Van Willing and Another v S (109/2014) [2015] ZASCA 52 (27 March 2015)

Van Willing and Another v S (109/2014) [2015] ZASCA 52 (27 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court correctly admitted the hearsay evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as its admission was in the interests of justice and corroborated the credible evidence of the identifying witness, Ms Petersen. The court held that Ms Petersen and Constable Ndyamara were reliable witnesses and that the deceased's statements were sufficiently corroborated. The evidence established that both appellants were present at the scene, and the conduct of the first appellant supported a finding of common purpose in the murder. The appellants' alibis were improbable and properly rejected, especially in light of their failure to...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 52
Parties
Appellant: Antonio Van Willing; Appellant: Fareez Mohamed; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Case Number
109/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Mpati, Bosielo, Schoeman, Van der Merwe, Meyer
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Identification Evidence, Common Purpose, Minimum Sentencing, Failure to Testify
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Identification Evidence Common Purpose Minimum Sentencing Failure to Testify

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonio Van Willing

Appellant

Fareez Mohamed

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly admitted hearsay evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the single identifying witness was credible and reliable.
  3. 3 Whether the State proved common purpose between the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court correctly admitted the hearsay evidence under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as its admission was in the interests of justice and corroborated the credible evidence of the identifying witness, Ms Petersen. The court held that Ms Petersen and Constable Ndyamara were reliable witnesses and that the deceased's statements were sufficiently corroborated. The evidence established that both appellants were present at the scene, and the conduct of the first appellant supported a finding of common purpose in the murder. The appellants' alibis were improbable and properly rejected, especially in light of their failure to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction and the sentence of each of the appellants is dismissed.