Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Randell v S (CA&R393/16) [2017] ZAECGHC 130; [2018] 1 All SA 845 (ECG) (14 December 2017)
High Court criminal appeal dismissed after finding no material irregularity or bias, and holding that the fraud conviction was supported by the evidence.
Maringa v Director of Public Prosecutions of the Northern Cape (1104/16) [2017] ZANCHC 6; 2017 (1) SACR 561 (NCK) (10 February 2017)
The court found that the applicant's trial was potentially irregular because his legal representative did not possess the required certificate to appear in the High Court, as mandated by the Right of Appearance in Courts Act. The applicant only became aware of this irregularity years after conviction, upon consultation with a new attorney. The right to legal representation is fundamental under the Constitution, and representation by an unqualified person constitutes a serious irregularity. The court accepted the applicant's explanation for the delay and found the application to be bona fide,…
Source excerpt
Qoko v La Grange and others (CA344/2002) [2002] ZAECHC 14; 2004 (2) SACR 521 (E) (22 May 2002)
The court held that the applicant bore the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his guilty plea was improperly induced by threats and promises from the investigating officer. The applicant's version was found to be inherently improbable and contradicted by his own conduct, particularly his spontaneous implication of his half-brothers in the offence after conviction. The evidence presented by the respondent, including affidavits from the prosecutor and police officers, further undermined the applicant's credibility. The court concluded that the applicant failed to discharge the r…
Source excerpt
S v Papiyana (479/85/av) [1986] ZASCA 68 (29 May 1986)
The court dismissed a murder accused’s appeal, holding that prison attire and shackles did not show bias or a failed trial, and that the identification evidence was sufficient.
Explore more
