Toe and Others v S (A164/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 729 (19 August 2016)

Toe and Others v S (A164/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 729 (19 August 2016)

The court found that the learned Magistrate erred by placing the onus on the Appellants and failing to provide reasons for rejecting their versions as reasonably possibly true. The evidence did not establish that the First and Third Appellants acted in common purpose with the Second Appellant. The Second Appellant acted in self-defence but exceeded the boundaries of self-defence by using a knife when the deceased was unarmed. The State failed to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, and the Second Appellant was found guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. The court considered the Second Appellant's youth, lack of prior convictions, and the aggressive conduct of the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 729
Parties
Appellant: Keselephile Reginah Toe; Appellant: Thato Dephney Toe; Appellant: Kebodihile Doreen Kgamelo; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Case Number
A164/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld for the First and Third Appellants; conviction and sentence set aside. Conviction of murder for the Second Appellant set aside and substituted with culpable homicide; sentence imposed is wholly suspended.
Judges
Makume, Moosa
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Self Defence, Culpable Homicide, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Common Purpose Self Defence Culpable Homicide Onus of Proof

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

Parties

Keselephile Reginah Toe

Appellant

Thato Dephney Toe

Appellant

Kebodihile Doreen Kgamelo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Third Appellants acted in common purpose with the Second Appellant in the stabbing of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the Second Appellant acted in self-defence when stabbing the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the Second Appellant exceeded the boundaries of self-defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the learned Magistrate erred by placing the onus on the Appellants and failing to provide reasons for rejecting their versions as reasonably possibly true. The evidence did not establish that the First and Third Appellants acted in common purpose with the Second Appellant. The Second Appellant acted in self-defence but exceeded the boundaries of self-defence by using a knife when the deceased was unarmed. The State failed to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt, and the Second Appellant was found guilty of culpable homicide rather than murder. The court considered the Second Appellant's youth, lack of prior convictions, and the aggressive conduct of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld for the First and Third Appellants; conviction and sentence set aside. Conviction of murder for the Second Appellant set aside and substituted with culpable homicide; sentence imposed is wholly suspended.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction in respect of the First and Third Appellants is upheld.
  • The conviction on the count of murder in respect of the Second Appellant is set aside and substituted by a conviction of culpable homicide.