Kopsani and Another v S (CA & R 123/2017)
Kopsani and Another v S (CA & R 123/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 23; 2019 (2) SACR 53 (ECG) (14 March 2019)
The court found that there was no direct evidence linking the appellants to the theft of the vehicles and that the inference drawn by the Magistrate amounted to conjecture, failing the logical requirements for inferential reasoning. However, the evidence established that the appellants were found in possession of the stolen vehicles and were unable to provide any satisfactory account of such possession. This satisfied all the elements of the offence under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955. The conviction for theft was set aside and replaced with a conviction under section…
Source excerpt
- Possession Of Suspected Stolen Property
- General Law Amendment Act Section 36
- Criminal Appeal Procedure
- Standard Of Proof
- Inference And Evidence
- Sentencing Principles