South Africa Case Law

Ntshongwana v S (1304/2021)

Ntshongwana v S (1304/2021) [2023] ZASCA 156; [2024] 1 All SA 345 (SCA); 2024 (2) SACR 443 (SCA) (21 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1304/2021

Judges

Molemela, Ponnan, Mocumie, Mbatha, Windell

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he lacked criminal responsibility due to mental illness at the time of the offences. The panel psychiatrists' evidence, accepted by the trial court, demonstrated that the appellant's conduct during and after the offences was purposeful, goal-directed, and indicative of criminal capacity. The appellant's decision not to testify left critical gaps regarding his state of mind, and his claim of amnesia was unsupported and contradicted by objective evidence. The court fo…

Source excerpt

• Pathological Incapacity
• Criminal Responsibility
• Burden Of Proof
• Diminished Responsibility
• Mental Illness
• Life Imprisonment

Masina v S (A790/16)

Masina v S (A790/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1111 (1 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A790/16

Judges

JJ Hattingh, CP Rabie

The High Court dismissed Phillip Masina’s appeal against conviction and life sentences for murder and rape, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient.

• Murder
• Rape
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Remorse
• Criminal Responsibility

S v Mpumelang (B1157/2014)

S v Mpumelang (B1157/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 307 (8 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B1157/2014

Judge

D S Molefe

The High Court held that the automatic review was inapplicable, but the magistrate’s order admitting the accused as an involuntary mental care user remained in force.

• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Criminal Responsibility
• Automatic Review
• Mental Health Care Act
• Automatic-review
• Fitness-to-stand-trial

S v Maphuko (A1870/15)

S v Maphuko (A1870/15) [2015] ZAECBHC 21 (30 July 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

A1870/15

Judges

S M Mbenenge, D Van Zyl

The Magistrate failed to properly constitute the psychiatric panel as required by section 79(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since no application was made by the prosecutor to dispense with the third psychiatrist. Consequently, the proceedings after 13 March 2015 are set aside. Although the offence did not involve serious violence, the continuous psychiatric issues and risk profile of the accused justified invoking section 79(1)(b) in the public interest. The matter is remitted to the Magistrate to be dealt with in accordance with the correct statutory procedure.

Source excerpt

• Mental Capacity
• Criminal Responsibility
• Domestic Violence Act
• Mental Health Care Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• State Patient Declaration

S v Thanda (140060, CA&R348/2014)

S v Thanda (140060, CA&R348/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 100 (7 November 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

140060, CA&R348/2014

Judges

C K Mey, J Roberson

The High Court set aside a regional court’s psychiatric referral, murder finding, and detention order after finding non-compliance with section 79 and insufficient proof of the act.

• Mental Incapacity
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Criminal Responsibility
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Killing
• Mental-incapacity

S v Van Graan (A759/2000)

S v Van Graan (A759/2000) [2002] ZAWCHC 58; [2003] 1 All SA 331 (C) (1 November 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A759/2000

Judges

E Moosa, R G Comrie

The High Court held that a trial court may set aside its own conviction before sentence if psychiatric findings require it, but reports from other cases cannot determine capacity in the present matter.

• Mental Capacity Of Accused
• Criminal Responsibility
• Psychiatric Observation
• Setting Aside Conviction
• Criminal-law
• Mental-capacity

S v Mphela (366/92)

S v Mphela (366/92) [1994] ZASCA 12 (15 March 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

366/92

Judges

Grosskopf, Olivier, Mahomed

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in failing to suspend proceedings and order a psychiatric evaluation of the accused when doubts about his mental capacity and criminal responsibility arose. The record showed that both the presiding judge and counsel questioned the accused's ability to understand the proceedings and his mental state. The law imposes a duty on the court to act when there is a reasonable possibility of incapacity, and failure to do so undermines the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial. Consequently, the convictions and sentences cannot stand, a…

Source excerpt

• Mental Capacity
• Criminal Responsibility
• Fair Trial Rights
• Psychiatric Evaluation

S v Abrahams (32/92)

S v Abrahams (32/92) [1993] ZASCA 127 (20 September 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

32/92

Judges

Hefer, Kannemeyer, Howie

The court dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction, rejecting a non-pathological incapacity defence and upholding a five-year sentence.

• Murder
• Criminal Responsibility
• Non Pathological Incapacity
• Provocation
• Sentencing
• Intent

S v Sindane and Another (672/91)

S v Sindane and Another (672/91) [1992] ZASCA 103 (29 May 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

672/91

Judges

E M Grosskopf, M E Kumleben, Krieger

The court remitted the first appellant’s death sentence for psychiatric observation, but confirmed the second appellant’s death sentence as the only proper sentence.

• Death Penalty Review
• Psychiatric Observation
• Criminal Responsibility
• Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances
• Death-penalty-review
• Psychiatric-observation

S v Cotton (115/1989)

S v Cotton (115/1989) [1989] ZASCA 172 (1 December 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

115/1989

Judges

Van Heerden, Milne, Eksteen, F.H. Grosskopf, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence that the magistrate failed to inform the appellant of his right to appoint a third psychiatrist under section 79(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The silence of the transcript did not justify an inference of irregularity, especially since other appointments were also not recorded. The appellant did not testify that he was not informed, and his counsel did not seek to recall him on this point. Consequently, no procedural irregularity was established. Regarding extenuating circumstances, the court found that the appellant's yo…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Responsibility
• Psychiatric Evidence
• Extenuating Circumstances
• Irregularity In Procedure
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances