Van Heerden v S (A160/2016)
Van Heerden v S (A160/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 191 (27 October 2016)
The court found that the appellant's defence of consent was not supported by the evidence. Although the complainant signed stock removal certificates, her consent was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation, as she was not informed that the cattle had already been sold and the proceeds received by the appellant. The court confirmed that unlawfulness is an essential element of theft and that fraud vitiates consent, rendering the appellant's conduct unlawful. The appellant's version regarding payment to the complainant's son was found to be false and not reasonably possibly true. The evid…
Source excerpt
- Stock Theft
- Consent And Unlawfulness
- Theft By False Pretences
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Single Witness Evidence
- Sentencing Guidelines