South Africa Case Law

S v Muholi (450/05)

S v Muholi (450/05) [2006] ZASCA 38; [2006] SCA 44 (RSA) (28 March 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

450/05

Judges

Mthiyane, Heher, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude all reasonable inferences except guilt. Although the facts could suggest that Muholi was the intended recipient and knew the parcel contained heroin, alternative reasonable inferences existed, such as her name and address being used as a decoy. The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Muholi had knowledge of the heroin or performed any act in connection with its collection. Therefore, the conviction for drug dealing under s 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug…

Source excerpt

• Drug Dealing
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Knowledge Requirement
• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Burden Of Proof

S v Daniels (50/88)

S v Daniels (50/88) [1989] ZASCA 48 (31 March 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

50/88

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas

Criminal appeal on whether the appellant knew of Mandrax tablets found in her locked wardrobe. The court held the circumstantial evidence proved knowledge and dismissed the appeal.

• Possession Of Dependence Producing Substances
• Dealing In Mandrax
• Presumption Of Dealing
• Knowledge Requirement
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Criminal-law