Masuku v S (A261/16)
Masuku v S (A261/16) [2018] ZAGPJHC 488; 2019 (1) SACR 276 (GJ) (6 September 2018)
The appellate court found that the evidence of BK, SK, and the medical expert was clear, consistent, and credible, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped BK. The appellant's version was rejected as a manufactured falsehood, unsupported by any credible evidence or motive for false accusation. The trial court's approach to cross-examination of child witnesses was criticised for failing to protect their dignity and wellbeing, but this did not affect the reliability of their evidence. On sentence, the court held that the trial court misdirected itself by trivialising the se…
Source excerpt
- Rape Of Minor
- Minimum Sentencing
- Child Witness Protection
- Cross Examination Ethics
- Constitutional Rights Of Children