (233/13) [2013] ZASCA 197 (2 December 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in refusing the appellant leave to appeal against his convictions and sentences. The appellant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding his convictions for robbery and kidnapping, as there was insufficient evidence linking him to events before Kyde was taken to Orange Farm and to the abduction of Van der Merwe. The conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm could not stand, as the legal principle of joint possession as applied by the trial court was incorrect in light of the Mbuli decision. Furthermore, there was a reasonable prospect that another court could find the trial court impermissibly...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 197
Parties
Appellant: Boy Wilken 'Willem' Slinger; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2013
Case Number
233/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal by the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of high court refusing leave to appeal set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal against both convictions and sentences.
Judges
Lewis, Leach, Theron, Pillay, Petse
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Kidnapping, Duplication of Convictions
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Unlawful Possession of Firearm Kidnapping Duplication of Convictions

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boy Wilken 'Willem' Slinger

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal by the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court correctly refused the appellant's petition for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the convictions for robbery, kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court impermissibly duplicated convictions for robbery.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in refusing the appellant leave to appeal against his convictions and sentences. The appellant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding his convictions for robbery and kidnapping, as there was insufficient evidence linking him to events before Kyde was taken to Orange Farm and to the abduction of Van der Merwe. The conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm could not stand, as the legal principle of joint possession as applied by the trial court was incorrect in light of the Mbuli decision. Furthermore, there was a reasonable prospect that another court could find the trial court impermissibly...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of high court refusing leave to appeal set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal against both convictions and sentences.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the high court of 5 May 2008 dismissing the appellant’s application for leave to appeal is set aside and replaced with the following: 'The application for leave to appeal to the North Gauteng High Court against both convictions and sentences is granted.'