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
Banawo v S (684/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 14 (26 February 2024)
High Court appeal dismissed against refusal of bail in a conspiracy-to-murder case, after the court found a real risk of witness interference.
S v Ndlovu and Others (CCD46/2019) [2023] ZAKZDHC 20 (26 April 2023)
The court convicted three accused of conspiracy to murder, murder, and firearm offences after accepting accomplice evidence and admitted statements.
Letuka v S (A244/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 289 (23 June 2020)
The High Court set aside the conspiracy-to-murder conviction as duplication, but upheld the murder conviction on common purpose and confirmed life imprisonment.
S v Jeffrey and Others (CC32/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 4 (4 February 2015)
The High Court convicted six accused of conspiracy to murder and murder, convicted the seventh of murder, and refused leave to appeal.
Faas v S (153/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 23 (29 April 2008)
The court found that both bail applications pertained to the charge of conspiracy to murder, which is a Schedule 1 offence. The Magistrate's reasoning was criticized for procedural irregularities and lack of clarity regarding the applicable schedule. However, the evidence established that there was a plan to kill a key witness and threats of violence against the appellant. The grounds for refusing bail under Section 60(4)(a), (c), and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied, and the interests of justice did not permit the appellant's release. Despite the Magistrate's flawed reasoning…
Source excerpt
S v Fakude and Others (645/98) [1999] ZASCA 83 (19 November 1999)
The Supreme Court of Appeal reduced one murder sentence for unjustified disparity between co-accused, but upheld the others after reviewing sentencing principles.
S v Walus and Another (585/93,586/93) [1994] ZASCA 189 (30 November 1994)
The court held that the circumstantial evidence against the second appellant, including his provision of the murder weapon and the 'hit list', his conduct before and after the murder, and his failure to provide an innocent explanation, established his complicity in the murder beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of the evidence was damning and called for an explanation, which was not forthcoming. Both appellants were found to have acted together in the planning and execution of the murder, with the second appellant likely masterminding the operation. The aggravating factors, includi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
