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
Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal v Golding and Others (CCC 63/2019) [2024] ZAKZDHC 61 (6 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed the State’s s 319 application to reserve questions of law after discharging the accused under s 174, holding the issues were factual.
S v Ebrahim (55124/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 281 (22 March 2023)
The High Court acquitted the accused of murder, finding the State’s eyewitness evidence unreliable and accepting that he acted in private defence during an attempted hijacking.
Choshi and Another v S (A07/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 49 (30 August 2021)
The appeal succeeded for the first appellant, who was acquitted after contradictory State evidence. The second appellant’s convictions were upheld.
S v Mbatha and Another (CCD34/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 55 (3 June 2021)
The court found the evidence of the State witnesses, particularly Mr Mbambo, to be credible and corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence. The accused's denials were found to be false beyond reasonable doubt and unsupported by any credible evidence. The planning and execution of the crimes were established through the testimony of Mr Mbambo and others, including the recovery of firearms and the handling of the stolen vehicle. The intention to commit murder and robbery was clearly formulated before the offences, and the murder of Ms Sangweni was committed to prevent her from testif…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg v Regional Magistrate, Krugersdorp and Another (2016/20222) [2017] ZAGPJHC 138 (16 May 2017)
The court found that the magistrate's decision to discharge the accused at the close of the State's case was a gross irregularity. The evidence established a prima facie case of unlawful killing, and the accused admitted to causing the death. Legal precedent requires that in such circumstances, the evidential burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of unlawfulness, and a discharge under s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not permissible. The magistrate's reasoning was flawed, as it misunderstood the State's aim and failed to apply the correct legal standards. The irregularit…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg v Regional Magistrate, Krugersdorp and Another (2016/20222) [2017] ZAGPJHC 119; 2018 (1) SACR 93 (GJ) (16 May 2017)
The magistrate's decision to discharge the accused under s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act was a gross irregularity, as the evidence led by the State established a prima facie case of unlawful killing, placing an evidential burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of unlawfulness. The magistrate failed to apply the correct legal principles and exercised discretion arbitrarily, resulting in a failure of justice. The proceedings were vitiated by irregularity, and the accused was not acquitted on the merits. Consequently, the discharge must be set aside, and the trial must commence de no…
Source excerpt
Malatji and Others v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (A538/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 693 (14 August 2014)
The High Court refused review of the refusal of a section 174 discharge, holding that no gross irregularity justifying intervention had been shown.
S v Ngalo (133/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 96 (21 April 2011)
High Court review confirming the theft conviction on count 2, but setting aside the conviction and sentence under section 82 after an earlier discharge.
S v Masemola (A413/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 569 (30 May 2010)
On review, the High Court set aside a rape conviction because the magistrate convicted the accused without first deciding a section 174 discharge application.
Mogaecho v Regional Court Magistrate: Meintjies and Others (A413/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 137 (11 December 2008)
The court dismissed a review application challenging a magistrate’s refusal to recuse herself in a criminal trial, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.
Explore more
