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
Rametsi v S (A308/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 20 (18 January 2023)
The High Court set aside Donald Rametsi’s attempted murder conviction after finding hearsay was admitted without proper explanation to an unrepresented accused.
Ntuli v The State (457/2018) [2018] ZASCA 164 (29 November 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the failure to warn the appellant of the applicability of the Minimum Sentences Act did not render the proceedings unfair. The appellant’s counsel was aware of the Act’s applicability and addressed the trial court on substantial and compelling circumstances. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, including fingerprint evidence and multiple incidents of robbery with aggravating circumstances. The trial court considered the appellant’s personal circumstances, the seriousness of the offences, and the interests of society, and ameliorated the cu…
Source excerpt
S v Moela (R241/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 151 (11 October 2018)
On special review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction and sentence for speeding because the accused was not properly questioned under section 112.
Tarr v S (CCT07/18) [2018] ZACC 35; 2019 (1) BCLR 151 (CC) (27 September 2018)
The Constitutional Court held that, although the extra-curial statement should not have been admitted in light of the Nkosi judgment, the conviction of the applicant was nonetheless supported by other compelling evidence, specifically ballistic evidence linking the murder weapon to the applicant and circumstantial facts establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not rely solely on the inadmissible statement, and the remaining evidence was sufficient for conviction. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the brutal nature of the crime. Accordingly, the applicant…
Source excerpt
S v Lipharawia (23/2015, 08/2015) [2015] ZALMPTHC 3 (20 August 2015)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding the magistrate’s section 112(1)(b) questioning was inadequate and leading.
Khumalo v S (A367/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 130 (29 May 2015)
The court found that the appellant's trial was unfair due to the attorney's failure to act in accordance with his instructions and the magistrate's failure to assist the appellant. The discrepancies between the plea statement and the appellant's own version, as well as the attorney's failure to withdraw despite clear disagreements, rendered the proceedings unfair. The court concluded that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the State had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was found not guilty.
Source excerpt
S v Ndau (A292/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 274 (6 May 2015)
A special review set aside a guilty conviction and 24-month sentence for drug possession after finding the charge ambiguous and the proceedings unfair.
S v Madibane (LR/38/2013/PWC) [2013] ZAGPPHC 482; 2014 (2) SACR 88 (GP) (28 November 2013)
The High Court confirmed a conviction for dealing in cannabis but set aside a fine-based sentence, replacing it with wholly suspended imprisonment.
S v Nkosi (A801/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 163; 2010 (1) SACR 60 (GNP) (10 September 2009)
The trial court denied the accused his right to legal representation by refusing to allow him another Legal Aid attorney after his initial attorney withdrew. This denial rendered the trial unfair and vitiated the proceedings. Furthermore, the record does not clearly reflect that the accused properly pleaded to the charge, creating further procedural irregularity. On the merits, the accused's version was reasonably possibly true and not rebutted by the State. The combination of these irregularities justified setting aside both the conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
Mnisi and Another v S (A450/2005) [2009] ZAGPPHC 243 (8 May 2009)
The High Court set aside two rape convictions and 10-year sentences after finding the child appellants had an unfair trial, lacking proper legal representation.
Explore more
