Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Methula (CC49/2021) [2024] ZAECELLC 30 (29 April 2024)
The High Court convicted the accused of murder, rejecting a defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity, but found no premeditation.
S v Liebenberg (CC90/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1111 (19 November 2015)
The court found that the accused laid a sufficient foundation for the defence of temporary non-pathological criminal incapacity, supported by uncontested expert evidence from Prof Scholtz. The accused was subjected to extreme provocation and assault, leading to a state of dissociation and traumatic amnesia during the shooting. The court was not satisfied that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with criminal intent or conscious direction. The evidence established a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was able to exercise control over his actions at the…
Source excerpt
Humphreys v S (424/2012) [2013] ZASCA 20; 2013 (2) SACR 1 (SCA); 2015 (1) SA 491 (SCA) (22 March 2013)
The Supreme Court of Appeal replaced murder convictions with culpable homicide after finding no dolus eventualis. It upheld only negligence and reduced sentence to eight years.
Marx v S - Appeal (CA 398/2008) [2009] ZAECGHC 32; 2009 (2) SACR 562 (ECG) (22 May 2009)
Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. Conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh sentencing to correctional supervision.
S v Vorster (KS 81/02) [2004] ZANCHC 46 (19 January 2004)
The court found that the accused was criminally responsible at the time of the offence. The defence of amnesia or sane automatism due to intoxication was rejected based on expert psychiatric evidence and the testimony of witnesses, which established that the accused was not pathologically incapacitated and retained sufficient awareness. The accused's constitutional rights were not infringed, as he was properly informed of his rights to legal representation and silence at the relevant stages. The pointing out evidence was admissible. The circumstantial evidence, particularly the accused's poin…
Source excerpt
S v Eadie (196/2001) [2002] ZASCA 24; 2002 (3) SA 719 (SCA); 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA) (27 March 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Eadie remained criminally responsible for a road-rage killing, rejecting non-pathological incapacity on the facts.
S v Kok (324/2000) [2001] ZASCA 71; [2001] 4 All SA 291 (A); 2001 (2) SACR 106 (SCA) (30 May 2001)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove lack of criminal capacity through post-traumatic stress disorder and dismissed the appeal.
S v Henry (246/97) [1998] ZASCA 109; [1999] 1 All SA 290 (A) (27 November 1998)
The appeal court rejected a defence of psychogenic automatism and upheld convictions for two murders and pointing a firearm.
Molefe v Mahaeng (431/96) [1998] ZASCA 81; 1999 (1) SA 562 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 423 (A) (25 September 1998)
The court held that the plaintiff had not proved the respondent’s negligence on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the appeal after a motor collision.
S v Potgieter (355/92) [1993] ZASCA 186; [1994] 3 All SA 432 (A) (29 November 1993)
The court confirmed a murder conviction, rejecting the appellant’s sane automatism and irresistible impulse defences, but set aside the sentence and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Explore more
