South Africa Case Law

Roodman v S (A596/13)

Roodman v S (A596/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 211 (23 October 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A596/13

Judges

Boqwana, Saldanha

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

S v Naumann and Another (258/2012)

S v Naumann and Another (258/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 159 (23 August 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

258/2012

Judges

Kruger, Molefe

On special review, the High Court confirmed one sentence and substituted another to bring it within the statutory maximum for illegal abalone transport.

• Marine Living Resources Act
• Sentencing Powers Of Magistrates
• Illegal Possession Of Abalone
• Regulation 36
• Correctional Supervision
• Maximum Penalty Limits