Roodman v S (A596/13)
Roodman v S (A596/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 211 (23 October 2014)
The court found that the identification of the appellant by the state witnesses was reliable, as both had sufficient opportunity to observe him at close proximity and corroborated their observations with documentary evidence. The appellant's alibi was found to be inconsistent, belated, and unsupported by credible evidence. The appellant conceded he did not possess a valid abalone permit, and there was no evidence that any permit held by others extended to him or covered the activities in question. The magistrate's acceptance of the state witnesses' evidence and rejection of the appellant's ve…
Source excerpt
- Identification Evidence
- Marine Living Resources Act
- Permit Requirement
- Alibi
- Appeal On Fact
- Regulation 36