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
S v Skepe (CC01/2019) [2019] ZAECELLC 4; 2019 (2) SACR 349 (ECP) (4 February 2019)
The High Court acquitted the accused of rape after finding the child complainant was not a competent witness and the State’s evidence lacked sufficient corroboration.
Nkwanyane v S (AR324/12) [2014] ZAKZPHC 52 (30 October 2014)
The court found that the appellant's conviction for rape and robbery was supported by the complainant's evidence, corroborated by other witnesses and circumstantial facts such as the recovery of the cellular phone. The appellant's version was uncorroborated and speculative. The trial court's failure to properly advise the appellant of the possibility of life imprisonment for multiple rapes did not prejudice his right to a fair trial, as he was legally represented and the error did not affect his plea or defence. The statutory minimum sentence for robbery was correctly applied, but the sentenc…
Source excerpt
King v S (A79/2011) [2014] ZAWCHC 129 (22 August 2014)
The High Court set aside Jerome Earl King’s murder conviction, holding that dolus eventualis was not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence.
Osman v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (EC09/2008) [2010] ZAEQC 1 (15 December 2010)
The Equality Court dismissed a xenophobia-based discrimination claim against police after finding the evidence did not prove unfair discrimination.
Nkomo v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (40431/2005) [2008] ZAGPHC 388 (11 November 2008)
The High Court held that the police defendants failed to justify the shooting of the plaintiff with a rubber bullet and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Steyn and Another v Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit (3585/06) [2007] ZAECHC 103 (4 December 2007)
The court found that Inspector Dolozi lawfully arrested the applicants under section 40(1)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as they obstructed the police in the execution of their duties. The evidence presented by the applicants regarding assault and the use of pepper spray was inconsistent and unconvincing, and the court preferred the respondent's version. The continued detention of the applicants was in accordance with statutory requirements, as they were brought before court within the prescribed period and there was no evidence of improper conduct by the police. The applicants failed to…
Source excerpt
Steenbergen and Others v Minister of Safety & Security, Van Zijl and Others v Minister of Safety & Security (1071/2003, 1072/2003) [2006] ZAFSHC 120 (14 July 2006)
High Court held the plaintiffs’ arrests and detention unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion. Malicious prosecution and defamation claims failed.
S v Spies and Another (18/99) [2000] ZASCA 5; [2000] 2 All SA 205 (A); (22 March 2000)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the police, while undesirable and open to criticism, did not render it impossible for the appellants to have a fair trial. The defence was aware of the collaborative preparation of witness statements and had access to all relevant files before evidence was led. The opportunity to cross-examine State witnesses on these issues was available but not fully utilised. The appellants were lawfully before the court, and there was no evidence of unfair enticement or pressure in the trap operation. The trial was fair, and the convictions were support…
Source excerpt
Explore more
