S v De Ru (134/94) [1995] ZASCA 139 (23 November 1995)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
134/94
Judges
E M Grosskopf, F H Grosskopf, Schutz
The Supreme Court of Appeal found no sufficient grounds to disturb the trial court's acceptance of the evidence of Hammond, Nel, and Pienaar, whose testimonies were corroborated and not shown to be the result of improper pressure. The appellant's version of events was found to be highly improbable and inconsistent with the facts. The court held that section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act did not justify the appellant's use of lethal force in the Sasolburg incident, as the circumstances did not warrant such action. The appellant's attempts to conceal the true facts constituted obstruction…
Letsie v McCallum (597/90) [1992] ZASCA 108 (1 June 1992)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
597/90
Judges
Van Heerden, Nestadt, Goldstone
The court held that the respondent’s shooting of a fleeing trespasser was unlawful and negligent, and that section 49(1)(b) did not justify the force used.
The court held that the appellant, as the accused, bore the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that his conduct fell within the protection of section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternatives to using deadly force to effect the arrest or prevent escape. The evidence showed that the appellant could have used other means, such as blocking the vehicle or calling for assistance, and that the deceased did not exhibit conduct amounting to flight or resistance justifying lethal force. The court found that the appellant'…