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
Zungu v S (CA37/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 8 (13 February 2020)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against a rape conviction and life sentence, finding the child witnesses were properly admonished and the sentence fit the case.
D.J v S (A588/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 94; 2019 (2) SACR 613 (WCC) (31 July 2019)
High Court appeal upheld in a child sexual offences case; convictions and sentence were set aside for reasonable doubt and unreliable evidence.
Soares and Another v S (CAF26/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 24 (15 June 2017)
The trial court failed to properly establish whether the child complainant understood the nature and import of the oath or the importance of speaking the truth, as required by section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The questions posed did not ascertain her understanding, and her responses indicated confusion. The trial court also failed to appoint an intermediary for the child witness, despite clear indications of undue mental stress, and instead appointed a guardian without statutory basis. The evidence of the complainant was unreliable, and the second complainant did not testify. The me…
Source excerpt
Rammbuda v S (156/14) [2014] ZASCA 146 (26 September 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a rape conviction after finding the child witnesses were not properly questioned or admonished under the Criminal Procedure Act.
Pelega v S (CAF 03/2012) [2012] ZANWHC 54 (1 June 2012)
Appeal against a rape conviction succeeded because the child complainant was not properly admonished, making her evidence unreliable and inadmissible.
Mofokeng v S (A185/11) [2012] ZAFSHC 73; 2012 (2) SACR 507 (FB) (19 April 2012)
The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act and was satisfied that the child witnesses understood the difference between truth and falsehood, rendering them competent to testify. The conviction was upheld based on the complainant's consistent and reliable evidence, which was not refuted by the appellant except by bare denial. The absence of DNA evidence did not undermine the conviction, as the complainant's version was corroborated by circumstantial evidence and her immediate report to her grandmother. Regarding sentence, the appeal…
Source excerpt
Explore more
