South Africa Case Law

S v Gxasheka (CC 06/2020)

S v Gxasheka (CC 06/2020) [2020] ZAECPEHC 35 (18 September 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

CC 06/2020

Judge

M Makaula

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's palm print on the security gate, DNA matching blood samples at the scene, and ballistic reconstruction, established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was one of the perpetrators who broke into the house and murdered the deceased. The trajectory of the bullet matched the healed wound on the accused's leg, corroborating his presence and participation in the shooting. The accused's version was rejected as false due to inconsistencies and contradictions, and the physical evidence excluded any reasonable inference oth…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Housebreaking With Intent To Murder
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Circumstantial Evidence

Radebe and Others v S (A227/2012)

Radebe and Others v S (A227/2012) [2018] ZAFSHC 64; 2019 (1) SACR 565 (FB) (24 May 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A227/2012

Judges

Lekale, Reinders, Zietsman

The appeal succeeded on count 4 and on sentence. The court set aside assault GBH convictions, rejected common-purpose liability on those facts, and reduced the effective terms.

• Competent Verdicts
• Common Purpose
• Sentencing Principles
• Youthfulness In Sentencing
• Assault Gbh
• Housebreaking With Intent To Murder

S v Mudau (419/12)

S v Mudau (419/12) [2012] ZASCA 191 (30 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

419/12

Judges

Ponnan, Tshiqi, Mbha

The trial court misdirected itself by imposing sentences that were excessively harsh, disparate, and failed to consider relevant mitigating factors such as the appellant's age, family circumstances, lack of prior convictions, and intoxication. The effective sentence of 49 years' imprisonment was disproportionate and not conducive to rehabilitation. The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the sentences and substituted them with terms that reflect a proper balance between the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's personal circumstances. The sentences for counts 2, 3, and 4 were ordered…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Housebreaking With Intent To Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Misdirection In Sentencing
• Rehabilitation Vs Retribution

Radebe v S (A178/10, 45/2009)

Radebe v S (A178/10, 45/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 118 (28 July 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A178/10, 45/2009

Judges

Musi, Jordaan, Murray

The court found that although the trial court did not make an explicit finding of premeditation or preplanning, the murder was committed with direct intent rather than dolus eventualis. However, there was no evidence of premeditation or planning, and thus the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act did not apply. The murder fell under Part II of Schedule 2, requiring a minimum sentence of 15 years for a first offender. Nevertheless, the court held that the minimum sentence is not a maximum, and in light of the extreme brutality, l…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Dolus Eventualis
• Premeditation
• Rape
• Housebreaking With Intent To Murder