Stone v S (A628/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 943 (29 July 2015)

Stone v S (A628/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 943 (29 July 2015)

The court found that the regional magistrate erred in concluding that the appellant's intention to damage property had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's version, that the window broke due to friction from his gloves while withdrawing his hands from the closing window, was supported by his testimony and was not contradicted or investigated by the State. The gloves, which could have provided objective evidence, were not produced, but the appellant's account remained reasonably possibly true. The State failed to discharge its onus, and the appellant should have been acquitted.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 943
Parties
Appellant: Frans Stone; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Case Number
A628/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence succeeds. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
Tuchten, Kubushi
Legal Topics
Malicious Injury to Property, Intention, Onus of Proof, Benefit of Doubt
Criminal Law Malicious Injury to Property Intention Onus of Proof Benefit of Doubt

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frans Stone

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to damage the complainant's property.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted with intent.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the regional magistrate erred in concluding that the appellant's intention to damage property had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's version, that the window broke due to friction from his gloves while withdrawing his hands from the closing window, was supported by his testimony and was not contradicted or investigated by the State. The gloves, which could have provided objective evidence, were not produced, but the appellant's account remained reasonably possibly true. The State failed to discharge its onus, and the appellant should have been acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence succeeds. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction succeeds.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in the court below are both set aside and replaced with the following: The accused is found not guilty and discharged.